TV Licensing

BBC Confirms Responsibility for Heinous TV Licensing Court Threat Letters

2012-01-20T13:57:00.000-08:00

The BBC has confirmed that it gave the green light for TV Licensing's most heinous letter yet, which implies the recipient is heading to straight to court without justification.

The letter, shown above, is designed to intimidate TV Licensing non-respondents by threatening them with court action, for an offence they probably haven't committed. Their only "crime" is to have ignored TV Licensing's previous requests for information - despite the Licensing Authority, the BBC, having confirmed that non-TV users are under no obligation to respond to any of TV Licensing's mailings.

Mark of Licence Free submitted a Freedom of Information Act request asking the BBC about this letter back in December. In their response the BBC confirmed that more than 3.1 million of the scaremongering letters had been sent to properties high on TV Licensing's target list. This includes properties where the occupier had failed to respond to previous TV Licensing intimidation and properties where the occupier had failed to renew their TV licence.

Disclosure documents provided by the BBC leave little doubt that they have the final say over the wording of TV Licensing letters, which have been dubbed "threatograms" for their deceptively menacing tone. The letter in question closes with the bare-faced lie that: "There are only two ways to stop this investigation going any further... buy a licence... or tell us you don't need one."

As previously mentioned legitimate non-TV users are under no obligation to confirm the negative that they do not require a licence, yet this threatogram implies they'll be punished if they don't.

Make no mistake that TV Licensing is the bastard offshoot of the BBC. The BBC tell TV Licensing what to do, which includes terrorising non-TV viewers in their homes.

Greedy BBC Considers iPlayer Archive Fee

2012-01-14T11:41:00.000-08:00

The BBC is considering a charge for web users viewing archive content on their iPlayer service.

Under the controversial plan viewers would "pay-per-view" to watch thousands of hours worth of online programmes after they have expired past the usual 7-day window.

Given the BBC repeats almost half of its archive content on mainstream channels anyway, the move is likely to anger licence fee payers who already subsidise the Corporation to the tune of £145.50 annually. Furthermore, fellow public service broadcaster Channel 4, who are not subsidised by the licence fee at all, already allow much wider free access to their online archive and have no plans to implement a fee.

A BBC spokesman told the Guardian: "We never stop future-gazing at the BBC and there are always a number of new ideas under discussion.

"Any such ideas would need to be developed in conjunction with the industry and with rights-holders and they would certainly not lead to a two-tier licence fee."

The BBC would not be able to implement the plan until the licence fee is unfrozen in 2016.

TV Licensing Doorstep Intimidation (Analysis)

2012-01-08T04:19:00.000-08:00

TV Licensing "hard man" Mr Grumpy.

The more we watch the YouTube video published yesterday the more we're horrified at the tactics TV Licensing's visiting officer employed during that doorstep confrontation.

The actions of TV Licensing's visiting officers (salesmen) are governed by a document called the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures, a slightly redacted copy of which can be downloaded here. The procedures were drawn up by Capita Business Services Ltd, the TV Licensing operations contractor, and the BBC, the statutory Licensing Authority.

The star of yesterday's video, who we'll call Mr Grumpy until we find out his real name, broke a whole myriad of rules contained within the Visiting Procedures. He made his own rules up on the spot, no doubt to coerce payment from the occupier, thus earning himself a nice little commission payment in the process. In our experience such tactics are not uncommon, despite TV Licensing reassurances to the contrary.

Now for a closer analysis Mr Grumpy's doorstep tactics:

1. The door opens and the occupier asks Mr Grumpy if he minds being filmed. Mr Grumpy replies: "You can't film me. That's breaching my rights, innit?" Strangely he immediately follows up with: "You can film me as much as I want. I have an application for a warrant here."

Mr Grumpy is actually wrong about his opening gambit with chap 2, sect 7.2 of the Visiting Procedures confirming that: "There is no law prohibiting an individual from taking either photographs or video footage of an EO (enquiry officer) conducting a visit on private property.

"Accordingly, the EO should not, under any circumstances, confront or try to prevent an occupant who wishes to do so.

"If an EO finds themselves in a situation where they are being photographed or videod they must remain calm and continue to conduct themselves in a professional manner and ensure that they walk away from the visit as soon as they become aware that they are being filmed or photographed."

As yesterday's footage shows Mr Grumpy broke every rule mentioned above.

2. Mr Grumpy looks a scruff in his jeans. Chap 2, sect 4.5 of the Visiting Procedures clearly states that denim clothing is unacceptable. He can't even follow rules about how to dress properly for work.

3. Mr Grumpy began his visit by threatening: "I have an application for a warrant here." Chap 4, sect 7.7 of the Visiting Procedures clearly states that: "Threat of a search warrant must not be used to gain access to premises." Again, it appears Mr Grumpy is unfamiliar with this rule he should be complying with.

4. Chap 4, sect 1.6 is quite clear that: "EOs must carry their ID Card with them whenever they are carrying out TV Licensing enquiries and must produce it when required."

As footage shows Mr Grumpy was very reluctant to show his ID Card and didn't do so until the occupier had clearly highlighted his obstructiveness on the video audio. Another broken rule.

5. For a second time Mr Grumpy wrongly warns the occupier about filming him, saying: "You can get done for that." Again he follows up with the contradictory statement: "You can film me as much as you want. I'm not bothered."

6. Mr Grumpy frequently waves his imaginary "application for a warrant" around, which is an act designed purely to intimidate the occupier. As mentioned earlier, this is against TV Licensing rules. To further intimidate the occupier Mr Grumpy claims that he's "off to the Magistrates" with his piece of paper.

7. Mr Grumpy departs by again saying: "I'll be back with a warrant. I'll be back with the police."

So all in all Mr Grumpy fell well short of the abysmally low standard Capita expects of its TV Licensing visiting officers.

Imagine if this animal, with his flared nostrils and grunted legal threats, appeared at the door of an elderly relative who genuinely didn't need a licence. In all likelihood they would be so upset by his menacing tone and hollow threats that they'd pay up.

In the interests of balance we should probably highlight the fact that it was wrong of the occupier to goad Mr Grumpy into a doorstep slanging match, despite having the legal home advantage. The best course of action would have been to close the door immediately, but then we wouldn't be aware of the criminal depths Mr Grumpy would stoop to in an effort to secure his commission payment.

The BBC have previously said: "We do not agree that TV Licensing officials intimidate the public."

How detached from reality are they?

TV Licensing Doorstep Intimidation

2012-01-07T14:44:00.000-08:00

What a wanker!

This arrogant TV Licensing lacky dispenses with their usual introductory pleasantries and bursts straight into the aggressive "I'm applying for a search warrant" bullshit, when confronted by one plucky YouTube uploader earlier today.

Despite having encroached on the occupier's territory this TV Licensing man squeals like a stuffed pig at the prospect of being filmed. Contrary to the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures he fails to present his identification when requested, deciding instead wave his imaginary "search warrant application" and spout more drivvel about how a search can be avoided by co-operating with TV Licensing. It's all absolute bullshit of course, designed to intimidate the legally licence-free into compliance. It's completely fair to say that at this stage TV Licensing don't have the foggiest idea about whether the property in question needs a licence or not, but that's not going to deter them from mounting a doorstep offensive.

This miscreant's picture remains here in perpetuity, but as Capita have started asking YouTube to remove these videos it may not remain live for long. Anyone would think they had something to hide! View it and download it while the opportunity remains.

Remember the face.

Advice for Those Caught Without a TV Licence

2012-01-07T07:19:00.000-08:00

It is a damning indictment of the way the BBC administer the TV licence system that sometimes, despite legitimate non-TV viewers playing by the rules, TV Licensing still decide to take legal action against them for an offence they have not committed.

All the evidence would suggest that legal proceedings are actually very rare indeed, despite TV Licensing doing their utmost to publicise their successful prosecutions in the local press. However, when court is in the offing TV Licensing rely heavily on the fact that most people are so legally unaware they'll just roll over and accept their fate. Better still if it's someone on a low income, unemployed, housebound or elderly because they are far less likely to attend court and put up a defence for fear of incurring additional legal costs.

Court is like a "sausage factory" to TV Licensing. They'll book an afternoon of court time and throw literally dozens of cases at the Magistrates for what is tantamount to a rubber-stamping exercise. TV Licensing know this, so they sometimes throw in dubious cases in the hope they'll evade the Magistrates' bullshit detector as they dispense justice on autopilot.

As we've said many times before a TV licence is only needed for properties where equipment is installed or used to receive or record live broadcast TV programmes. If you do not use equipment for that purpose then you can't possibly be breaking the law and that is a fact. That might fly in the face of what TV Licensing would have people believe, but bear in mind that they have a pecuniary interest in selling as many licences as possible. It is not in TV Licensing's interests to clarify points of law - they are quite happy for people to live under the misapprehension they need a TV licence when they might not.

People "caught" without a TV licence fall into two broad categories: Those who need one and those who genuinely don't. Below we offer a few words of advice for people falling into those categories:

1. People who have been watching/recording live TV programmes without a valid TV licence:

If you fall into this category then you have been committing an offence under s. 363 of the Communications Act 2003. Unpalatable as it may be the best course of action is to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. If you do this the court is duty bound to offer you a more lenient penalty, which will probably a modest fine around the £100 mark.

Sometimes a TV Licensing visiting officer accepts licence fee payment from an evader and says "don't worry, because you've paid you'll not be prosecuted". That is not the case. TV Licensing visiting officers are under strict instructions to accept any payment on the understanding it does not prejudice any future criminal proceedings. That means just because you have been caught and paid up you could still be prosecuted, despite any reassuring words to the contrary by a visiting officer.

It's actually quite a nice little earner for visiting officers to be disingenuous like this because they receive a commission payment for accepting your licence fee and they receive an additional commission payment if you are successfully prosecuted later on.

2. People who legitimately do not need a licence, yet TV Licensing are still pursuing them:

You must not plead guilty just for a quiet life. If you genuinely know you did not commit the offence then you should attend court and argue the fact, with as much evidence in your favour as you can.

If you're putting up a defence then you are entitled to all the documents TV Licensing hold relating to your case. You should scrutinise those documents carefully to make sure they are factually correct. We are aware of several cases where TV Licensing documents have been riddled with inconsistency.

Sometimes TV Licensing hedge their bets and summon people to court on the most tenuous of evidence, unsubstantiated suspicion, or simply because they don't like them (people like us who vocally oppose what they do).

When a person pleads not guilty it upsets the equilibrium. Alarm bells go off at Crapita Towers and they think "hold on, are we really doing the right thing by pursuing this person?" If you're one of the dubious cases, where they know they're trying it on, they will find a reason to drop the case before it gets to court.

What they don't want is people presenting evidence in court that proves they are not guilty. It seriously undermines the tactics TV Licensing employ if a TV was "detected" in a house that was unoccupied because the owner was on holiday in Florida. Quite often a not guilty defendant will turn up at court to hear on the day that TV Licensing has dropped the case against them. TV Licensing are arrogant like that: they'll happily drag someone miles to court and then tell them there was no need to attend after all.

If you're wrongly found guilty by the Magistrates it's not the end of the road, but then is definitely the time to take considered legal advice.

The best of luck to anyone in category 2 above and we look forward to hearing your story.

TV Licensing Detector Van Challenge

2012-01-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

The gauntlet has been thrown down to TV Licensing by the owner of the onlywhenpissed channel on YouTube.

The challenge is quite simple: Go around to his property (he'll confirm that by providing the reference number printed on the menacing letters they send him), make their "magical" detection equipment do its stuff and prove which room he has a TV set in.

Just to make the challenge interesting onlywhenpissed says: "I am reconnecting my aerial NOW so come on TVL it's up to you. The television will be receiving live signals as they are broadcast between 9am 'til 10pm until 4th February 2012."

"£1000 payable if you (TVL) can do it plus a further £1000 to any charity of your choosing."

If they take up the challenge it will dispel once and for all the myth that detector vans are an absolute crock, designed more to instill fear than intercept TV signals. Not that it's much of a myth, given the BBC has already confirmed to us they don't rate "detection evidence" enough to present it in open court.

TV Licensing: Please do get in touch with him. Next time you're airbrushing YouTube look up his details and drop him a line!

TV Licensing: Summary of 2011

2012-01-01T06:31:00.000-08:00

With 2011 finally behind us, we thought today was a good time to reflect on some of our more notable articles from over the past 12 months.

We have to skip all the way back to 1st April for our first notable article. With almost comedic timing the joke is very much on the BBC, with them having to confirm what most of us knew already - TV detector evidence has never been presented for scrutiny in open court. The BBC rarely do simple answers to simple questions (more later), so after they refused our initial Freedom of Information Act request we had to escalate matters to an internal review. As the name suggests an internal review is conducted by one of the BBC's own pet poodles, but deviating from the party line James Leayton Gray found it in his heart to allow our request. Since the publication of our article many people have commented on the BBC's reluctance to present detection evidence in court. The consensus is that the BBC do not want their technology, or serious inadequacies thereof, to be scrutinised in the public gaze. In a nutshell there are serious flaw with their detection technology, so they won't put their money where their mouth is.

In May we published a guest article called What Happens When You Don't Buy a TV Licence? The article, penned by the author of the I Hate the Jeremy Vine Show blog, brought in thousands of visitors this year because it addresses a lot of TV Licensing misconceptions in one place. It explains exactly the treatment you can expect if you fail to renew your TV licence, however legitimate your reasons.

June was a busy month for us with no less than a dozen articles hitting the press. It was the month we had the audacity to ask the BBC how many TV Licensing employees had been convicted of criminal acts in the course of their work. The BBC responded that eleven employees had be convicted of theft/fraud related offences committed under the guise of TV Licensing. The BBC subsequently confirmed to us that a TV Licensing call centre employee had been convicted of defrauding customers over the phone, although that is the first time we have mentioned it here. Citing data protection laws the BBC refused to name their TV Licensing crooks, so we dutifully published most of their names anyway.

Cheeky TV Licensing PR man Fergus Reid, a fan of whiskey according to his Linkedin profile, decided it would be a hoot to sign up for our email updates. Unfortunately we didn't see the funny side, so promptly deleted him.

Also in June we encouraged our readers to write to the BBC's Watchdog programme to complain about the overzealous enforcement tactics of TV Licensing. More than 300 people have downloaded the template letter we produced, so hopefully the BBC's mail sack is overflowing with TV Licensing critical comment.

The arrival of July saw the publication of our second most popular article of 2011. We published a witness statement given by a TV Licensing employee who was applying for a search warrant. TV Licensing man Chris Christophorou came out with some absolute howlers in his sworn statement, which somehow managed to sway the Magistrate into granting the warrant. To this day we still haven't worked out what a "97% confidence factor of a possible broadcast" is, other than TV Licensing bullshit designed to (successfully) hoodwink a legal layman.

The power of the camera was exemplified in August, with news that a TV Licensing visiting officer fled at the merest sight of a tripod. Bizarrely the silver-haired TVL man seemed unfazed by the sight of a masked man answering the door and didn't flee until the threat of being photographed.

In September we heard that TV Licensing man Gary Catterick had been convicted of raping a vulnerable pregnant woman. Remarks in a Northern Echo article led us to believe that Catterick had raped his victim during his TV Licensing rounds, but the BBC denied that when we posed them the question. Not that we believe much of what the BBC says!

We also asked the BBC to go against the grain and clarify some common TV Licensing misconceptions. True to form the BBC refused to answer, so we successfully asked TV Licensing directly.

If there's one thing we despise more than TV Licensing even it's censorship of the web, so we really had our hackles up in November with news that Capita are airbrushing TV licence critical content from the web. Our discovery arose when we noticed a lot of anti-TV licence videos had been removed from YouTube, so we asked the BBC if they were responsible. The BBC denied any involvement, but helpfully volunteered the information that Capita, their main TV Licensing contractor, were responsible for the mass deletions. Not sure who we're most pissed off at - Google for caving in to a private company with no legal authority, or Capita for having the arrogance to ask them.

That leads us to December with the astounding announcement that the BBC has renewed Capita's TV licence operations contract. This took us totally by surprise, given the fact Capita's workforce absolutely hate them and the TV viewing public absolutely hate Capita's workforce. We also thought that the bad smell left behind by criminal TV Licensing employees, mentioned earlier, might give the BBC a fresh perspective or rehiring Capita. Obviously not.

We're going to be just as busy in 2012 so if you like the work we do, making a stand for legitimate non-TV users against TV Licensing, then please show your support by following our progress on Twitter.

Wishing all our readers a very happy new year!

TV Licensing: Stay Anonymous in the End of Year Sales

2011-12-29T05:24:00.000-08:00

Well that's Christmas all over bar the shouting. It's been another year of festive overindulgence, woeful repeat TV and spending way too much. Thank goodness it's only once a year!

One of the best things about Christmas is picking up a bargain in the end of year sales. It's been a terrible year for business, so a lot of retailers are wanting to shift as much stock as possible. Plenty of real bargains are to be had if you know where to look (our Amazon shop is a good place to start).

If you're thinking of snapping up new television equipment remember not to let your personal information fall into the evil clutches of TV Licensing. Time and time again we have seen how TV Licensing use people's personal information to intimidate and harass them, quite often when there are no grounds for them to do that. As I type this I am aware of several campaigns TV Licensing are running around the country, which are purely designed to intimidate legitimate non-TV users who have shown vocal opposition to the licence fee (look out for their plain white VW Transporter vans, usually crewed by a couple of lard arses quaffing doughnuts).

The law requires retailers notify the Licensing Authority, the BBC, of the sale or lease of every piece of TV receiving or recording equipment. However, as TV Licensing has confirmed to us, there is no legal obligation on the retailer to verify the details given. Furthermore, the person making the purchase is under no obligation to give the correct details.

Most shop assistants are unaware of the full intracacies of TV licence law and will probably refuse the transaction if you openly refuse to give your details. That being the case the best option is to provide them with some misleading information instead.

If you're making a television purchase this festive season take our advice: Pay with cash and go armed with an alternative postcode (your local swimming pool or whatever).

Happy shopping!

TV Licensing: What They Say and What They Mean

2011-12-27T04:38:00.005-08:00

A constant source of amusement for us here at the TV Licensing blog is some of the over-inflated whoppers TV Licensing people come out with during their encounters with the generally uninformed public.

Indeed with swingeing cuts taking their toll at the BBC the way TV Licensing confronts members of the public is now one of the Corporation's most successful comedies.

In the festive spirit of goodwill we thought we'd set the record straight by offering a simple interpretation of some of TV Licensing's favourite statements:

TV Licensing letter says: Your property is under investigation.

TV Licensing letter means: We're not sure who you are or whether you need a licence, but we'll try to scare you into buying one anyway.

TV Licensing letter says: You could face the maximum fine of £1000.

TV Licensing letter means: No-one in the entire world has been fined more than about £150 for licence fee evasion, but hopefully you'll live such a sheltered life that you don't know that. The threat of a £1000 fine might get you to buy a licence you probably don't need.

TV Licensing letter says: We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.

TV Licensing letter means: You sod. You've not responded to any of our standard letters, not that you're obliged to, so we're going to try even harder to scare you into buying a licence you probably don't need.

TV Licensing man says: We have no record of a TV licence at this address.

TV Licensing man means: Get in! Another sucker who could potentially earn me a few quid if they say the wrong things.

TV Licensing man says: I have the power to inspect your TV equipment.

TV Licensing man means: If I pretend I have the legal power to enter your home, which I don't really, the chances are you might be daft enough to believe me and let me in.

TV Licensing man says: Do you have a TV at this address?

TV Licensing man means: If you admit to having a TV, even one used for a thousand possible non-licensable purposes, then I can probably scare you into buying a licence even if you don't need one.

TV Licensing man says: If you don't talk to me then I'll go and get a search warrant.

TV Licensing man means: Bugger. A wise guy, who knows that I don't have any proper authority. Not much chance of getting my commission on this job, so I'll have to resort to some sweeping claims about getting a search warrant. It'll also make me feel important, for a change, if I say something authoritarian. Of course getting a search warrant requires evidence that I don't have.

TV Licensing man says: I work for the BBC (or Government).

TV Licensing man means: I work for a company called Capita Business Services Ltd, who are contracted to do the BBC's dirty work so they don't lose face.

TV Licensing man says: You can't film me.

TV Licensing man means: Bugger. Another wise guy, who knows that as I'm on their property they are well within their rights to film me. I'll try asking them to stop, but I know they don't really have to.

TV Licensing say: We have detector vans that can distinguish between two TV sets either side of a party wall in as little as 20 seconds.

TV Licensing mean: We have equipment we claim can detect TVs, but we remain so unconvinced by the science that we don't want to risk presenting it in court. Consequently detection evidence has never been presented in the prosecution of a suspected licence fee evader. As there are only two people in the BBC that can authorise the use of detection equipment, we rarely bother to use it anyway. We sometimes park detector vans outside people's homes just to scare and intimidate them, particularly those who vocally oppose the BBC or licence fee.

TV Licensing Web Impersonators

2011-12-27T03:21:00.002-08:00

Just when we thought there was nothing lower than the sinister and deceitful tactics employed by TV Licensing, we've discovered something even worse - a TV Licensing impersonator.

Quite why anyone would stoop low enough to impersonate TV Licensing is beyond me. It's akin to someone pretending to be Gary Glitter when applying for employment at a Vietnamese creche. If they're really that keen to be associated with TV Licensing then they could easily get a job there. It's not as if Capita are picky about who they employ, with quite a handful of their past employees having been on the licence fee rob.

For some obscure reason someone has created a YouTube profile called "TVLEnforcement", which they have used to leave worrying comments on anti-TV licence contributions there.

If you've received a message from TVLEnforcement then it's nothing to be concerned about. These low lives have even less clout than the official TV Licensing.

A quick reminder that non-TV users are under no legal obligation whatsoever to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing. Simply close the door, hang up the phone or delete the email purportedly from them.

TV Licensing: Penalising Legal TV Viewers

2011-12-25T02:54:00.000-08:00

At this time of year a hugh swathe of the TV viewing population is preparing to renew their TV licence in eager anticipation of another year of 'Allo 'Allo repeats and movies shown that many times the Beeb has worn the film away.

Most people would think, understandably, that their £145.50 cash injection to the BBC will cover their use of colour TV receiving/recording equipment for the next 12 months. In reality they may receive a rude awakeness when they see the true expiry date on their new TV licence.

For all TV Licensing claim (falsely) to have state of the art detection equipment, which is so sensitive it can detect the noise of an ant farting over the motion of the San Adreas Fault, they also say it would be too much hassle for them to issue licences other than at the start of the month. The consequence of this is that anyone purchasing a licence mid-month will have the issue date rolled back to the start of the month, which in turn means their licence will expire earlier than expected.

This ludicrous state of affairs, which we have actually commented on before, was highlighted in a recent thread at the TV Licence Resistance forums.

Taff, no doubt a resident of Scotland, decided to renew his TV licence online as an increasing number of the 'Allo 'Allo adoring public do. It was late evening, 11.45 pm, on the last day of the month and technically his current licence was about to expire in 15 minutes time. Wanting to avoid the risk of TV Licensing Spetsnaz trained enforcers abseiling through his bedroom window within the next half hour, Taff dutifully entered his card details onto TV Licensing's payment page and thought nothing more of it.

A few days later Taff's new licence arrived on his doormat with an expiry date a whole month earlier than expected. TV Licensing had effectively stolen 30 days, 23 hours and 45 minutes of Taff's licence fee payment over the sake of him renewing 15 minutes too early.

Understandably irate at this act of state-sponsored robbery Taff decided to phone TV Licensing and express his displeasure. The conversation went something like this:

Taff: "So if I'd have waited till 12.01 am the next day (first day of an unlicensed month), while watching the telly, to renew, I'd have been breaking the law then?"

TVL agent: ""Errr, I suppose so."

Taff: "I want my month back then."

TVL agent: "You won't be getting it."

Taff: "We'll see about that next year."

TVL agent: "Our revenue protection officers will make sure you pay."

Is it any wonder an increasing number of people despise the TV licensing system? After TV Licensing's duplicitous and underhand tactics Taff will never buy another TV licence. How many tens of thousands of people are being ripped off by TV Licensing each month, but just turn a blind eye and let them do it?

Never pay for a new TV licence until your current licence is fully expired.

BBC Expenditure on TV Licensing Online Advertising

2011-12-23T06:40:00.000-08:00

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, we thought it would be interesting to ask the BBC how much licence fee payer's money they used to advertise TV Licensing on the web.

In common with millions of other advertisers the BBC uses a system called Google AdWords, which displays ads on various sites across the web. AdWords is a contextual pay per click advertising service: contextual in the sense that ads on web pages relevant to the ad topic; pay per click in that it costs the advertiser (the BBC in this case) a small fee each time someone clicks on one of their ads. I'm sure most people are familiar with the "Ads by Google" that appear all over the web. Maybe people aren't familiar with the idea that every click on a TV Licensing related ad costs the BBC money.

Being very familiar with Google AdWords and knowing how widespread TV Licensing related ads were, I summised that it might be costing the BBC a pretty packet to publicise their product to the web surfing public. I asked them all about it and true to form they managed to avoid answering, citing the fact that disclosing the cost of their advertising might prejudice their commercial interests. As I mentioned earlier, I am probably more aware of how Google AdWords works than the BBC, which led me to the conclusion that their reasons for not responding were bollocks. To that end I asked the BBC to conduct an internal review of my request which, for the second time (the last being my famous TV Detector Evidence request), found they had been wrong to withhold information from me.

The full trail of my correspondence with the BBC on this issue can be found on the Whatdotheyknow.com website.

Surprisingly, according to their final disclosure document, the BBC actually spends quite a modest sum on AdWords advertising, although they also admit to using other forms of online advertising that I didn't ask about. They've actually spent less on AdWords in the last 5 years than they have on booze.

Sadly our latest tussle with the BBC signals the end of our most noble of adversaries Dan McGregor, formerly top FOIA denier at the Corporation's TV Licensing Management Team. If it wasn't for Dan's poor judgement in the past the BBC's internal reviewers wouldn't have found in our favour each time we've asked their opinion! Hopefully he's away to pursue a more noble profession, although as a lawyer that's extremely doubtful.

The BBC's latest decision to backtrack during the internal review process leaves me wondering just how many FOIA requests they should have responded to but didn't. Given they knock back about half of all the requests they receive I'm willing to bet it's quite a substantial number.

Ten TV Licensing Presents this Christmas

2011-12-21T04:01:00.000-08:00

With only three full shopping days left before Christmas we thought we'd trawl through our previous posts and come up with a list of presents to keep TV Licensing at arm's length.

1. As MrTelevadar's previous YouTube video shows TV Licensing don't like masks. Very topically, with Britain facing rampaging mobs of looters and rioters, he chose the famous Guy Fawkes mask immortalised by the movie V for Vendetta.

Suggested present: Guy Fawkes mask from V for Vendetta.

2. Chris Christophorou's curious testimony to Canterbury Magistrates Court reveals that TV Licensing has some magical detection device that can tell what channel a person's watching from the enchanting flicker of the screen. We mockingly compared this scientific mumbo-jumbo to a kid's kaleidoscope.

Suggested present: Traditional tin kaleidoscope for detecting TVs.

3. Speaking of scientific mumbo-jumbo Dr Ben Goldacre, who exposed TV poo expert Gillian McKeith as an academic charlatan, is well known for exposing scientific falsehoods. His book is a cracking read.

Suggested present: Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

4. Regular readers will know that TV Licensing normally run a mile when confronted with a camera. Better still is when they're caught on camera and don't realise it, which means the subsequent steam of poo emanating from their mouth can be captured for future hilarity. My local takeaway has this nifty piece of kit, which I'm always admiring the output of as I wait for my kebab.

Suggested present: Ex-Pro Complete LED CCTV system for filming TV Licensing goons.

5. According to TV Licensing's own policies they should not call at properties when they have been told not to. A sign on the gatepost clearly saying they're not welcome should do the trick.

Suggested present: No Salesmen, Cold Callers or Canvassers sign.

6. No TV Licensing visiting officer would be complete without a stylish leather (or fake leather) folder to keep their paperwork neat and tidy. If for some sad reason you wish to impersonate a goon, maybe at a festive fancy dress party, then go equipped to look the part!

Suggested present: Stylish Leather Look Conference Folder.

7. There's not a lot that the BBC really do well, but one of the exceptions is their natural history programmes. The recent Frozen Planet series, despite half of the scenes being staged using animals in captivity, has attracted widespread acclaim.

Suggest present: Frozen Planet box set.

8. Gamers queued around the block to get their hands on the latest release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. It's a great shoot 'em up. Unfortunately, unless you're in the rough end of Belfast where it's positively encouraged by the locals, it's against the law to shoot at TV Licensing salesmen. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is the next best thing. You can always pretend it's them!

Suggested present: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

9. TV Licensing often claim to have state of the art tracking equipment that can pinpoint suspect addresses to within a few metres. You too could own that technology at a very reasonable price. Apparently it can also be used for a recreational pursuit known as geocaching... whatever that is!

Suggested present: Garmin eTrex Legend.

10. In our experience TV Licensing salesmen tend to be non-too-technical, so perhaps GPS is beyond their limited abilities. A conventional road atlas does the job just as well. It also tells you every fixed speed camera position in the UK, which is very handy if you're rushing between calls with only 5 minutes left to catch your hourly quota of licence fee dodgers.

Suggested present: AA Road Atlas Britain 2012.

We're expecting an FOIA response from the BBC in the next couple of days, so will probably post again before then.

If not we wish all our regular readers (those not on the BBC/TV Licensing payroll) a very Merry Christmas.

TV Licensing: We're Not All That Bad

2011-12-20T11:08:00.000-08:00

TV Licensing has written to rebut the comments of a Bristol Evening Post letter writer, who claimed the BBC's licence fee enforcement tactics were tantamount to bullying, initimidation and harassment.

From everything we know about TV Licensing that's a pretty good description, but PR gobshite Warren Clark thinks their tactics are justified.

Replying to Gerald Gannaway's letter we published earlier Clark wrote the following:

"In response to the recent article regarding TV Licensing ("Claims TV authority 'harasses' people", December 8), we would like to address assertions made about our policy and procedures. By law, a licence is needed to watch or record TV programmes. We have a duty to collect the fee fairly and uniformly on behalf of the vast majority who pay. We only send strongly worded letters, reminding people of the consequences of evasion, when we have received no response from an address.

"We understand those who don't require a licence would prefer minimal contact so we make it as easy as possible to notify us to minimise any further correspondence. We only get back in touch after two years to check that circumstances have not changed. For more information about when a licence is needed, how you can buy or register that you don't need one, visit www.tvlicensing.co.uk/info or call 0300 790 6071."

What Clark, employed by TV Licensing PR harlots Quadrant Media & Communications Ltd, fails to mention is that legitimate non-TV viewers are under no legal obligation whatsoever to inform TV Licensing of their legitimate licence-free status. If they don't watch TV then they have absolutely no business at all with TV Licensing and should be able to live without TV Licensing harassment whether they reply or not.

Why then should Clark offer the justification that TV Licensing only continue to hound those that have not replied, when the law says they are under no obligation to do so?

TV Licensing: If They Bully You, Phone the Police

2011-12-18T08:33:00.000-08:00

From the Bristol Evening Post:

It's reassuring to see one Bristol MP taking on the bullies of the television licence fee collection agents employed by Capita (MP claims TV Licensing firm 'harasses' people without sets – Evening Post, November 28).

I had cause to complain about their harassment and intimidation concerning a property I manage which was empty for some time. The enforcement officers were regularly sending threatening letters to the address, stating in large type "Official warning, enforcement officers have been authorised to visit the property because the address does not have a TV licence", even though the property owner had informed them several times that no television receiving equipment was at the premises, and their letters were causing her worry.

Anyone suffering constant hounding by TV Licensing where no TV licence is legally required, should be aware, the enforcement division has no right to be informed where no television receiving equipment is not present. Also enforcement officials have no special powers to enter a property without an authorised search warrant, and then only with police present.

From my own experience TV Licensing enforcement division serves no credit on it's employer the BBC and I would advise anyone who suffers unwarranted bullying from TV Licensing to make a formal complaint to the police of harassment of another and demand compensation if you feel their threatening letters have caused you unnecessary worry or distress.

Gerald Gannaway

Knowle Park

TV Licensing Man Threatens Warrant

2011-12-10T11:33:00.000-08:00

The TV Licensing Visiting Officer Procedures clearly states they should NEVER threaten the occupier of an unlicensed property with a search warrant when the going gets tough.

We would advise the muppet in this video to read that document closely, as he's obviously missed that lesson at TV Licensing Goon Skool.

It's cold, dark and wet when this "Official from TV Licensing" presents himself on the doorstep. It's the sort of weather TV Licensing pond life truly thrive on, because it enhances their intimidation value on the vulnerable and legally unaware.

True to form the arrogant miscreant, infringing uninvited on someone else's property, gets shirty at the idea of being filmed. The occupier, absolutely correctly, reminds TV Licensing man that he is perfectly within his rights to film. TV Licensing employees are actually told to leave as soon as they see a camera, but he obviously missed that lesson too.

Evidently peed off that the occupier knows more about his negligible legal powers than he does TV Licensing man decides to crawl back under his rock.

The entire episode is captured in the YouTube video below:

Remember that not owning a TV licence is not an offence. If you are legitimately TV-free you are under no obligation at all to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing. You do not need to respond to their letters or entertain their scummy doorstep operatives.

Much more information in our previous posts (see TV Licensing Simple Questions and Answers).

Fascinating Insight Into TV Licensing WOIRA Policies

2011-12-07T14:39:00.000-08:00

The BBC has just released a tranche of documents related to TV Licensing's handling of people that withdraw the implied right of access (WOIRA) to their properties.

A huge hat tip to Mark at Licence Free who did some digging about using the Whatdotheyknow.com website.

Some snippets quoted directly from the BBC's released policy documents to whet your appetites:

"Requests to withdraw the implied right of access must be respected as TV Licensing Enquiry Officers would be committing trespass if they visited the address after the right of access had been withdrawn."
"There is no legal requirement to provide a name when someone withdraws their mplied right of access."
"Notice of WOIRA is not legally required to be in writing. TV Licensing may receive a notice of WOIRA via either: letter, email, telephone or verbally to an enquiry officer."
"If a person being visited (by an enquiry officer) states that they have already withdrawn the implied right of access for TV Licensing officers to visit the premises, you should... apologise and leave immediately assuring the person seen that the matter will be investigated."
"An occupier of a property has the right to withdraw this implied right of access for certain people, or groups of people, to set foot on their property and knock on their door."

All very interesting stuff, so do head over to read the unedited version at Whatdotheyknow.com.

Epic Misjudgement as BBC Reappoints Capita to TV Licensing Contract

2011-12-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

The BBC confirmed today that the Capita Group Plc, current holder of the TV Licensing Operations contract, will be reappointed in that role for another eight years.

The new contract is expected to be worth approximately £560m to Capita and represents savings to the BBC of over £220m over the eight years of the contract. According to the BBC these savings allow more money to be spent on programmes and services.

Zarin Patel, BBC Chief Financial Officer, said: "This contract represents great value for the licence fee payer. Capita’s bid was the best both in terms of innovation and efficiencies and so offered best value for money. The success of recent efforts by the BBC and TV Licensing to encourage people to pay via Direct Debit and use self-serve channels such as the web has enabled us to re-structure the new contract to realise the savings benefits. Additionallly, savings have been achieved by consolidating what were previously two contracts."

Capita has promised to transform the current service, using advances in technology and analytics to increase revenue and reduce costs. Initiatives include continuing to improve TV Licensing’s website to make it easy for people to transact with TV Licensing at a time it best suits them and working to ensure that customers get the most appropriate communication from TV Licensing at the right time.

Paul Pindar, Chief Executive of Capita Group, said: "Through our current contract we have consistently delivered real value to the BBC, helping to drive down evasion and increase revenues collected. We now have an opportunity to build on these achievements and look forward to introducing additional innovation and techniques to deliver a highly customer centric service that creates further value to the BBC and its customers."

The BBC has made a sickening error of judgement here. Capita will continue to demand money with menaces on the doorsteps of the vulnerable and legally unaware with relative impunity. They will continue to send their employees to intimidate the elderly and infirm with legal half-truths. They will continue to exploit a system that rewards them for every licence they sell, regardless of whether or not the purchaser needs it.

Communication Workers Union: Why TV Licensing Pay Offer is Unfair

2011-11-30T06:27:00.000-08:00

The Communication Workers Union (CWU), which represents Capita employees working on the BBC's TV Licensing contract, has explained on its website why Capita's pay offer is unacceptable.

Hundreds of Capita TV Licensing employees are staging a fourth day of action today, timed to coincide with the largest public sector strike in a generation. The workers are enraged at Capita's recent below inflation pay offer.

An article signed by CWU leader Billy Hayes explains how an unfair two-tier system of employment has developed at TV Licensing, with workers TUPEd across from the previous Consignia held contract receiving enhanced pay and conditions over those recruited directly by Capita.

Hayes gives the following ten reasons why TV Licensing employees should reject Capita's latest offer:

The pay offer for both 2010 and 2011 is significantly below inflation for each year. The Retail Price Index (RPI) currently stands at 5% and has been 5% or above for the whole of 2011. It's forecast to continue to rise due to the increase in utility bills.
Capita could very easily afford to improve the offer for each year. Capita made £364.2m in 2010, which was 12% up on 2009 and up 31.3% compared with 2002.
Capita make £1million profit a day.
For the half yearly result for 2011 the profit is £174m - up by 7% to the previous year.
Directors total remuneration in 2010 was up by 11.1%. Three directors have already had increases of £5000 to their basic pay announced for 2011.
£1.65m was paid out in bonuses on the Capita board in 2010 - an increase of 22.9% on 2009.
For TV Licensing services, the Capita annual report states that service leves have been met for 33 consecutive months and all of the key targets have been hit.
Capita are being opportunistic - using the economy and low pay settlement elsewhere, particularly in areas that don't have trade unions, to justify the offer
If Capita get away with pay offers so significantly below inflation, this will be its approach to pay bargaining every year.
Capita is attempting to dismiss and ignore the 88% vote from members to reject the pay offer.

Capita is not budging an inch in what is becoming into an increasingly acrimonious disagreement.

Full details appear on the CWU website.

Watchdog Reminder

2011-11-30T05:39:00.000-08:00

I was browsing a the Digital Spy forums when I came across a TV Licensing thread about how people should write the BBC's Watchdog programme to complain.

That advice probably won't get much of a take up on Digital Spy, because it is populated by a very large proportion of BBC luvvies so blinkered by their appreciation of the Corporation that they can't accept any criticism about the way it operates.

A few months ago I also suggested people write the BBC's Watchdog programme to complain about the heavy handed and dishonest tactics TV Licensing employ in the name of licence fee enforcement.

Given the recent interest on Digital Spy it seems an apt time to remind everyone about that earlier post. It includes a template letter for people to send to Watchdog.

If you're a legitimate non-TV user who faces constant harassment by TV Licensing then express your displeasure directly to the BBC by downloading and sending our letter. In common with Points of View the Watchdog programme is a bit of a pro-BBC joke, but if enough people write in it will increase their awareness of just how unpopular TV Licensing is.

Another Freeman Tackles TV Licensing on YouTube

2011-11-30T05:16:00.000-08:00

Members of the freemen of the land movement are exerting what they believe to be their lawful rights against TV Licensing employees visiting their homes.

I love these freemen of the land. Their lack of understanding of the law is even more humerous than TV Licensing's. It makes for very entertaining viewing.

Behold freeman Mr Taylor as he attempts to argue that the Communications Act 2003, as an Act of Parliament, is an example of commercial law that requires the consent of the people to be deemed valid.

Advice to other budding freemen:

Do not try to argue the law with TV Licensing visitors, because in this rare exception they will probably be better informed than you are.
As soon as you hear the words "Hello, I'm from TV Licensing" say nothing and close the door. There's no need to complicate matters any more than necessary.
Should a TV Licensing employee cause you alarm, distress or intimidation by persisting to bang on your door or shout through your letterbox call the police.
TV Licensing employees have no legal right to remain on your property once you have terminated dealings with them on the doorstep. They are, however, notoriously uneconomical with the truth, so will attempt to bullshit you that they have special quasi-official powers to do whatever they want. They don't.

Capita TV Licensing Workers Join Public Sector Strike

2011-11-24T14:13:00.000-08:00

Capita employees working on the BBC's TV Licensing contract will abandon their desks for a fourth time next Wednesday, when they join public sector colleagues for a day of industrial action.

Unless the Government strikes a last minute deal with the unions an estimated 2 million public sector workers will be staging their first walkout in what could be a protracted campaign against pay and pension reforms.

Communication Workers Union assistant secretary Andy Furey said: "There are many similarities between what our members are fighting for - a fair pay rise - and the dispute that public-sector workers are in - seeking fair and affordable pensions.

"We both face powerful employers who say they can't afford more. In our case the truth is the company makes over £1m profit every day and gives its senior executives generous pay rises, while in the case of public-sector workers the costings by independent parties like ONS show that the government's changes aren't necessary for affordable funding.

"In both cases there are political and ideological forces at play.

"We're here to speak for people who being treated wrongly. We want to resolve this dispute through negotiation and I'm again appealing to Capita to return to talks to resolve this dispute before Christmas."

A spokesman for Capita responded to the news, saying: "Capita remains convinced that our offer of a minimum pay rise of 2.6 per cent for 2010 and 2.7 per cent for 2011 is fair."

The Capita workers at the centre of this dispute must really despise their greedy penny-pinching employers, but not nearly as much as we do!

Capita Business Services Ltd. was awarded the 10 year TV Licensing operations contract in 2002. The BBC is due to announce the winner of the new contract later this year. Several other companies including IBM and Cap Gemini have made applications for the role.

TV to Listen to Radio: The Grey TV Licensing Area Remains

2011-11-19T11:25:00.000-08:00

The BBC has confirmed it has no documents relating specifically to the use of TV equipment to listen to radio broadcasts, despite previously claiming no licence was required.

You might remember that we previously challenged TV Licensing to clarify this grey area, which suggests that no licence is required when a TV is used to listen to radio stations, despite the equipment being installed in exactly the same way as if TV was being viewed. True to form TV Licensing couldn't provide a simple yes or no answer.

TV Licensing have managed to confirm to us that people were under no obligation to modify any of their equipment to make it incapable of receiving/recording TV signal. That being the case we reasoned that any licence-free person with a digital box installed in the usual manner could legitinately claim radio use without fear of prosecution. We sought confirmatory documents to this effect from the BBC using the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We have just received a response from the BBC, which does little to clarify the situation.

In their response the BBC said: "There are no documents which relate specifically to the TV Licensing requirements for properties where TV equipment is installed/used to listen to radio broadcasts only."

"However, from a trawl of Capita’s document management system which contains all standard policy, procedure and training documents, we have identified a number of documents which make reference to the use of TV equipment to listen to radio broadcasts therefore we have extracted this relevant information."

So it would appear that the BBC, who are the statutory Licensing Authority, has not written anything about this themselves but Capita, who are the hired flunkies with no statutory authority, has written their own policy on it.

Curiously, despite having produced no written policy on it, the BBC feel confident enough to issue FOIA responses on the subject. Where did the BBC employees drafting these responses get their information from? Did they refer to Capita's documents? Is the tail wagging the dog with the BBC following edicts from Capita instead of vice versa?

I find the idea that a company like Capita, who we know have employed numerous undesirables on the TV Licensing contract, are producing their own interpretation of the law worrying in the extreme.

TV Licensing Staff Plan Third Strike

2011-11-17T11:32:00.000-08:00

TV Licensing workers will down tools for a third time later tonight and tomorrow in an increasingly acrimonious row over pay and conditions.

Those involved are employed by Capita Business Services Limited, who are about to lose the BBC TV Licensing operations contract after a decade of dodgy dealing.

Andy Furey of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) said in a statement on the union's website: "This is a dispute about fairness. We have a clear case of double standards - one rule for senior executives who award themselves massive pay rises and bonuses and another rule for staff who are expected to suffer with pitifully low rises in pay.

"The truth is that working people are being made to line the pockets of the rich and Capita is a prime example of that. These are honest, hardworking people many of whom have never taken strike action before but are struggling themselves and then seeing their bosses take huge pay rises.

"Three days of strike action is unprecedented and we strongly urge Capita to return to negotiations to resolve this dispute before Christmas."

In the same article TV Licensing admin worker Jane Pascal said: "We work really hard for Capita. We give a quality service whilst ensuring all their targets are met so why do Capita insist on treating us with such contempt and offering an inadequate pay rise well below inflation whilst giving their Directors a huge pay rise well above inflation?"

Earlier in the dispute a Capita spokesman said: "The offer made to staff working on the TV licensing contract represents a minimum increase of 2.6% and 2.7% for 2010 and 2011 respectively.

"We think it is a good and fair offer."

Capita has just reported a half-year profits increase of 8%, with the business making more then £1 million a day.

Capita Business Services Ltd. was awarded the 10 year TV Licensing operations contract in 2002. The BBC is due to announce the winner of the new contract later this year. Several other companies including IBM and Cap Gemini have made applications for the role.

As usual the workers will be manning the picket lines at TV Licensing's Bristol and Darwen sites tomorrow morning.

WOIRA Dodging TV Licensing Man Challenged

2011-11-13T15:12:00.000-08:00

Regular readers will know that TV Licensing rely on the common law right of access when visiting a person's property to investigate their licence-free status.

For historical reasons there is an implied right of access that allows delivery people and suchlike access to a property as they go about their business. This right of access can be removed by the lawful occupier in a process known as Withdrawal of Implied Right of Access (WOIRA).

An increasing number of legitimate non-TV licence holders are turning to WOIRA as a solution to TV Licensing doorstep harassment and intimidation. People are increasingly frustrated that if they go out of their way to confirm they don't need a licence they will be rewarded with a disbelieving intrusive visit by TV Licensing's employees.

Anyone can write to TV Licensing and inform them that their implied right of access has been removed. TV Licensing are legally obliged to comply with this instruction and are liable to civil action for trespass if they don't. The legal occupier giving a WOIRA instruction does not need to give their name for the instruction to be valid.

Video sharing website YouTube, scourge of TV Licensing employees and censorship target of Capita Business Services Ltd., features another video showing TV Licensing's blatant disregard for WOIRA.

The video appears below for your perusal. TV Licensing's Steve Whiteley claims he didn't know about the WOIRA until he knocked on the door even though the occupier had received written confirmation his instructions had been received by TV Licensing. On this occasion the occupier engages in too much conversation, which results in him spouting "freeman of the land" nonsense. Whiteley, to his credit, remains civil and tries to get away as quickly as he can for a man having his ears chewed off.

The same uploader has another video from a few months earlier in his back catalogue, which reveals a TV Licensing employee giving disinformation during an enforcement visit.

This TV Licensing man gives the distinct impression that a licence is needed just to own a TV, which we all know is complete and utter tosh.

Unfortunately the occupier loses the upperhand here by coming out with the following: "I'm a freeman of the land mate. Acts of Parliament, which are commercial law, do not apply to me unless I consent... I'm not actually covered by UK jurisdiction my friend... This land here is actually a Sovereign nation within the UK."

Obviously a 24 carat nutcase!

Even more worrying is that this freeman is training to be a lawyer.

Fortunately the occupier does confirm in this earlier video that he has removed TV Licensing's implied rights of access, which gives added weight to the fact that Mr Whiteley above is breaking his valid WOIRA instruction later on.

How long before Capita try to have these deleted from YouTube? Answers on a postcard please!

TV Licensing Doorstep Evasiveness

2011-11-12T08:19:00.000-08:00

Another video has appeared on YouTube highlighting the dubious doorstep practices of TV Licensing.

It is clearly dark when the occupier answers the door to two silhouetted figures on his doorstep. One of the darkened figures starts with TV Licensing's favourite introduction "I'm just looking for the occupier." Clearly on the ball the occupier responds with "who are you?"

TV Licensing's own Visiting Officer Procedures outline that their employees should identify themselves at this point, but this wise guy tries to dodge the question with "[garbled bullshit] do you stay here, yes?" Doing remarkably well to retain his composure the occupier again asks "who are you?" The shadowy TV Licensing man then has the audacity to reply "well, I don't think I can tell you that" before the occupier quite rightly closes the door on him.

Only TV Licensing would have the arrogance to bang on your door when it's dark outside and refuse to say who they are when they had been asked to twice. No doubt their tactics work remarkably well when dealing with little old ladies who live on their own.

As the darkness outside masks the true identity of these individuals I do not expect Capita to censor their inclusion on the web. Just to be on the safe side I have downloaded the video for future reference.

Capita TV Licensing Airbrushing the Web

2011-11-10T12:57:00.000-08:00

Capita Business Services Ltd. is orchestrating the removal of TV Licensing critical material from Google, according to the latest Freedom of Information Act response by the BBC.

We asked the BBC about their recent involvement in the removal of material from YouTube.

The BBC confirmed that although they hadn't requested the removal of the material Capita Business Services Ltd, the current (but not for much longer) holder of the BBC TV licence operations contract, had.

"We are happy to tell you that Capita have occasionally written to such sites requesting removal of content where there has been a concern that one of their employees is identified by footage on a site which could potentially leave them vulnerable to physical harm or harassment either whilst they are at work or off duty.

"However, where Capita has done so it has acted on its own behalf, not on behalf of TV Licensing. Such requests have not been made under the BBC’s instruction, nor to protect the image of Capita or TVL; These requests have only been made by Capita out of the duty of care they have for their own employees’ safety."

It is perfectly legal for anyone to film TV Licensing employees in the course of their duties and publish the material on the web. Capita has obviously taken exception to this point of law and decided to exert their famous imaginary sense of authority to censor people's video footage.

The full trail of our request can be found on the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website.

TV Licensing Blog on Twitter

2011-11-06T07:39:00.000-08:00

For the last month or so our TV Licensing Blog has featured on Twitter.

We're using Twitter as a medium to interact with people venting their spleen about the underhand tactics employed by TV Licensing. We're also using it to set the record straight about certain misunderstandings people have about TV licensing rules and regulations.

It has to be said that the BBC and TV Licensing, who have a pecuniary advantage with every licence sold, are pretty bad at setting the record straight. Indeed their incessant drip feed of disinformation does a pretty good job at making people think they need a TV licence when in fact they don't. This is compounded by the fact that their employees receive bonus payments for every licence they sell, whether the buyer needs it or not.

Twitter is the quickest place to be notified of our new blog posts. It would be nice if we could beat the number of followers the official TV Licensing Twitter feed has, which currently stands at a paltry 136. This is woeful considering their PR harlots Fishburn Hedges are running it.

If you like what we do then show your support by please following us on Twitter.

TV Licensing Trespass

2011-11-06T05:58:00.000-08:00

The continuing saga of TV Licensing harassment has reared its ugly head again over at thedailynag blog.

The author, who you might remember published a whole string of correspondence with TV Licensing, recently moved home to find a pile of TV Licensing calling cards on their doormat. Rightly annoyed that their first memory of their new home will be hollow TV Licensing threats and lies they decided to contact the errant organisation to express their displeasure. This culminated in them withdrawing TV Licensing's common law right to access their property (read our earlier post about WOIRA).

A lot of people don't realise that TV Licensing visiting officers have no more rights to access their property than anyone else. A common law right exists that allows delivery people and suchlike access from the garden gate to the front door by the most direct route, but this right can be removed by the legal occupier at any time. The legal occupier does not need to sign or give their name for the request to be valid, despite what TV Licensing imply to the contrary. If TV Licensing break this statutory instruction they are guilty of trespass, which could be pursued under civil law. If they break the instruction and intimidate the legal occupier by hammering on their door or shouting through the letterbox, as they're known to do, then they are guilty of the criminal offence of aggravated trespass.

thedailynag's author informed TV Licensing on 17th October that he/she was removing their common law right of access to the property. Two days later, in direct contravention of his/her lawful instruction, a TV Licensing employee trespassed onto the property to establish the legal occupier's earlier no-TV declaration was truthful.

Another glaring example of TV Licensing thinking they're above the law. They're not and every now and then they need a firm public reminder of that.

TV Licensing Arrogance - A Magistrate's Opinion

2011-11-05T03:08:00.000-07:00

TV Licensing is creating an unnecessary burden on the public purse by adjourning court proceedings and failing to notify the courts in question.

That's according to a recent post that featured on The Justice of the Peace (Magistrate's) Blog.

The JP author goes on to explain: "A trial had been listed for a Greek defendant accused of using a colour television receiver without a licence. My colleague knew the defendant was Greek before the case had been called because whilst the L/A (Legal Advisor) was temporarily performing ushering duties outside the courtroom a lady appeared who, on being questioned by my new colleague, said she was the Greek interpreter for Mr XX and inquired how long she would have to wait."

"Her query was answered and in due course the L/A returned to inform the bench that the defendant had not appeared nor answered the tannoy and that the TV Licensing prosecutor was not in the building. She told the bench that having telephoned said organisation she was informed that they (TV Licensing) had the week previously, written to the defendant to tell him they were adjourning the case, he would not need to appear and that he would be informed of the new date."

"He confirmed that no letter had been written to the court. My colleague`s bench was, he told me, on the verge of exploding."

Yet another example of TV Licensing thinking they write the law and are above it.

Epic Email Trail of TV Licensing Discontent

2011-10-27T03:50:00.000-07:00

Thumbs up to the author of thedailynag blog for publishing their impressive string of email correspondence with TV Licensing.

The sixteen email exchange began when he/she took exception to receiving TV Licensing's most despicable mailshot yet, which implies anyone failing to comply with their instructions to buy a licence will be heading to court.

All bullshit of course, which has the unfortunate side effect of scaring little old ladies, the legally unaware and the mentally infirm into buying a licence they probably don't need.

If any other organisation was to terrorise individuals in their homes, without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing, there would be uproar across the land. The BBC, under the guise of TV Licensing, seemingly get a hard-on over employing these sinister and deceitful tactics and go virtually unchallenged.

Do browse over there and take a read of the letters, which are eloquently written and present very good arguments against TV Licensing. A snippet to whet your appetite:

"TV Licensing has made it quite clear that unless I purchase a TV license, whether one is required or not, this sustained harassment will not only continue, but escalate. There is no way for me to prove I am not doing something, in which case your ‘enquiry’ can never be satisfied. Even if I was to undergo further inconvenience in the form of a home-visit, I doubt this would permanently cease all further enquiries. I believe this cyclical ritual of harassment will only continue, since it is based on the notion that all non-fee payers are guilty of license evasion until they can be proven innocent (which is not possible). Thus, the only way to satisfy your enquiries would be to purchase a TV license on an annual basis, regardless of its necessity. I believe that this unethical conduct quite clearly constitutes harassment."

Good stuff!

In a few years time, hopefully with a lot more visitors coming to the TV Licensing blog, we hope to be able to subsidise legal challenges against the BBC's continued TV licence harassment of legitimate non-viewers.

Capita Braces for TV Licensing Defeat

2011-10-26T06:23:00.000-07:00

The BBC, Capita and Fishburn Hedges absolutely love our blog. They're often here within minutes of us publishing a new blog post all about their sinister little operation.

They obviously have us bookmarked, which is surprising considering the BBC has previously said they don't hold any information about our blog. Not that I believe half of what the BBC says.

It could just be coincidental but Capita landed here again this morning on the search term "TV licence to IBM". Are they bracing themselves for bad news? Is Capita's TV Licensing gravy train about to derail? Is that why Capita apparently don't give a stuff about their striking employees, who are on the picket lines again next Monday? Because they'll all be transferring to another employer anyway when the TV Licensing Operations contract comes crashing to an end?

If I was a betting man I would say Capita is about to lose the lucrative BBC contract which is up for renewal in a matter of weeks. In anticipation of bad news their employees are frantically Googling around to spy on the opposition, namely IBM.

If Capita do lose the contract it'll not be a moment too soon.

TV Licensing Workers Continue Industrial Action

2011-10-25T07:52:00.000-07:00

Capita employees working on the BBC's TV Licensing contract are set to walk out for a second day on 31st October 2011.

Earlier this month around 500 workers abandoned their desks in a continuing row over pay and conditions. The Bristol and Darwen-based workers, members of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), are angered by a recent below-inflation pay offer, which comes on the back of a two year pay freeze.

In the last hour the CWU has announced a second day of action, which takes place next Monday.

CWU assistant secretary Andy Furey said: "It's the sheer unfairness of the company's attitude that has brought us to this situation. Capita is making huge profits, but is still expecting our members to accept a reduced standard of living. The fact they haven't been in touch at all shows just how little they seem to care about their employees.

"With inflation running at 5.6 per cent, pay offers worth around 2.6 per cent mean a pay cut in real terms for staff who are already struggling to pay increased food and energy bills. We want a fair, affordable pay rise which rewards staff."

A Capita spokesman said: "The offer made to staff working on the TV licensing contract represents a minimum increase of 2.6% and 2.7% for 2010 and 2011 respectively.

"We think it is a good and fair offer."

On the last day of action Capita further infuriated striking employees, by offering strike-breakers a free buffet lunch at the expense of the licence-fee-payer.

Pickets will be mounted between 7:30 - 10:30 am at the following TV Licensing locations:

100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS98 1TL
India Mill, Bolton Road, Darwen, BB3 1YX

TV Licensing Fails On DAB Clarification

2011-10-19T13:00:00.000-07:00

Regular readers will know that a few weeks ago I posed TV Licensing some simple questions, which I hoped they would give some simple answers to.

To their credit they did pretty well when they did eventually respond. One question they failed to provide a satisfactory answer to was this:

____________________________________________________________________________

The BBC has previously admitted (RFI20080234) that: "You do not need a TV licence if you only use a TV to listen to digital radio broadcasts and not to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown." Bearing in mind a TV is installed in exactly the same way whether to watch TV programmes (licensable) or listen to radio (non-licensable), does (TV Licensing) still stand by that response? Yes or no?"

TVL response: "A licence is not needed to receive radio broadcasts only."

____________________________________________________________________________

I considered that response unsatisfactory so asked them for a clarification:

____________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your response.
Loathe as I am to push the issue, I do require a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to Question 9.
I am sure you appreciate the significance and importance of an unambiguous response to that question - if people can legally use their Freeview boxes to listen to DAB broadcasts, as the BBC has previously suggested in their response to RFI20080234, then they need to know that one way or the other.
I suggest you speak to the BBC TVLRMT for clarification.

____________________________________________________________________________

Their reply arrived today:

____________________________________________________________________________

TV LICENSING

BRISTOL

BS98 1TL

Tel : 0300 790 6030

Fax : 0300 790 6026

19 October 2011

Reference 523312

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your email of 29 September.

I appreciate you have asked for a 'yes' or 'no' answer to your question concerning the TV Licensing requirement for a TV that is only used to listen to digital radio broadcasts. However, it isn't possible to convey the licensing requirement in this way.

Despite the fact that a TV is installed in the same way whether it is used to watch TV programmes or listen to radio, our original response stands i.e. you do not need a TV Licence if you only use a TV to listen to digital radio broadcasts and not to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on the TV.

Thank you for contacting us.

Yours sincerely

Sue Barnett

Customer Relations

____________________________________________________________________________

So there you go - still no simple answer to this important question.

As TV Licensing has yet again failed to deliver I will fill in the blanks on their behalf: The BBC has said that no licence is needed to listen to DAB radio via Freeview. They have also said people are under no obligation to modify their Freeview boxes, used to listen to DAB, to render them incapable of receiving live broadcast TV signals, ergo anyone prosecuted on the basis of having Freeview installed has a good legal defence that they used the equipment solely to listen to DAB.

That last bit is the piece TV Licensing seem incapable of confirming, knowing the consequences of their admission to that effect.

Capita Bribes TV Licensing Scabs

2011-10-15T04:06:00.000-07:00

Capita has been accused of bribing TV Licensing workers to cross pickets lines this coming Monday.

Around 500 workers on the TV Licensing contract will abandon their desks in a continuing row over pay and conditions. The workers are infuriated at having endured a pay freeze over the last two years, despite Capita making millions in profit on the lucrative BBC TV licence operations contract. Their anger was compounded by the offer of below-inflation pay hikes over the next two years - not that it will matter to Capita, who are likely to lose the TV licence contract when it comes up for renewal shortly.

Last week the company sent an email to workers offering those that break the picket line a hearty buffet lunch free of charge.

According to reports the email reads as follows: "For everyone working in the office, next Monday is going to be a difficult day for all of us.

"To help the day pass more agreeably, we have arranged for a buffet lunch to be made available at both sites, for all those who have come into work.

"So, don’t bother to pack any sandwiches and enjoy a hearty lunch that is on us, as a thank you for your commitment."

Can you think of anything worse: lowering yourself to work for TV Licensing and then knifing your colleagues in the back by crossing picket lines? If there's any justice in the world then anyone obliging them self of this offer will choke on their free sandwiches.

Capita are reportedly very disappointed that workers are striking, having made them a "good and fair" pay offer.

Picket lines will be held at TV Licensing's Bristol and Darwen sites between 7:30 - 10:30am on Monday morning. The addresses are:

100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS98 1TL
India Mill, Bolton Road, Darwen, BB3 1YX

We would in no way condone people attending the pickets to hurl abuse at striking TV Licensing employees.

TV Licensing Workers Strike on Monday

2011-10-14T13:30:00.000-07:00

More than 500 Capita employees working on the TV Licensing contract will down tools this Monday in an ongoing row over pay and conditions.

The Bristol and Darwen-based workers, members of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), are protesting at a recent below-inflation pay offer, which comes on the back of a two year pay freeze.

Andy Furey of the CWU said: "Our members at Capita TV Licensing are facing a pay cut in real terms from a company which makes millions in profit every year.

"We're asking for a simple improvement in their pay offer which at 2.6% is almost half the rate of inflation.

"Our members are determined to win a fair deal and if we strike - we strike solid and we strike to win."

A Capita spokesman said: "The offer made to staff working on the TV licensing contract represents a minimum increase of 2.6% and 2.7% for 2010 and 2011 respectively.

"We think it is a good and fair offer."

The TV Licensing workers will be mounting picket lines at both sites:
7:30 - 10:30am, 100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS98 1TL
7:30 - 10:30am, India Mill, Bolton Road, Darwen, BB3 1YX

Fingers crossed that Monday's industrial action will cause complete and utter chaos with TV Licensing's sinister and deceitful operations.

TV Licensing Simple Questions and Answers

2011-09-29T13:50:00.000-07:00

A while ago I asked the BBC to provide some simple answers to some simple TV Licensing questions.

True to form they managed to dodge the issue, as they do with almost half of all the FOIA questions asked of them. They also suggested, probably half-heartedly, that I contact TV Licensing directly and asked them instead. So I did, telling TV Licensing that the BBC had referred me.

It has to be said that it wasn't particularly easy to extract the information from TV Licensing, who required "gentle prompting" to stir them into action.

Perhaps their hesistancy was compounded by the fact that I told them from the outset that I intended to publish their words here on this blog. Later on, with no response forthcoming, I told them that I would interpret their continued silence as a deliberate failure to clarify the points of law requested to the obvious detriment of legitimate non-TV licence holders. If a response didn't arrive within the next five days I would highlight this deliberate failure anyway.

Below find the questions I posed and TV Licensing's response, which arrived shortly after I nudged them. The only thing I have added is the prefix "TVL response" prior to each of their answers:

____________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your email, which has been recorded under your reference 523312. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I'm sorry to have taken so long to reply to you.

Please see below for answers to your numbered questions. For ease of reference I've quoted your questions and used the same numbers as in your email.

1. My understanding of the Communications Act 2003 is that a TV licence is required for any device that is "installed or used" for "receiving or recording a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public". Is that consistent with the (TV Licensing's) interpretation of the legislation? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes

2. A TV licence is not needed simply to own a TV set (or other TV receiving/recording equipment), because there are a myriad of perfectly legitimate non-licensable uses for a TV set. Is that correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes

3. Even though live television content is available online, there is no legal requirement to have a TV licence simply to own or operate an internet-enabled PC, laptop, mobile phone, iPod or whatever. Is that correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes, unless the equipment is used to receive or record live television broadcasts.

4. Where no TV licence is held, people are under no legal obligation to modify (and potentially damage) their equipment to render it incapable of receiving/recording a live TV signal. Is that correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes

5. When a person cancels their TV licence they are under no legal obligation to give TV Licensing a reason for their cancellation, despite TV Licensing asking for one. Is that correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes, although it is helpful for us to know why a licence is being cancelled. If a person has stopped watching television we can amend our records to show this and minimise any contact with the address in the future. In some circumstances a refund will be due and if we know the reason for a cancellation we can give advice on this point.

6. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (as amended) requires that retailers notify the Licensing Authority (the BBC) of the sale/lease of all television recording/receiving equipment. The legal onus to provide this information to the Licensing Authority lies completely on the retailer. The person buying or leasing the equipment is not legally obliged to provide their correct details at the point of sale. Is this correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes, the Act does not enforce the dealers to verify the name and address of the purchaser, or the person the item is intended for.

7. Retailers are only obliged to notify the Licensing Authority of the sale/lease of television recording/receiving equipment. They are not required to inform the Licensing Authority of the sale of related items that cannot receive/record live TV signals. Such non-notifiable equipment includes, but is not limited to, DVD players, SCART leads, TV remote controls, TV aerials etc. Is this correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes

8. TV Licensing enforcement officers receive commission payments for every TV licence they sell. It is therefore in their financial interests to sell as many licences as possible, in as short a time as possible, employing whatever tactics necessary to secure the sale. Is that correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Visiting officers receive a salary with incentives. If they call at an address and find a licence is legally required, they can arrange for payment to be made. However, they are not permitted to employ whatever tactics necessary to secure a sale as you have suggested. They must follow a strict code of conduct and their managers monitor their performance.

9. The BBC has previously admitted (RFI20080234) that: "You do not need a TV licence if you only use a TV to listen to digital radio broadcasts and not to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown." Bearing in mind a TV is installed in exactly the same way whether to watch TV programmes (licensable) or listen to radio (non-licensable), does (TV Licensing) still stand by that response? Yes or no?

A licence is not needed to receive radio broadcasts only.

10. A genuine non-licence holder, as someone legitimately without any business with TV Licensing, is under no legal obligation to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing in any way. Is that correct? Yes or no?

TVL response: Yes

I hope this information is useful.

Yours sincerely

Sue Barnett

Customer Relations
____________________________________________________________________________

I have replied asking for clarification of their response to question 9. It's probably the most important question of all of them.

Stay tuned for further updates.

TV Licensing Harassment: An All Too Familiar Story

2011-09-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

Plucked from the pages of Yahoo! Answers:

andrew r writes:

"I have established that I don't need a tv license as I don't have a tv and I don't watch any tv as it is being broadcast. I do watch youtube on my laptop though. I live in shared accommodation. I went to the tv license website and declared that I did not have a TV. I gave my name and full address. I then had a response telling me within ten days they would write to me then I had an email from them asking me to state what room of the house I live in. I thought this was just too much and ignored it. After all if they wrote to me at my address like the bank and phone company do then I'd get the letter. Anyways now they keep sending me letters claiming they are investigating and that I may have to go to court and all this sort of stuff. I find it really harassing and threatening and infuriating especially when I am not doing anything wrong. What should I do now? Also if I continue to be harassed can I take legal action against the tv licensing organisation?"

We reply:
We suggest you read our post TV Licensing for Students and determine whether you are living in a "joint occupancy" or "multiple occupancy" property. The category of property you live in will influence whether or not you need a TV licence.

If having read that you are still sure you have no need for a TV licence, then our advice would be as follows:

As someone who legitimately has no need for a TV licence, you should not be intimidated by TV Licensing's correspondence. Their letters, which even the BBC Trust has criticised, are designed to scare people into paying up whether they need to or not. TV Licensing profit from the fact that most legitimate non-TV-viewers are so unaware of the law that they will pay up at the first whiff of legal consequences.

Quite simply if you have no means of receiving or recording live TV signals you cannot be committing an offence and any threat of legal action can be safely discarded in the bin where it belongs.

TV Licensing are scum. As their correspondence, packed with half-truths and small print, shows, they have no hesitation in terrorising genuine non-TV viewers into paying a fee they do not owe.

If you write to TV Licensing telling them you have no need for a TV licence, stating you find their letters intimidatory and warning that further correspondence will constitute harassment then they should leave you in peace. You would have a case for legal action if they persisted after that, but should consult a lawyer before pursuing the matter.

If you are living in a multiple occupancy property a licence would be required to cover any TV receiving/recording equipment located in communal areas, but this would probably be a joint responsibility between you and the other tenants

Capita TV Licensing Staff Back Planned Strike

2011-09-24T01:36:00.000-07:00

Workers at TV Licensing's Darwen and Bristol offices have voted overwhelmingly to strike over pay and conditions.

The workers, employed by the BBC's TV Licensing subcontractor Capita Business Services Ltd., are said to be "increasingly frustrated" at a below inflation pay offer of 2.6%, when the TV Licensing contract is believed to be hugely profitable for Capita.

Their decision to strike has been conveniently buried under the latest tranche of TV Licensing press releases about wacky licence-dodging excuses. These have also buried news about ex-TV Licensing enforcement officer Gary Catterick, who was recently convicted of raping a pregnant woman during his rounds.

The Communication Workers Union, representing many of the Capita workers, said it had been "inundated with complaints" over pay.

The CWU's Andy Furey told BBC News: "The enormous majority for strike action is hardly surprising when you consider the company's offer is little more than half the rate of inflation.

"We've been inundated by complaints from our hard-working members who are describing this 'offer' as a pay cut in real terms."

A spokesman for Capita, who also administer the Criminal Records Bureau and Teachers' Pension Scheme, said: "The offer made to Capita staff working on the TV licensing contract represents a minimum increase of 2.6% and 2.7% for 2010 and 2011 respectively.

"We think that this is a good and fair offer."

Judging by the amount of hits we get here on the search term "TV Licensing IBM" it's a distinct possibility Capita will actually lose the contract.

Fingers crossed!

TV Licensing Totty

2011-09-15T13:28:00.000-07:00

As the famous movie goes "what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?"

Breaking the stereotypical mould of elderly, greying, window-peering, drooling old perverts this leggy blonde is the latest TV Licensing starlet to feature on YouTube.

She's obviously read the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures because she knows exactly what to do when confronted with a camera - run like the clappers and say nowt! Of course the occupier is well within his legal rights to record his uninvited caller, just as we are to comment on his YouTube efforts.

According to this TV Licensing woman's calling card she goes by the initials MM. She drives a navy blue Ford Focus, registration number X311 EEF.

The video, while it remains live, can be viewed here:

Plaid Cymru Support TV Licence Boycott

2011-09-10T03:33:00.000-07:00

Members of Plaid Cymru have backed calls to boycott the television licence fee in an effort to defend the independence of Welsh-language broadcaster S4C.

Delegates at Plaid's Annual Conference voted overwhelmingly to support the controversial boycott, which stems from a proposed Government shake-up of S4C funding.

The Government plans to cut the channel's £100 million direct grant by 25%. Responsibility for funding S4C would also transfer from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the BBC, who will have to fund the Welsh broadcaster from TV licence revenue.

Plaid MEP Jill Evans is the latest in a growing list of high profile TV licence "refusniks" opposed to greater BBC involvement in Welsh broadcasting.

A Plaid statement said: "Conference agreed that it would offer support to those who choose in a personal capacity to make the decision to withhold their TV licence fee because of their strength of feeling."

A TV Licensing spokesperson said: "Regardless of personal opinion, if you don't have a valid TV licence when you need one, it's against the law and you risk a prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."

A BBC spokeswoman said: "The UK Government’s decision to change the funding arrangements for S4C cannot and does not amount to a BBC takeover of S4C. The BBC is fully committed to Welsh language provision and to an editorially independent S4C."

Enquiry Officer Code of Conduct

2011-09-09T11:03:00.000-07:00

Dan McGregor of the BBC TV Licensing Revenue Management Team, regular visitors to this parish, has just quoted the following "Code of Conduct" for TV Licensing Enquiry Officers.

In the course of their duties TV Licensing people should:

Prove their identity, be polite and explain why they are visiting.
Only enter a property if they are given permission.
Always leave the premises if asked to do so.
Take a statement, if necessary, signed by the interviewee, making sure the interviewee is aware of the consequences of a statement.
Neither threaten nor intimidate.

In his recent FOIA response (RFI20111072) he seems to have omitted any mention of committing rape, fraud, theft or assault.

Fortunately we didn't as the following articles confirm:
TV Licensing Man Commits Rape
Criminal TV Licensing Employees

Sainsbury's Freeview Purchase

2011-09-06T12:57:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago I turned on the TV to find my Freeview box on the blink.

It may seem strange for someone so vocally opposed to TV Licensing but as a regular viewer I am correctly licensed. As I said in my About page: that I comply with the law is no way condoning the sinister and deceitful tactics that the BBC and TV Licensing employ in the name of licence fee enforcement.

I really can't do without TV so I headed straight to the shops to buy a replacement. As someone with a TV licence opportunities to express my disdain to TV Licensing are few and far between, but this purchase provided one such occasion.

My travels took me to Sainsbury's where I saw just what I needed to feed my 24 hour news addiction. Armed with cash I headed straight to the self-checkout where I proceeded to scan my new Freeview box. It was no surprise when the till beeped with "approval needed" and a young shop assistant approached. Having rehearsed a comical address I was ready to fend off the invasive questions I knew were heading my way.

He punched in his PIN and the screen prompted him with some mysterious code, which he obviously didn't understand. He removed the security tag and with few more button presses I'd made my cash payment, bagged my goods and was making for the door. He never asked for any details, but even if he had I wasn't going to provide any having now completed the purchase.

What an anticlimax.

Apologies to Sainsbury's - I hope you don't get fined £10,000 on my part!

Welsh TV Licensing Man On Candid Camera

2011-09-03T07:29:00.000-07:00

A new video appeared on YouTube yesterday showing a Welsh TV Licensing salesman plying his immoral trade around the Rhondda Valley.

The householder was in the bath at the time, but had enough time to grab his camera and start filming. Despite knowing he's on camera the TV Licensing goon makes little attempt to hide his identity and chats at the door for a good few minutes. TV Licensing's own guidance says their doorstep cold callers should terminate the conversation and leave at the first whiff of a camera, so perhaps this goon is unable to read the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures.

Unfortunately the video isn't clear enough to capture the goon's name when he shows his ID, but we do see he is driving a Daihatsu Hijet microvan with the registration number T565 LBO.

The entire visit is captured below with a follow up telephone call the householder made to TV Licensing. I've downloaded them in case they are removed from YouTube later on.

TV Licensing Man Commits Rape

2011-09-03T03:58:00.000-07:00

A TV Licensing enforcement officer has been convicted of rape after prosecutors argued he'd used his employment as the ideal guise to cover his depraved fantasies.

Jurors at Middlesbrough Crown Court heard how Gary Catterick, 49, of Broadwell Road in the town, forced himself on the pregnant woman after she took pity on him when his car broke down during one of his TV Licensing rounds last November.

On what was a bitterly cold evening, the young victim offered Catterick a "cuppa" on her doorstep, but she didn't invite him inside.

Exploiting the opportunity Catterick walked into the house and raped the woman in the presence of a sleeping child.

Judge John Walford told Catterick: "You cruelly and self-indulgently repaid the kindness and consideration of this young woman by raping her.

"She was young and vulnerable, she was a victim in her own home while her children were there."

The jury of 8 men and 4 women took less than 2 hours to find Catterick guilty of the woman's rape. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life.

TV Licensing: Too Much TV Kills You

2011-08-16T15:24:00.000-07:00

Watching too much TV can send you to an early grave.

That's this weekend's shocking revelation, which was published by TV Licensing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. According to their findings excessive television viewing can have an impact on life expectancy comparable to smoking and obesity. A viewer with a 6 hour a day habit could end up in the grave 5 years earlier than average.

The study followed the viewing and lifestyle habits of 11,000 Australians aged over 25. The British researchers said: "While we used Australian data, the effects in other industrialised and developing countries are likely to be comparable, given the typically large amounts of time spent watching TV and similarities in disease patterns."

Maureen Talbot, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: “Sedentary behaviour, such as vegging in front of the TV, is practically a cultural institution these days and it’s good to relax for a while, but this study supports the view that too much of it can be bad for our health."

I was trying to work out why TV Licensing was commissioning this research, which seemingly discourages people from watching television.

Their message suddenly dawned on me: "Buy a TV licence now before you die".

TV Licensing Salesman Scarpers

2011-08-16T12:45:00.000-07:00

More TV Licensing home video appeared online yesterday courtesy of YouTube.

The silver-haired TV Licensing employee approached the property and rang the doorbell completely unaware that his visit was being recorded on CCTV. After a few seconds without response he started to peer through windows, as we have seen so many times before. Maybe Capita brief their employees, who have no lawful rights whatsoever to go beyond the front door, to snoop around if they think no-one is watching?

After a short delay the door was answered by a man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask V for Vendetta style. TV Licensing man chirps into his usual script, "are you the occupier here, are you?", seemingly unfazed by the cosmetically altered figure before him. Mr Fawkes sensibly retorts "who are you?" and nothing else. The silver-haired goon replied "I'm from the, erm, TV licence office". That was the cue for Mr Fawkes to reach for his camera tripod, the mere sight of which was enough to send the Capita salesman fleeing for his anonymity.

It didn't work because we've got a snapshot of his smily face anyway.

This reinforces our earlier observations that TV Licensing recoil in horror every time a camera is pointed in their direction.

If you'd like to buy your own camera equipment to send TV licence men on their way (or anything else for that matter) then check out the bargains in our Amazon shop.

Students: Don't Get Stung by TV Licensing

2011-08-13T14:27:00.000-07:00

Some shrewd words of student money saving advice were published on the Guardian website today.

Article reads as follows (I have put it into paragraphs, which the Guardian obviously struggled to do):

"You need a TV licence to watch or record programmes as they're being shown live on TV, no matter what device you use.

"A year's colour TV licence currently costs £145.50. If you live in halls of residence with a licence covering communal areas, this won't cover your room. If you live in a private shared house with a joint tenancy agreement for the house, you should only need one licence. But if you have a separate tenancy agreement for your room, you'll need your own.

"You don't need a licence at all if you don't watch or record programmes, or you only watch them online through on-demand services such as BBC iPlayer and 4oD after they've been broadcast.

"You can apply for a refund if your licence is still valid for at least three months and you no longer need it."

Other articles students might find of interest:

TV Licensing for Students

Heading to University: TV Licence Explained

TV Licensing and Laptop Usage

TV Licensing Internet Detection

Of course you'll find plenty more articles to peruse on the contents page.

Happy viewing to all our student readers.

BBC/TV Licensing: We Don't Post Anonymously

2011-08-10T02:19:00.000-07:00

The BBC has confirmed that neither they, nor their TV Licensing companies, post anonymously on web forums.

In a recent Freedom of Information Act request we sought to establish whether the BBC and/or TV Licensing, who will undoubtedly read this post today, had produced any internal documents relating to several of the nation's leading anti-TV Licensing websites including this one.

The other sites included in our request were:
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info
http://tvlicensing.biz
http://www.televisionlicence.info
http://watchkeeperslog.blogspot.com
http://www.licencefree.co.uk
http://www.lime-marmalade.net

Much to our amazement, given the fact they're here almost every day, BBC lawyer Dan McGregor, of the TV Licensing Revenue Management Team, said they hadn't produced any documents within the scope of our request. He did say that one document, quoting a TV Licensing critical Facebook post, indirectly mentioned a couple of the sites listed above.

We also asked them to reveal the usernames of BBC and/or TV Licensing employees engaged with spreading BBC love on various web forums. Their response was the following:

"TV Licensing (including both the BBC and the companies contracted to TV Licensing) does not, in the course of its official TV Licensing duties have usernames for the other web communities listed above. I also confirm that TV Licensing (including both the BBC and the companies contracted to TV Licensing) would not post to an online community without openly disclosing its affiliation to TV Licensing."

The full text of our request and subsequent BBC response can be found here.

I find it absolutely astonishing that the BBC is so arrogantly unfazed by our collective endeavours that we've not been mentioned in a single document.

Looters Beware: London Is Our Database

2011-08-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the recent London riots TV Licensing has issued this important reminder to local residents:

If you've recently stolen a television and you're not correctly licensed you must buy a TV licence now.

Television licence evasion is a very serious offence, which we take a very dim view of. If you do it you'll have us to deal with, never mind the police.

While the vast majority of people in the UK pay their licence fee, we have to be firm with those who try to get away without paying.

Our database has the address of every unlicensed looter in London. Our massive fleet of detector vans, which patrol the streets in ruthless pursuit of licence fee dodgers, are so advanced they can detect a television remote control, at a range of 200 metres, even when the batteries are flat.

Unless you want us to send the boys around, or receive a hefty £1,000 fine, you'd better visit our website and buy a licence now.

TV Licensing: It's all in the database.

Less than Transparent: BBC Freedom of Information

2011-08-05T05:34:00.000-07:00

It is a long running joke that if you ask the BBC anything at all likely to cast them in a negative light they will conjure up a response that tells you nothing.

Indeed one of their favourite rebuttals to potentially embarrassing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests is trot out their tried and tested excuse that the information is exempt because it is held for the purposes of "journalism, art or literature".

The legislation is interesting in this respect. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC is only covered by the Act if it is "held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature". It falls short of stating explicitly that journalism, art and literature information is exempt, although this is the interpretation the BBC has adopted to sidestep barbed requests. Furthermore the definition of journalism, art and literature is whatever the BBC wants to make of it.

As a consequence of their loose interpretation of journalism, art and literature the BBC is able to avoid blushes by sweeping perfectly legitimate and well intended information requests under the carpet. A good example is a recently refused request asking for the total cost of vehicles damaged for entertainment purposes during the filming of Top Gear.

One FOIA request the BBC was gracious enough to respond to reveals the following alarming statistics:

In 2008/09 the BBC rejected 52% of all FOIA requests citing their interpretation of journalism, art and literature.
In 2009/10 the rejection rate was 50%.
In 2010/11 the rejection rate was 49%.

The BBC evidently has that many skeletons in its closet that it sticks two fingers up to every second person making an FOIA request. I find that quite worrying.

You might find our previous article about the BBC's disappearing FOIA archive interesting too.

Common TV Licensing Misconceptions: Equipment Ownership

2011-08-04T15:21:00.000-07:00

One of the main reasons we started this blog was to remove the mystique behind the TV licence system.

One popular misconception, often quoted by ill-informed Beeboids peddling their immoral wares on the Digital Spy forums, is that mere ownership of television receiving or recording equipment requires a TV licence. To put not to fine a point on it, that claim is bollocks. However, it is not in the BBC's interests to clarify the situation so you will struggle to find it documented in any of their official material.

Perhaps the closest you'll get is on this page, where it says: "You don’t need a TV Licence to own or possess a television set. However, if you use it to watch programmes as they are being shown on TV then you need a TV Licence in order to do so."

There are a whole myriad of entirely lawful reasons why someone might possess TV receiving or recording equipment without a TV licence. For example, it is perfectly legal to use a television set as a monitor to play video games, DVDs or even view non-live content from TV catchup services. It is perfectly legal to use a DVD or video recorder (if they still exist) to capture images from a CCTV system. Even though the equipment is capable of being used for a licensable purpose, there is no legal assumption it will be.

The same is true of PC ownership. In this day and age live-streamed TV programmes are only a few mouse clicks across the web, yet it is unreasonable to assume people install a PC solely for viewing them. I suggest that watching TV online isn't even a consideration when purchasing a PC, with all the other software and hardware features available. Consequently there is no legal requirement to have a TV licence just to own a PC.

As we keep on reinforcing on this blog: The law requires that a licence is obtained for any device that is "installed or used" for "receiving or recording a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public".

If you don't have equipment installed or used for that purpose then you do not require a licence and are entitled to enjoy life without the stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's employees and correspondence.

Please feel free to share our article with others.

Rapid Fire: 10 Common TV Licensing Questions and Answers #2

2011-08-04T04:04:00.000-07:00

As regular readers will know, I frequently browse the internet looking for TV Licensing related articles and trivia. Every day someone has a new take on what the TV licence fee is, what it's for and how it's enforced.

Today we present our second installment in the "Rapid Fire" series of posts, where we endeavour to remove the mystique surrounding TV licence rules and regulations.

Before we begin you might find it useful to consult our earlier Rapid Fire post.

1. What happens if you don't have a TV licence?

Ans: TV Licensing, with their ever-expanding database of intrusive information, will know if your address is unlicensed. They will seek to establish the reason why by sending you a series of letters, dubbed threatograms, each one more menacing than the previous. As a genuine non-TV user you are not obliged to reply to these letters and we recommend you do not. Some people reply in the mistaken belief it will get TV Licensing off their back. It doesn't, so there's no point in wasting your time.

2. Do I need to let TV Licensing into my property?

Ans: Not unless they have a search warrant. You should only be concerned about this if you are actually using a TV without a licence.

Obtaining a search warrant, if done correctly (not always), requires TV Licensing to jump through certain legal hoops. It should be an action of last resort, when all reasonable attempts to visit the property voluntarily have been expended. For this reason they will never turn up with a warrant on a first visit.

3. What type of equipment do retailers need to notify TV Licensing about?

Ans: Retailers are legally obliged to inform the Licensing Authority, the BBC, of the sale or rental of all TV receiving or recording equipment. This includes things like TV sets, DVD recorders, Freeview or Sky boxes and computer TV tuner cards. It does not include DVD players, because they are unable to record live TV signals.

In practice a lot of retail staff are unsure of the law, so it's not uncommon for them to collect customer details when they sell DVD players, TV remote controls or even SCART leads. We have heard staff at Argos and Tesco are particularly ill-informed.

Retailers face a £1,000 fine for each piece of equipment they fail to notify to the Licensing Authority.

4. Could I refuse to give my details to shop staff when I buy TV equipment?

Ans: Yes, you could. However, they could equally refuse to sell you the equipment if you don't.

The legal onus is on the retailer to collect and report information to the Licensing Authority. There is no legal onus on the customer to provide the correct information. TV Licensing has admitted to using fake names and signatures on their correspondence for security reasons, so you are equally justified in doing the same at the point of sale. Remember that TV Licensing employs crooks who abuse people's personal information.

5. What are TV Licensing's detection methods?

Ans: The BBC point blank refuses to divulge information about TV Licensing's detection methods, because the information could help licence fee evaders.

Licence fee evaders are detected in three ways:

- They are caught in the act of watching or recording live broadcast TV programmes in an unlicensed property.

- They admit to watching or recording live broadcast TV programmes in an unlicensed property.

- A search of their unlicensed property reveals equipment installed and used for receiving or recording live broadcast TV programmes.

6. What about detector vans?

Ans: TV detector vans are an interesting topic. The BBC, very begrudgingly, has told us that they have never presented detector van evidence in court during the prosecution of an alleged licence fee evader. Furthermore, the BBC designs and manufactures all its own detection equipment, which it refuses to patent because in doing so they would reveal their secrets.

A lot of people have speculated that the BBC is scared of presenting detector van evidence in court because their technology would be open to public scrutiny and proven unreliable. Make no mistake that their detection technology wouldn't stand up to peer review, as confirmed by TV Licensing half wit Chris Christophorou in this statement.

7. What exactly does 97% confidence of a possible TV broadcast mean?

Ans: It is a meaningless value, concocted by TV Licensing to add credence to their spurious TV detector claims. I am 97% sure that I'll possibly be hit by lightning today.

8. Is a TV licence required for an iPod?

Ans: No. It is properties that are licensed and not equipment.

Just because you own equipment capable of receiving television programmes doesn't mean you need a TV licence. By the same token, just because you own a car doesn't mean you need a driving licence; just because you own a fishing rod doesn't mean you need a rod licence.

If you use any personal electronic equipment to watch or record live broadcast TV programmes then the property you're in should be correctly licensed. Remember that the TV licence of your usual residence will cover the use of battery powered equipment elsewhere.

9. Do licence fee evaders get sent to prison?

Ans: No. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000, although we don't think anyone has ever been fined that much. The normal penalty is a fine of £100-150.

People can end up being sent to prison if they default on paying their TV licence fines.

10. Why is this blog encouraging people to break TV licence law?

Ans: We are not. We have been clear from the outset that any property where equipment is used to receive or record live broadcast TV programmes should be correctly licensed.

If you do not use TV receiving or recording equipment then TV Licensing has no business with you. In these cases you have the right to enjoy the comfort of your home without fear of intimidation and harassment by TV Licensing correspondence and employees.

TV Licensing Internet Detection

2011-07-30T05:03:00.000-07:00

Viewing this month's visit stats I noticed that one of the top queries on Google is "can TV Licensing tell if you're watching programmes online?"

The short answer is not unless one of their employees physically catches you in the act.

TV Licensing is widely despised for the way it deals with non-licence holders, however legitimate their licence-free status might be. The only way they could possibly "detect" people watching TV on the internet is if the internet service providers (ISPs) provided them with information about the browsing habits of their customers.

Understandably the ISPs refuse to divulge that information, because doing so would be both illegal and immoral. It would also make terrible business sense, because who would want to deal with an ISP that gossipped about the private business of its customers?

The BBC has previously disclosed to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it has secured the conviction of unlicensed online viewers, but has also admitted it doesn't have any special strategies for detecting such viewers. It therefore follows that, in common with all other TV Licensing prosecutions, evidence has been obtained directly from the viewer, either by way of an incriminating statement or the direct observation of an offence being committed.

Remember that a TV licence is only required for properties where equipment is "installed or used" for "receiving or recording a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public". It is perfectly legal to watch non-live catchup services without a TV licence, including previously shown programmes on the BBC iPlayer.

Remember these key points when dealing with TV Licensing:

You are not legally obliged to respond to any of their intimidatory and deceitful mailings and we recommend you don't. If you tell them anything they could potentially use it against you later on.
You do not need to say anything to them and we strongly recommend you don't. Simply close the door or put down the telephone on their employees. Do not be fooled into thinking these people have more legal rights than they actually do, however much they pretend otherwise.
Visiting TV Licensing employees should always identify themselves when asked to. Unless they are executing a search warrant they should always leave when requested
TV Licensing employees have no legal right to enter your property without invitation, unless they have a search warrant. Search warrants are difficult to obtain if TV Licensing follow the correct legal procedures, so they will never have one on a first visit.

Should you be correctly licensed and wish to enjoy watching TV online then we can recommend TV Catchup. Again, this service provides no information whatsoever to TV Licensing.

Happy online viewing!

Government Plans Overhaul of Archaic TV Licensing Rules

2011-07-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

Oops... someone accidentally presses publish at the

Guardian (image courtesy of Google's cache).

The Guardian inadvertently reported earlier this evening that under new Government plans retailers will no longer be compelled to hand over customer's details to TV Licensing.

According to the paper's website, recently airbrushed after they noticed they'd accidentally breached an embargo on the story (which doesn't bother us), the Business Secretary Vince Cable is due to announce a bureaucratic tidying-up exercise that will see the abolition of two-thirds of regulations aimed at retailers.

Mr Cable hopes the Government's new Red Tape Challenge will liven up the high street. Speaking of the scheme he said: "There is a very serious confidence problem on the high street. Making the business environment more friendly will hopefully make a difference."

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that 160 retail regulations would disappear. Their plans also include an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, which currently obliges retailers to notify TV Licensing of any sales or rentals of television sets.

Keep checking the Guardian's website for more details, because I'm sure they'll rekindle the article sometime soon!

Lifting the Lid on TV Licensing's Pandora's Box

2011-07-22T08:37:00.000-07:00

Today, for the first time ever, we can reveal some of the innermost workings of TV Licensing's sinister and secretive television detector vans.

Capita Business Service's Chris Christophorou, acting on behalf of the BBC as Licensing Authority, applied to Canterbury Magistrates for a search warrant under Section 363(1) of the Communications Act 2003 on 28th June 2011.

In order to obtain that warrant Christophorou had to provide evidence to a Magistrate, on oath, that an offence was suspected at their target address. In doing so he revealed that TV Licensing's detection capabilities rely, at least in part, on light emitted from television receiving equipment.

We consider the science behind the BBC's TV detection equipment to be very dubious indeed - a stance further reinforced by Christophorou's admissions below. We are exposing it for public scrutiny, because of the distinct possibility it has been given undue evidential weight when TV Licensing apply for search warrants. We feel even more of a duty to share this information in the week the transparency, accountability and lawfulness of the entire UK media has been brought into focus.

Below is the complete text of the sworn statement Christophorou gave Magistrates on 28th June 2011:

______________________________________________________________

THE INFORMATION of Chris Christophorou, this being his deposition in support thereof, is taken on oath this 28th June 2011 before me the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace for Canterbury Magistrates Court, on an application for a search warrant authorising any employee of Capita Business Service Ltd, authorised on this behalf by the British Broadcasting Corporation, with or without constables, to enter the premises at [REDACTED](herein referred to as “the Premises”) at any time within one month of the date of the warrant and to examine and test any television receiving equipment found there.

AND the said Chris Christophorou upon his oath says:

1. I am employed by Capita Business Services Ltd and apply for a Warrant under Section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to enter and search the Premises and to examine and test any television receiving equipment found therein and I produce a copy of the authority of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

2. In a letter from “The Legal Occupier” dated 10th August 2010 the correspondent stated that they did not have a television set at his Premises and that as a result of a number of TV Licensing enquiries he was withdrawing the common law right for TV Licensing officers to visit the Premises: “This letter denotes prior written warning that such a visit will constitute trespass and harassment, and that I am withdrawing the implied right of access to my property…”. The correspondent added further that they were under no legal obligation to add a name and would not be doing so.

3. A response was sent from the TV Licensing (Customer Relations) Department on the 19th August 2010 acknowledging the request but pointing out that TV Licensing reserve the right to use other methods of enquiry to ascertain the licensing situation.

4. It was decided to seek permission to use television detector equipment to see if it would provide an indication that a television receiver was being used at the Premises. An authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2000 was sought and granted for the use of a detector van at the Premises.

5. A television display generates light at specific frequencies. Some of that light escapes through windows usually after being reflected from one or more walls in the room in which the television is situated. The optical detector in the detector van uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is returned. The device gives a confidence factor in percentage terms, which is determined by the strength of the signal received by the detection equipment and confirms whether or not the source of the signal is a “possible broadcast”.

6. On the 31st March 2011 at 18.36 hours the detector van was positioned near the Premises. When the detector camera was pointed at the window of the Premises a positive signal was received indicating a TV receiver was in use receiving a possible broadcast with a confidence factor of 97%. A television aerial and satellite dish was also seen affixed to the Premises.

7. A letter was subsequently sent to “The Legal Occupier” at the said Premises on 10th April 2011 advising that TV Licensing had recently obtained information providing us with reasonable grounds to believe that TV receiving equipment was being used on the Premises and advising that if a licence was not obtained then a search warrant will be applied for.

8. At no time during this period was there a record of a television licence in respect of the Premises. In the circumstances it is believed that television-receiving equipment is in use at the Premises. As stated the occupier has been sent a letter urging them to buy a licence and warning them that a search warrant would be applied for if they failed to do so. Television Licensing records reveal no trace of a current television licence held by any person authorising the use of television receiving equipment at the Premises.

9. From the information I have been provided with, there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under section 363(1) and (2) of the Communications Act 2003, is being or has been committed at the Premises, that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found at the Premises and that it is necessary to apply to the Court for a Warrant under section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to search the Premises and test any television receiving equipment found there.

10. The request for a search warrant is a last resort. All other reasonable methods of obtaining evidence have been exhausted.

11. The issue of a warrant in these circumstances is a necessary and proportionate measure. Entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced.

TAKEN and SWORN this 28th June 2011

Before me the undersigned

A Justice of the Peace for Canterbury Magistrates Court.

______________________________________________________________

From the BBC's previous response to our FOIA requests we know all too well that TV Licensing employees are not adverse to criminal activities. Assuming Christophorou's evidence, particularly point 5 above, is an honest representation of how detector vans work then it's no wonder the BBC wants to keep their technology under wraps. In a nutshell they're employing bad science, possibly to baffle non-scientifically minded Magistrates into granting search warrants.

Are we meant to believe that their detection equipment can filter light from a TV set from all the other light sources in a property, despite it being reflected from several walls and refracted through several different media? It can do this when a lens is focused on a window, perhaps at an angle, perhaps with curtains and blinds fitted, perhaps with double glazing?

Handheld TV detection equipment?

Even if the technology does work, highly implausible as that seems, it can only detect a "possible broadcast" is being received. My understanding of English is such that even with a confidence factor of 100% that a "possible broadcast" is being received, that's no proof that an "actual broadcast" is.

I detect big time bullshit with 100% confidence factor.

Please forward our article to as many engineers and physicists as you know, because I'm sure they'll say the same thing.

TVL Mouthpiece Mark Whitehouse on Stuart Linnell Show

2011-07-10T16:45:00.000-07:00

TV Licensing propaganda merchant Mark Whitehouse featured on BBC Radio Northampton's Stuart Linnell show on 4th July 2011.

Here's a transcript of everything he had to say:

SL: “It’s 1:22 pm. Mark Whitehouse is a regional spokesman for TV Licensing, joins us on the line. Hello Mark.”

MW: “Stuart, good afternoon.”

SL: “TV Licensing is something that can be a bit of a controversial topic sometimes, but it’s something we pay for to make sure that the BBC is paid for at the end of the day, I suppose. But people do need a licence in what circumstances Mark?”

MW: “Well the law is very simple and very clear Stuart. If you’re going to be watching or recording programmes as they’re being shown on TV then you do need to be correctly licensed.

“Now, you’ll know that people’s chosen preference in terms of viewing has changed over the years. I can still remember huddling around the colour set, our first colour set we had as kids in the 1970s, watching the World Cup.”

SL “Mark, Mark, Mark – I can remember huddling around a black & white set, never mind colour.”

MW: “Ahh, there you are. Interesting you say that actually, because you’ll know that there are still quite a few in force. Around 20,500 black & white licences in force right across the UK. Some people just simply still prefer that method of watching even though they can watch now on mobiles, hand-helds, watch in 3D, what have you.”

SL: “And if I am watching on a mobile, on an iPad, on a laptop or whatever do I still need a licence?”

MW: “Well, however people watch TV they require a licence if they’re watching programmes as they’re being broadcast. Now, around 97% of homes have TV Stuart. The vast majority of those are correctly licensed, so they will be covered for watching online or watching on mobile by their existing licence.

“The vast majority of people continue to watch TV on a TV set. We did some research earlier this year that says that despite the fact that people can now watch in many different ways people still prefer, at the end of a long day’s work or at the end of a long day’s school or university, to kick back and watch TV from the sofa with their family in the traditional way.”

SL: “So you say that if you’re watching a programme and you’re watching it as it is being broadcast then you need a licence? In what circumstances would you not need a licence then?”

MW: “Well, for instance if you’re watching purely on catch-up, so say you’re downloading an episode of Eastenders and you’re watching that at a later date or you’re watching a programme that can be downloaded at a later date, then you wouldn’t need to be licensed if you were only watching programmes at a later date.

“Now, you’ll know that people watch on laptops, watch on PCs. Now, part of the work that we do is encouraging businesses to make sure that they’re correctly licensed for instance, because if people are going to be watching, as they have been doing, the Wimbledon fortnight over the last couple of weeks or forthcoming British Grand Prix or what have you then we just need to make sure that people enjoy their TV and they don’t run the risk of not having a licence when they need one.”

SL: “And if you are a business, we’ve recently spoken to hairdressers about their PRS and PPL licences to play music, if you are a business with television on in your hairdresser’s salon or your dentist’s surgery or whatever it happens to be, because let’s face it they are businesses just the same as anybody else, do you need PRS and PPL licences as well as your TV licence?”

MW: “No. You just need a TV licence in those circumstances. Once again the law’s very clear in terms of businesses. There are some nuances, some differences in how businesses set up and I would encourage people if they do have specific questions Stuart to visit us at www.tvlicensing.co.uk. We’ve got a whole section there in terms of questions and answers, because as you’d imagine people do ask us many weird and wonderful questions around their obligations in terms of the TV licence.”

SL: “And if you want to ask Mark a question while he’s on with us: 01604 234455. We’ve only got him for a couple more minutes so be quick if you want to ask him a question about TV Licensing. You can send it by text if you want to 81333, put “North” in front of you message. The number is 01604 234455.

“We had one in earlier from somebody who asked us Mark if they had a TV licence and they normally watch their television programmes on, let’s say an iPad, so it’s a mobile device, and they go to somebody else’s house, and that somebody else does not have a TV licence, are they covered because they do?”

MW: “If they’re only watching it powered by battery Stuart then they would be covered from their home address. When they plug it in at that other premises, and people would usually have to plug them in to watch them for any length of time, then that premises would need to be licensed.”

SL: “Right. So, so that’s interesting. So, in other words, person X has an iPad or a mobile phone and they watch their television programmes as broadcast on that and they have a licence. They go to somebody else’s house and the minute that they plug into the mains then that house needs a licence?”

MW: “That’s correct and we do want people to be very clear and to understand what their obligations are, and we want people to genuinely enjoy what they’re watching and not have to worry about what they’re watching or whether or not they are correctly licensed. The law’s very simple and clear, but yes if you’re watching for any period of time on an iPad for instance you would generally need to plug the device in. If you’re plugging it in in a premises that is not licensed then you do need to make sure what all the circumstances are and if the premises isn’t licensed then you could be in for a fine.”

SL: “Why the difference then Mark in that? What is the difference between watching it off its own battery power or plugging it into the mains?”

MW: “Well again, it’s watching it for any period of time. People would tend to have to plug in a device such as an iPad, as you say, to watch it for any period of time. We just want people to be clear in terms of their obligations and if they are watching or recording programmes as they are being shown on the telly then they do need to be correctly licensed.”

SL: “Okay, and if someone says look I don’t need a licence because I only ever watch programmes on a catch-up service, as you say, recorded, I’m not watching them at the moment they’re being broadcast, how can you prove that one way or the other?”

MW: “We do have a database of 30 million addresses across the UK and we do have the latest technology at our disposal in terms of finding out whether or not people are correctly licensed. We have enquiry officers, we have detector vans out there on the streets of the East Midlands and Northamptonshire and again if people are concerned in any way about their individual circumstances visit us on the website, but in those circumstances we would simply perhaps write to a premises to find out what their circumstances are. We may then follow that up with a visit at some point just to check that the circumstances are as the people say and to ensure they’re not troubled for any period of time.”

SL: “And your detector van tells you what? That there’s someone in that particular property watching television?”

MW: “The detector van can tell us which room someone is watching programmes in.”

SL: “Can it even work out which channel they’re watching?”

MW: “It doesn’t tell us what they’re watching but it tells us which room they’re watching it in, and we can tell that in as little as 20 seconds. Again, we’re keen people don’t take that risk. We’re keen that people do realise their obligations and don’t run the risk being caught watching telly if they’re unlicensed.”

SL: “Your detector van obviously itself doesn’t tell you though whether they have a licence or not? Presumably what you then do is check them on your database?”

MW: “Yes, there is a database of 30 million addresses, which tells us precisely which address is licensed and which isn’t, and again that’s amongst Europe’s largest databases of addresses Stuart, so again we do have that at our disposal if we need to check against individual addresses.”

SL: “So the simple answer is buy a licence if you’re going to watch television in real time and if you’re not at all sure, if you want to ask the question, what’s your website again?”

MW: “It’s www.tvlicensing.co.uk. People can contact us by more traditional methods as well Stuart, by the phone and such like. All our contact details are on the website.”

SL: “What’s the phone number Mark, if they want to contact you that way?”

MW: “If they want to contact us by phone it’s 0300 790 6112.”

SL: “0300 790 6112 or tvlicensing.co.uk.”

MW: “You’ve got it.”

SL: “Mark, thank you very much for your time. Thank you indeed.”

Bristol in Our Database

2011-07-10T12:44:00.000-07:00

Viewing those despicable TV Licensing "database" billboard posters earlier today I came over all creative.

It's amazing what you can do in half an hour with Google Maps and a couple of free fonts. The BBC probably squandered thousands of pounds worth of licence-fee-payers money achieving pretty much the same result.

Here's what I managed to rustle up.

Feel free to post elsewhere.

TV Licensing Goon Skool

2011-07-09T07:49:00.000-07:00

Secret images obtained from the initial training of TV Licensing field operatives.

The BBC's state of the art learning resources equip TV Licensing employees with the skills needed to use an A-to-Z, read street signs, bang on doors, intimidate pensioners and threaten people (who probably don't need a TV licence) with search warrants.

Today the Murdoch empire crumbles.

Tomorrow the BBC and their despicable bastard offshoot TV Licensing will still be in our line of fire.

TV Licensing and Laptop Usage

2011-06-26T14:42:00.000-07:00

Given TV Licensing's habit of posting half-truths it's hardly surprising that I'm posting a clarification this evening.

The good people of The Student Room forums still seem a little confused about the rules regarding the use of laptops to view television.

The rules are thus:

- A licence is required for any property where equipment is installed or used to receive or record live (as broadcast) TV programmes. This means watching live TV on your laptop requires a licence.

- However, if you are using a device operating on its own internal battery (e.g. an unplugged laptop) then the licence of your usual residence will cover you. For students, this means that if your home address has a valid TV licence you will be able to use your unplugged laptop to watch live TV perfectly legally whilst at university.

- Watching pre-recorded media of any description, including that from catch up services like the BBC iPlayer and 4oD, does not require a licence at all.

I hope that improves people's understanding of the situation.

TV Licensing Drip Feed Misinformation

2011-06-26T03:55:00.000-07:00

I was browsing cyberspace as I often do in the pursuit of TV Licensing related articles and I happened across the Yahoo! Answers site.

For those unfamiliar with it, as I was until recently, it allows people to pose questions for others to answer. People can also vote on suggested answers to show their agreement or otherwise. Quite alarming is the number of Yahoo! Answers members who have become "experts" by providing dubious information to say the least.

One question in particular drew my attention: "Do I want to pay TV licence fee if I go to www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer to watch recorded programs?" Excuse the poor sentence structure, as originally posted by the questioner.

The last words of the question, underlined by me, make it perfectly clear that the questioner wants to watch pre-recorded programmes on the iPlayer, which definitely does not require a TV licence. The top answer therefore provides incorrect information so please give it a thumbs down if you can.

Remember that a TV licence is only required where equipment is used to receive or record live (as broadcast) television signals. A licence is not required for viewing pre-recorded media of any description.

I am pretty confident there are undercover BBC employees posting misinformation on sites like Yahoo! Answers, with the intention of deceiving people into paying for a licence they do not need.

Coincidentally, a comment left here earlier reinforces the idea that TV Licensing are deliberately economical with the truth when it comes to the legalities of when a licence is required.

The commenter said: "I have just had an interesting conversation with someone who is a magistrate. It appears that the guidance they are given means that they are directed to find people guilty of licence evasion even if the person up in front of them in court is simply in POSSESSION of a TV, although there is no evidence of the person WATCHING TV without a licence."

If true that is absolutely scandalous. In effect it means innocent people are being convicted of an offence they have not committed.

Another Brace of TV Licensing Crooks

2011-06-25T12:46:00.000-07:00

Following the BBC's half-arsed response to our recent Freedom of Information Act request about the criminality of TV Licensing employees, we thought we'd throw two more names into the mix.

You might remember BBC legal adviser Dan McGregor said he couldn't reveal the names, because such personal information was exempt under the FOIA. Today we have no hesitation in naming two more TV Licensing crooks who have swindled money in the course of their official duties.

Step forward Kevin Hamilton of Newton Heath, Greater Manchester and Oluwagbenga Olaniyan of Gravesend, Kent.

Hamilton stole £3,000 worth of cash payments taken in his role as a TV Licensing enquiry officer, working for Capita Business Services Ltd. His fraud was uncovered when one of his victims complained that she hadn't received her TV licence despite having paid for it weeks earlier. In a desperate bid to avoid detection Hamilton falsely claimed his receipt book and cash were stolen during a mugging, which he even reported to the police. Hamilton was convicted of fraud at Manchester Crown Court in May 2010.

Olaniyan fabricated interview records, because he was struggling to meet stiff performance targets demanding that TV Licensing enquiry officers catch at least one evader every hour. Fearing the loss of his £16,000 a year job with Capita Business Services Ltd. the father of four decided to create some incriminating interview statements, thus bumping up his success rate. The deceit was uncovered when one of Olaniyan's randomly selected victims complained about being summoned to court when she didn't even have a television. Olaniyan was convicted of four counts of false accounting and one of perverting the course of justice at Maidstone Crown Court in October 2008.

That's now four down with seven to go.

Stay tuned for the next gripping instalment of TV Licensing name and shame.

The Nerve

2011-06-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

Can you believe the cheek of these bastards?

Fergus Reid, TV Licensing PR mouthpiece, has the audacity to sign up to our email subscriptions: fergus.reid@smarts.co.uk

It must be a right hoot reading everything we write here Fergus, particularly as we're always very careful to back it up with supporting material.

Spambots do your worst!

Criminal TV Licensing Employees

2011-06-24T09:25:00.000-07:00

The BBC has revealed that eleven TV Licensing enquiry officers have been convicted of criminal offences committed in the course of their employment since 2005.

The shocking revelation comes a month after our dogged pursuit of the BBC forced them to admit for the first time that TV detector van evidence has never been used in court.

Using the Freedom of Information Act we asked the BBC to identify those TV Licensing employees convicted of criminal wrongdoing in the pursuit of their official TVL duties. Cheekily we aired some of the BBC's dirty linen in public by using the request as a further platform to shame two of the BBC's most irrepressible TV Licensing crooks - David Clark and Richard Llewellyn.

Replying to our request for information, BBC legal advisor Dan McGregor said: "In addition to the two individuals you have identified in your request, nine TV Licensing enquiry officers have been convicted of criminal offences committed during the course of their TV licensing (sic) duties.

"All nine convictions were for fraud / theft related offences. I would note that TV licensing (sic) employs a large number of enquiry officers and that these nine individuals (together with the two you have identified) therefore represent a very small proportion of the total group. Further, I would note that the criminal activity of each of these individuals was discovered by TV Licensing itself through the use of robust fraud auditing processes."

Unfortunately McGregor refused to name and shame the other TV Licensing convicts, citing data protection exemptions to the FOIA. As we understand it those convicted of criminal activity lose their right to anonymity, although this is not a point of law we consider necessary to pursue on this occasion.

That said people have the right to know who these convicted TV Licensing scumbags are, so we reserve the right to use alternative identification methods.

And we will.

TV Licensing - Extorting the Non-TV Viewing Public

2011-06-14T11:17:00.000-07:00

Those who have read the welcome page will know that I've considered TV Licensing an utterly odious organisation since my student days.

Back then I didn't possess a TV. Taking my first tentative steps into the big wide world I wasn't knowledgeable about TVL's despicable modus operandi, so I made the mistake of declaring my TV-free status to them. It got me nowhere. The incessant stream of red-daubed envelopes and intimidation continued. I, like many others, had been hoodwinked into believing TV Licensing had some authority and legal standing over me - even as someone who never used a TV.

Step forward more than a decade and little has changed in that respect. The arrogance of TV Licensing is still such that they consider it acceptable to smear and terrorise law abiding individuals in their own homes.

A reader of mine has sent me his thoughts on how TV Licensing's actions border on the brink of illegality:

______________________________________________________________

A letter that demands money that you owe is called a "Final Demand". Such a letter may outline the consequences of not paying the debt and, as threatening as it may seem, it is perfectly within the law to do so.

A letter that demands money you do not owe is, at best, an error. If it is not an error and is sent on the assumption that you will feel sufficiently intimidated to pay even if you owe nothing, it is called "extortion" if successful and "attempted extortion" if unsuccessful. Either way, it is a crime.

The letters from TV Licensing do not clearly state the circumstances under which a licence is not required. The letters never acknowledge the possibility, for example, that you may not possess a TV. It acknowledges that (a) you may have paid within the last few days or (b) you may have forgotten to pay or (c) you may have moved and forgotten to notify them of your new address. The limited options presented in the letters are pay up or face the consequences and a £1000 fine.

1. The threats:

Visit from an "Enforcement Officer":

You are threatened with a visit from an "enforcement officer". The only official role of enforcement officer is held by the police. The TV Licensing "enforcement officer" has no powers of enforcement whatsoever. The letter never states the limitations of the "enforcement officer's" powers, largely because they have no power other than that of an ordinary citizen. They cannot demand right of entry into your property to establish whether or not you own a TV, they cannot demand money from you and they cannot issue any threats of any kind unless they have evidence that you are using a TV. It is not your responsibility to provide evidence that you do not own a TV. It is their responsibility to provide evidence that you do. If they attempt to enter your property or misinform you that you are obliged to grant them access, they have committed a crime. If they threaten you with a fine if you fail to provide evidence that you do not own a TV, they have committed a crime. If they demand any kind of payment, they have committed a crime.

£1000 fine:

The letter may imply that you could become liable for a £1000 fine simply for not purchasing a TV licence (regardless of whether or not you own a TV). You can only be fined if you are watching TV without a licence and, as already stated, you are under no obligation to provide evidence that you do not own a TV. You are not even legally obliged to inform them that you do not own a TV. The onus is 100% on TV Licensing to (a) establish whether or not you are watching TV without a licence and (b) to provide evidence that you are watching TV without a licence.

Criminal record:

You will be told that you will not only incur a fine but you will also have a criminal record. This is only the case if you have actually committed a crime.

2. The demands:

The letters do not state your legal rights, do not clearly state the circumstances under which a licence is not required and do not even acknowledge any circumstances under which a licence is not required. The letter simply demands that you purchase a licence. This is attempted extortion and should be challenged through the courts.

Neither you nor I could legally send demands for money to random addresses on the off-chance that they may owe you money. If you do so... particularly if you also issue threats... without sufficient evidence or reason to believe that the recipient actually does owe you money, you are breaking the law. TV Licensing are not above the law and they must be challenged on this bullying scam through the courts.

This could conceivably be done by one person but it would be more effective, and would attract more embarrassing press interest if it were done by a large group of people. I successfully put a stop to the threatening letters by stating that I would regard any further letters of this nature as attempted extortion and would be challenging it through the courts. Although TV Licensing state that, if you can satisfy them that you do not own a TV, you will be exempt from receiving these letters for two years, I have not heard from them for over four years and do not expect to hear from them again. Clearly, they are aware of the legal fragility of their position. However, personally, I don't have a case because they don't send me the letters anymore.

So, if a challenge were to be pursued, it must be done by those who (a) do not own a TV and (b) are receiving regular threats from TV Licensing.

There are other circumstances such as people who continue to receive demands after they have already purchased a licence but these are the grey areas in which TV Licensing can claim "administrative error". To have a clear case of attempted extortion, it would be necessary to show that the plaintiffs are being targeted without any evidence or justifiable reason to believe that they own a TV and are able to show that they do not own a TV and that TV Licensing has no justifiable reason to suspect that they do own a TV.

There are almost bound to be a number of people who do not own a TV but have been sufficiently intimidated by the letters that they have purchased a licence they do not require. This would be particularly applicable to recent immigrants who do not fully understand the law. The letters state that "This address is not licensed" and that statement alone implies that anyone who has an address must be licensed. The letters imply that it is a criminal offense if your address is not licensed by TV Licensing. It would be an understandable error and certainly one that I might make if I were in a strange country.

I know for a fact that a great number of people in certain care homes purchase unnecessary licences. Many care homes provide residential units which are official addresses of the residents. Care home also usually have a communal area where a TV is situated. That TV is covered by the care home's licence. Only residents who have a TV in their own rooms need a separate licence and many don't bother because there is one in the communal area they can watch whenever they want.

Residents who do not have their own TV are sent these letters and, because they watch the communal TV, believe they are obliged to purchase a licence. Although they are told by care staff that they need not worry and can safely ignore the letter, many reason that they have a letter from an official authority stating that they are breaking the law and may face a £1000 fine, while they are being told by someone with no official authority whatsoever that they can ignore it. Many purchase a licence to be on the safe side. I know this to be the case because I have worked in such care homes.

Such people have a case for actual extortion.

A large court case would force the BBC to revise the way that licence fees are collected.

As long as we continue to confine ourselves to complaining but take no action, nothing will change. We can force change by taking action and forcing the law to work in our favour.

Let's either put a stop to it or put up with it but let's stop whining, shall we?

TV Licensing Lies, Deceit and Intimidation - Write to Watchdog!

2011-06-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

I quite like the BBC's Watchdog programme.

The idea of the little people squashing cheats, bullies and swindlers is quite appealing. The way their illegal or immoral actions are exposed to the entire nation fills me with a certain degree of satisfaction.

Then I thought: What better way to deal with TV Licensing then to set the BBC's Watchdog programme onto them?

I mean Watchdog likes nothing better than to challenge rogue organisations that harass and intimidate law-abiding individuals in the comfort of their own homes. Taking on TV Licensing, which regularly spits venom at genuine non-TV users by sending them threatograms, should be right up their alley.

So if you want to join my crusade please download this letter to Watchdog and send it to them:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?t14dbzwwunco8fj

It gives you a flavour of what you could write. It's a Word document so if necessary you can tailor it to your own needs. You can send it either by post (address on letter) or email: watchdog@bbc.co.uk

Please forward the link to as many people as you possibly can and spread the word. If you're a user of Digg, StumbleUpon, Facebook or Twitter all the better.

Together we can tackle the culture of TV Licensing lies, deceit and intimidation!

TV Licensing Operations Shortlist

2011-06-12T06:45:00.000-07:00

As many readers will know Capita Business Services Ltd. hold the contract to perform most of TV Licensing's dirty work.

To the untrained eye the BBC maintains a healthy distance from its ethically devoid TV Licensing arm. It wouldn't do for the nation's favourite broadcaster to send out threatograms and doorstep snoopers under their own name, hence the use of the TV Licensing trademark to maintain a shroud of mystique.

Make no mistake that TV Licensing's dubious tactics are sanctioned at the highest level of the BBC, who are well aware of the harassment and intimidation performed in the name of licence fee enforcement. Parliament has told them as much.

Capita's 12-year contract comes to an end in 2012.

The BBC has just announced that four companies have been shortlisted for the award of the new TV Licensing operations contract next year.

And the losers are: Accenture, Cap Gemini, Capita and IBM.

Pensioner Wrongly Hounded by TV Licensing

2011-06-11T09:34:00.000-07:00

TV Licensing have bombarded a Lincoln pensioner with over 60 threatening letters demanding payment of a fee he didn't owe.

Despite 66-year-old Graham Rawson's best efforts, it has taken him more than 4 years and countless telephone calls to convince the BBC's menacing TV licence enforcement arm of his correctly licensed status.

Graham has been paying the fee by Direct Debit, but an error on the TV Licensing database meant the organisation's trademark "threatograms" continued to land on his doormat every month.

To add substance to their hollow threats the maligned organisation even sent one of their enforcers to exert their own special brand of doorstep intimidation on the bemused former engineering machinist. Obviously looking for a quick and dishonest profit (like Richard Llewellyn et. al.) the TVL knuckle dragger even demanded that Graham handed over his TV.

Speaking to the Lincolnshire Echo, Graham said: "It has made me angry because you hear in the papers about these TV licence dodgers, but I have done nothing wrong.

"It makes you question how many other people have a licence but are being told they haven't. It could be very confusing for the people who are elderly or infirm."

TV Licensing PR spiv Mark Whitehouse tried to defend the organisation's continued unscrupulous tactics.

He said: "According to our records, Mr Rawson's address is correctly licensed. However, he has been receiving letters in error due to a duplicate address on our system. In addition we had an incorrect initial for his first name.

"We have now arranged for the second address to be deleted and have amended the detail of the initial. This means Mr Rawson will no longer receive letters saying he is not licensed.

"Unfortunately, with 25 million licences, errors can sometimes occur. We would urge anyone who is receiving mailings from us when they already have a licence to get in touch with us so we can check out the reasons."

Although as we've heard on countless occasions getting in touch with TV Licensing requires a ouija board at the best of times!

A Dyslexic TV Licensing Visitor Calls

2011-06-08T12:18:00.001-07:00

It's "Blogspot" you tool.

Hope you and your mates are enjoying our articles!

(PS. Don't expect the Beeb to renew your contract next year)

Withdrawing Implied Rights of Access - A Tutorial

2011-06-02T04:31:00.000-07:00

Regular readers will know already that when TV Licensing call on a property they have no more visiting rights than the milkman or window cleaner.

In fact, it is even possible to extinguish their negligible visiting rights by telling them you have withdrawn their implied right of access to your property.

TV Licensing officials are not always candid about their lack of authority. We know of many examples where their doorstep salesmen have threatened to fetch the law or return with a search warrant. What they actually do in these cases is skulk around the corner, jump into their clapped out Cortina and start blubbing that they lost their commission on that one.

It is important to note that an organisation as bumptious and arrogant as the BBC, that think they make the law, do not appreciate people asserting their lawful rights against the unwarranted attentions of TV Licensing. Anyone choosing to withdraw the implied right of access to their property is warned that it might serve to heighten TV Licensing's interest.

Most people who withdraw TV Licensing's implied right of access are at their wits end, having received years worth of accusatory letters, doorstep cold callers and telephone enquiries about their licence-free status.

Thanks to an emailed contribution by one of my readers, I guide you through the process of withdrawing TV Licensing's access rights.

Firstly, you write them a letter explaining that you are the legal occupier of such and such an address. You have suffered years worth of their harassment despite living a perfectly lawful TV-free existence. You resent the fact that TV Licensing coerce you into proving your innocence, despite them having no evidence whatsoever of your guilt. You also tell them that any visits to your property after the date of your instruction will constitute harassment and trespass, which you will not hesitate to seek legal redress for through the courts. Here is the letter that my contributor sent to TV Licensing:

Secondly, you await their response. This being TV Licensing, operating on behalf of a legally arrogant and bumptious organisation like the BBC, they will undoubtedly attempt to bullshit you into providing your name. You should never do that. Your instruction is equally valid without providing a name. If you give your name you are providing them with information they are not legally entitled to - information they will use against you later on. Do not tell them your name. Here are two examples of their response letter:

Thirdly, sit back and enjoy the TV-free comfort of your home without the worry of TV Licensing doorstep harassment. Because they churn out their shitty letters at such an alarming rate, there will probably be a couple in the system. Hopefully you'll get some respite from the letters too once your instruction has been drip fed to the pariahs sending them out.

If you've chosen to live in TV-free harmony then you are entitled to enjoy the comfort of your home without the harassment of TV Licensing. Tell the bastards nothing and you've nothing to fear.

Calling Ex-TV Licensing Employees

2011-05-31T12:27:00.000-07:00

Are you a former TV Licensing employee that wants to be reintegrated into society?

It's not going to be easy, given your previous association with one of the most unscrupulous organisations in Britain, but salvation is at hand.

Talk to us and all will be forgiven!

If you've previously worked for TV Licensing or one of their sub-contracted companies then we'd like to hear from you. Too often we have asked the BBC direct questions, which they have done their utmost to dodge using legalese and sleight of hand. We already know most of the answers, but would like to hear your inside story.

What strategies did you employ to catch licence fee evaders? How did your bosses encourage you to up your performance figures? What loopholes made the system work for you but not for the viewer?

If you're an ex-TV Licensing employee seeking rehabilitation then drop us a line at the email address on the sidebar.

TV Licensing Defectives Screw Up Again

2011-05-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

Well what d'ya know? Good ol' LASSy the database has screwed up again, with a correctly licensed pensioner couple being bombarded with TV Licensing's venomous, albeit hollow threat letters.

______________________________________________________________

The Lynn News reports:

A COUPLE who have been bombarded with warning letters about not having a television licence feel their "integrity is being challenged".

Norman Jelliman, 72, and his wife, Maureen, 69, have lived in Downham for eight years and have always had a television licence.

They first started receiving the letters from the Television Licensing Authority six years ago.

Since then the authority has sent Mr and Mrs Jelliman some 70 documents, including 12 law-enforcement letters.

Mr Jelliman said: "I feel my integrity is being challenged because I have never done anything dishonest in my life. We pay our bills and don’t have any debts. I don’t even have a speeding fine."

He said he thought the problem had been solved after a visit from an enforcement officer three weeks ago.

"At the end of it we shook hands and said it was the end of it, but to my horror I got another letter on Friday. I thought I’m not going through all of this again."

Since 2005 the couple have paid for their licence in monthly instalments by direct debit.

It was automatically renewed in February and cost £145.50.

Their warning letters are addressed to the "legal occupier", but the television licences are addressed to Mr and Mrs Jelliman.

The cul-de-sac where the couple live only has four houses, which share the same postcode.

This was one of the explanations for the warning letters given to the couple by the enforcement officer, according to Mr Jelliman.

The former Bank of England employee said the documents have become a "nuisance", and the most recent letter was the "final straw".

"I feel a lot of taxpayers’ money is being wasted."

Mr Jelliman added more vulnerable people could feel “intimidated” by similar correspondence.

The letters are sent on average each month in six monthly cycles.

At first the letters simply tell Mr and the Mrs Jelliman they do not have a licence and explains how they can buy one.

But the documents eventually become more severe, according to the couple.

The final letter in the cycle informs them an investigation will be taking place and they risk being taken to court, as well as facing a fine of up to £1,000.

After that correspondence from the licensing authority the cycle of letters starts again for another six months.

Mr Jelliman said: "We know nothing can happen to us because we have got our records and have paid for our licence."

A TV licensing spokesman said: "Our records show that Mr Jelliman is correctly licensed but has been receiving letters in error due to a duplicate address on our system. We have amended our records to remove this second address which will stop any future letters from TV Licensing being sent in error."

"With 25million licences, errors can sometimes occur. We would urge anyone who is receiving mailings from us when they already have a licence to get in touch with us so we can check out the reasons."

______________________________________________________________

I'd like to report that attempt to extort money from innocent people was exceptional behaviour for TV Licensing, but it's actually the norm as regular readers will know.

TV Licensing - we want your money whether you owe us or not.

What Happens When You Don't Buy A TV Licence?

2011-05-15T07:10:00.000-07:00

This post was originally written on the I Hate The Jeremy Vine Show blog, who have kindly agreed to us republishing it here:

We discuss today what happens when you don't buy a TV licence.

I am deliberately going to avoid the "is it a fee or a tax?" question, and whether the licence fee is justifiable, etc.

My research may be missing some elements, and so there are a lot of questions here. You will need to do some research into this topic.

The official and much-publicised line on not having a licence is that the TV Licensing Authority (aka TV Licensing, TVL, Capita) will take you to court and prosecute, but they have to do a lot of work to achieve this, and I wonder just at what point the case is filed under "too difficult" and conveniently forgotten.

Retailers of equipment that are capable of receiving television broadcasts are required BY LAW to provide TVL with personal information in the form of your name and address. However, there is no law that says that anybody paying with cash is required to give a correct address, and they cannot be traced through credit card details. Addresses with no TV licence are targeted and investigated by TVL, but how often do they actually do this?

TVL enforces the BBC's statutory obligation to ensure that every address where a television licence is required is correctly licensed, but its agents have no special rights and, like any other member of the public, rely on an implied right of access to reach the front door. The occupants of a visited property may deny an agent entry to the premises without cause and are under no obligation to answer any questions or enter into any conversation. If an agent has evidence that television is being watched or recorded illegally but is denied entry by the occupants so that (s)he cannot verify the suspicion without trespassing, then TV Licensing may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the use of such warrants is rare. The BBC states that a search warrant would never be applied for solely on the basis of non-cooperation with TV Licensing and that in the event of being denied access to unlicensed property will use detection equipment rather than a search warrant. The assumption by TVL is always "guilty until proved innocent" and in 2008 the BBC Trust launched an enquiry in to intimidating behaviour by TVL.

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) the law allows a fine of up to £1,000 be imposed on those successfully prosecuted and this figure is frequently publicised by TV Licensing to maximise deterrence. In reality, magistrates rarely impose the maximum fines allowed to them by law. During the year 2005-6, the average fine including costs was approximately £153, so only slightly more than the cost of a licence.

Moving further down the process... let's assume that TVL reckon that you have a working television in your home and one day there is a knock on the door. You open the door and the man from TVL introduces himself. Now, if you were to engage in conversation with him and/or invite him in to your home then they have succeeded in their task and they would attempt to sell you a licence and they may try a prosecution if you refused. However, what happens if you tell him to get off your property and close the door in his face? At that point he becomes no more important and has no more authority than a double-glazing salesman or peddler of religious virtues. If he leaves quietly then fair enough, but another visit will probably occur. If he does not leave and bangs on the door, shouts through the letterbox, etc., then he is then guilty of aggravated trespass. From what I can find a person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land. That, to me, describes the banging on the door situation exactly.

So, what happens next? The research I have done suggests: Not Much.

The visits may continue, but by not responding to such visits there is not a lot TVL can do. Warning (almost threatening) letters will also be sent, but they can be ignored.

There is a suggestion that only watching TV broadcasts that are not live (by using iPlayer on a computer, for example) does not require the viewer to hold a TV licence. The same is also said for broadcasts that originate wholly from a non-UK broadcaster and received by means of non-Sky satellite equipment. Has anybody tested this on court? If so, what was the outcome? [TV Licensing Blog Comment: This last sentence is incorrect. A television licence is required to watch/record live broadcast TV signals regardless of where in the world they originate]

I would LOVE to know what the conclusion to all this is, especially as I have read of people who have not bought a licence for 10 years or more.

If you go with this I promise I will listen. However, it will need you to:
- put your "BBC is sacrosanct" attitude to one side.
- do some research.
- report the truth.
- back it up with real facts.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php

TV Licensing: Chasing Non-Existent Debts

2011-05-15T03:22:00.000-07:00

During one of my regular trawls of cyberspace I came across a forum thread about TV Licensing debt collectors harassing fee payers.

Summarising the key points, the thread starter's previous TV licence expired on 30th September 2010 so TV Licensing, with the viewer's best interests at heart (not), put them on a monthly payment plan for their new licence. They paid £45 on 3rd December 2010, £52 on 3rd March 2011 and £48.50 on 23rd March 2011. That was the full £145.50 fee paid off... or so they thought.

Scroll forward a couple of weeks to April 2011 and TV Licensing were still after their pound of flesh. A few phone calls later and TV Licensing were threatening to send their debt collection agents, iQor, around to their door to scare them into compliance. Remember that TV Licensing had already received their £145.50, albeit in unusual instalments, and the property was now correctly licensed until 30th September 2011.

This story perfectly illustrates the problems of taking up a payment plan with TV Licensing. Most reputable, law-abiding organisations call off the debt collectors the moment a dispute is raised. The law actually requires that. TV Licensing, who think they are the law, again show their willingness to terrorise completely innocent people on their doorstep for a fee they don't owe.

The BBC and TV Licensing are a national disgrace. The quicker the new Government clip the pro-Labour BBC's wings the better.

TV Licensing: Truly Despicable Mailshot

2011-05-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

Not for the first time we have heard how innocent non-TV users are being terrorised in their homes by perhaps the most heinous TV Licensing letter so far.

The law requires that a licence is obtained for any device that is "installed or used" for "receiving or recording a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is by members of the public". If equipment isn't used for that purpose then the property does not need to be licensed - end of.

The BBC and TV Licensing would do well to re-read and understand that legislation, which was set in a plane well above their own. Unfortunately TV Licensing, with its misguided impression that no-one could possibly survive without televisual stimulation, tend to assume that anyone failing to pay the fee is an evader.

For anyone left in any doubt at all, the way the BBC and TV Licensing enforce the licence fee is truly despicable. As we have seen time and time again they hide behind legal jargon, half-truths and veiled threats to coerce licence fee payment, often where none is due. If you ask them any uncomfortable questions about the seemingly indiscriminate way they enforce the fee then they hide behind the law to avoid answering. This is despite the BBC Trust saying it would take action to temper TV Licensing's accusatory tone.

Imagine your elderly relatives, enjoying a perfectly legal TV-free existence, received a letter like this designed to put them at their wits' end. I for one would not be happy.

TV Licensing Coffin Dodger Visits

2011-04-29T11:32:00.000-07:00

"Excuse me sir. I'm from TV Licensing.

Do you have any windows I can lick?"

Thanks to the miracle that is YouTube I can bring you yet another example of TV Licensing doorstep intimidation and deceit.

The TV Licensing representative got more that he bargained for when the householder, well within his rights, answered the door with the camera rolling. As is often the case the TV Licensing representative recoiled in horror at the prospect of having his wrinkled face captured on film.

Despite being the person who initiated the unsolicited doorstep intrusion the TV Licensing vermin begins with "have you got a problem?" He slobbers a few more garbled words before retreating with TV Licensing's favourite hollow threat "I'll be back with a warrant."

Yeah, right. Parasite.

BBC Waive Licence Requirement for Royal Wedding

2011-04-20T15:38:00.000-07:00

The BBC has graciously decided to waive the requirement for a TV licence for community venues showing next week's Royal Wedding.

Village halls and community centres that do not already have a TV Licence will not be compelled to buy one to show the wedding next Friday.

A press release on the TV Licensing website explains: "The BBC has decided to offer local communities a special, one-off dispensation to mark the Royal Wedding on 29 April 2011. This allows communities organising celebratory events and parties in premises such as town halls, community centres and streets across Britain, where TV is not usually watched, to screen the Royal Wedding live without needing to purchase an additional licence to do so.

"By law, and in normal circumstance, if live television is viewed on any premises, these premises must be covered by a valid TV Licence. It is the property, rather than the television, that is licensed, so a separate licence would be needed if people were to use their TV sets/equipment to screen live TV at a different place to the licensed address.

"However, in exceptional circumstances, the BBC can grant a dispensation for the temporary use of TV sets away from the licensed address, so long as the TV is being used for the sole purpose of screening an event that is judged by the BBC to be of national importance. As the Royal Wedding is the marriage of the future heir to the throne and the day has been declared a national holiday, the BBC considers that the Royal Wedding is such an event."

Village halls across the land I urge you to take up the BBC's offer of showing the wedding licence-free.

BBC Confirm Detector Vans Never Used in Court

2011-04-01T13:05:00.000-07:00

Despite being very reluctant the BBC has finally confirmed what we all knew anyway - detector van/portable detector evidence has never been presented in court.

The revealing Freedom of Information Act response came after the BBC u-turned on their earlier decision to withhold the information under the law enforcement exemptions of the 2000 Act.

In their revised response, issued after an internal review found in our favour, Beeb Kiwi lawyer Dan McGregor says the following:

"I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court.

"You may be interested to understand why this is the situation. Under TVL’s current prosecution process the presentation of detection evidence in court is unnecessary. This is because TVL uses detection evidence when applying for search warrants. If, following service of the warrant an individual is found to be evading payment of the TV Licence, then the evidence obtained via the search warrant is used in court, not the detection evidence.

"It is worth noting that search warrants are only issued at the discretion of a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) in accordance with strict legal requirements. Detection evidence would be carefully considered by the magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) during the warrant application process.

"It does, of course, remain open to TVL to use detection evidence in court whenever it wishes in the future."

Given the fact they haven't used it so far, in the fifty-odd years the shit-scary (not) TV detector van has allegedly been in existence, it's pretty unlikely they'll be changing that habit.

Sadly the BBC's internal reviewer, James Leaton Gray, can't bring himself to admit what everyone reading this knows - the BBC had little option but to respond, given my warning that I would refer their obstruction to the Information Commissioner. If that had happened the Commissioner would have definitely ordered them to disclose the information in full given the huge valid public interest.

The full trail of my request can be found here.

(Edit: Our findings are being discussed in a lengthy thread on the Digital Spy forums)

Exclusive: Inside The TV Detector Van

2011-03-13T13:10:00.000-07:00

Pah, who was it that said TV detector vans were a myth concocted by the BBC to fool unsuspecting members of the public into buying a TV licence?

Who could believe the BBC, that shining beacon of ethical broadcasting, could employ such underhand tactics? Sure, they've made a few mistakes over the years - ripping off viewers by fixing telephone competitions, bankrolling the likes of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, employing the man who thumped Ron Sinclair - but surely they'd never fib about the existence of TV detector vans?

Well apparently not, as this photograph of a TV detector van proves once and for all.

According to my sources the inside of the vehicle is lined with a special type of plastic. It is a plastic so secret that even the people making it, who work in isolation from the outside world, don't know its true colour.

Furthermore, every surface of the van is covered with the BBC's patented "inverted dimple" technology, which allows for the amplification of detected TV signals. Specially designed by the BBC's crack squad of technicians, the "inverted dimples" enable TV Licensing field operatives to detect a TV remote control at 200 metres even when the batteries are flat.

And to think I was at the front of the queue saying it was all a big fat TV Licensing con... who'd have thought it?!

Edit: If you're reading this article then you might also like to see the article where we forced the BBC to confirm that evidence from their detector vans had NEVER been used in court.

Rapid Fire: 10 Common TV Licensing Questions and Answers

2011-03-12T03:29:00.000-08:00

A lot of the articles out there, particularly those in the local and national press, have actually been planted there by TV Licensing's PR agency Fishburn Hedges. As history has shown these agencies aren't particularly bothered about the accuracy of their press releases, because most idle journalists just print them without question.

You can check this yourself when the next tranche of TV Licensing press releases hit the papers. Quite often TV Licensing regurgitate the same articles over and over again, often with such arrogance they don't even bother to change the figures in them.

Take this example:

1. TV Licensing, via the Newcastle Journal, report that 210 people were caught licence dodging in the sleepy market town of Morpeth in 2010.

2. Coincidentally, via the Morpeth Herald, TV Licensing also report that 210 people were caught licence dodging in Morpeth in 2009.

The chances of exactly the same number of people being caught in consecutive years are pretty slim, I'm sure you'll agree.

Surfing cyberspace I'm guaranteed to see the same questions over and over again. In today's article I'm going to set the record straight on some of the most commonly asked TVL related questions.

1. Who administers the TV licensing fee?

Ans: The fee is set by the Government's Department for Culture Media and Sport. Administration, collection and enforcement of the fee is delegated to the Licensing Authority, which happens to be the BBC. The BBC sub-contract a lot of their licence fee work to private companies, operating under the umbrella of TV Licensing. TV Licensing is a BBC trademark. Capita Business Services Limited are the biggest private company undertaking TV Licensing work. They are responsible for the collection and enforcement of the fee. It is their representatives that harrass and intimidate genuine non-TV users on their doorsteps.

2. What is the fee used for?

Ans: The fee funds most public service broadcasting within the UK. The BBC claim their services are "uniquely funded" by the licence fee payer. That is another lie, because some licence fee revenue goes towards Welsh language broadcaster S4C. Channel 4, despite being a public service broadcaster, generates revenue via advertising. Channel 4 does not receive licence fee funding.

3. When do I need a TV licence?

Ans: The law requires that a licence is obtained for any device that is "installed or used" for "receiving or recording a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public". In practice it is the property that needs to be licensed and not the device.

4. So I can own a TV legally without a licence?

Ans: Absolutely correct.

This is where TV Licensing fact and fiction often become blurred. Because the BBC gets its money from licence fees, they have a vested interest in selling as many TV licences as possible. Akin to selling ice to eskimos, they're not bothered whether you need a licence or not. Furthermore, TV Licensing's employees receive bonuses for every licence they sell so it's hardly surprising that they sometimes "big up" the importance of having a licence.

In reality it is perfectly legal to own a TV without a licence as long as it is not installed and used to receive/record broadcast TV signals.

5. How can I use my TV legally without a licence?

Ans: You can use it for any purpose that isn't receiving/recording a live broadcast TV signal.

That would include as a monitor for a games console, CCTV or even to view non-live catch up TV services from the internet.

The BBC has also said that using a TV set to listen to digital radio services does not need a licence, although I would strongly suggest avoiding this.

6. Do I need a licence to watch/record foreign TV channels?

Ans: If you're watching/recording in realtime then unfortunately, yes you do.

7. Do I have to communicate with TV Licensing?

Ans: No.

You are under no legal obligation whatsoever to respond to their intimidatory mailings, telephone calls or visits. We strongly suggest ignoring all approaches by TV Licensing. Keep quiet, put the phone down or close the door on them.

If TV Licensing do visit your property they will often pretend to have more powers than they actually do. They do this because they really want that commission for selling you a licence you probably don't need. If they sense their commission slipping from grasp they often threaten to fetch the law. It's all bluster, designed to reinforce their imaginary sense of officialness. Don't fall for it and send them on their way.

8. But couldn't they get a search warrant?

Ans: You should only be concerned about this if you are committing an offence.

If they suspect you're watching/recording TV without a licence then they could obtain a warrant, but if they do things by the book (which they don't always) then there are certain legal hoops they need to jump through first.

A Magistrate would only grant a warrant if you had previously refused TV Licensing access voluntarily and they had significant evidence your were committing an offence.

If you don't watch/record TV then you can't possibly be committing an offence, so have nothing at all to worry about.

9. Have TV Licensing ever been caught breaking the rules?

Ans: Oh yes.

David Clark, who used to work for TV Licensing, thumped wheelchair bound Ron Sinclair on his doorstep as he was making enquiries. TV Licensing's Richard Llewellyn was convicted of falsifying visit records to fraudulently obtain commission payments.

These two convictions are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Incidentally, if you ask the BBC they deny both of these cases ever occurred.

10. Do detector vans exist?

Ans: The BBC say they do, although they refuse to confirm that TV detector evidence has ever been presented in court. The BBC also say they provide impartial news programming and represent good value for money. Draw your own conclusions.

Law Turned on TVL Enforcers

2011-03-05T16:01:00.000-08:00

Another great video has appeared on YouTube, showing just how impotent the average TVL Enforcement Officer really is.

The quasi-official TVL representative in question called on a property showing as unlicensed on their database. The householder, evidently wise to the miscreant's lack of authority, told him to leave the property. The TVL man, aggrieved his commission was slipping from grasp, threatened to call the police. That's quite a common threat, usually issued to reinforce the imaginary officialness TVL people think they operate under. Most TVL people, realising they have the same doorstep rights as a milkman, don't actually have the audacity to call the police.

After bursting TVL man's bubble the householder followed him from the property and captured video footage en-route to his car. Cameras always make TVL recoil faster than slugs facing a salt shaker, so he quickly sped away.

Some time later a police constable knocked on the same door, because TVL man had blubbed to the police like a toddler who'd had his favourite crayons stolen. The householder quickly demonstrates how little the police officer knows about the law, before she too scampers away with her pride dented.

The entire episode is captured below. I have also taken the liberty of downloading a back-up copy.

Incidentally, it is perfectly legal to film anyone or anything in a public place under English and Welsh law.

Evidence from TV Detection Equipment

2011-01-26T15:25:00.000-08:00

The Freedom of Information Act is becoming an increasingly important tool for probing the integrity of the BBC and TV Licensing.

Unfortunately the BBC, with it's vast army of otherwise unemployable lawyers, is pretty adept at dodging most potentially embarrassing questions fielded by members of the public. Unperturbed, I thought I'd try my hand at a new FOIA request on the subject of TV detection equipment.

It reads as follows:

"In previous FOI disclosures the BBC acknowledges the existence of TV detector vans and portable detection equipment.

"As this equipment is purchased with public funds, I believe the public has a valid interest in its effectiveness as an aid to the prosecution of TV licence evaders.

"Under the terms of the 2000 Act, please tell me whether or not evidence obtained by detector van/portable detection equipment has ever been presented in court during the prosecution of an alleged licence fee evader.

"In this case a simple yes or no answer will suffice."

I reasoned that the BBC could provide one of three possible responses:

1. Yes: Disclose that evidence from detection equipment has been presented in court: This option would contradict the idea that detector van evidence is a myth. It would reinforce the BBC's assertions that detection equipment was an effective weapon in the arsenal against licence fee evaders.

2. No: Disclose that evidence from detection equipment has never been presented in court: This option would reinforce the idea that detector van evidence is a myth. Such an admission would be severely damaging to the credibility of the BBC's TV detection equipment.

3. Refuse to provide the information under the "law enforcement" exemptions in the Act: This option would strongly reinforce the idea that detector van evidence is a myth. It is inconceivable that an organisation as boastful and arrogant as the BBC, who "rely on the public perception that detector vans could be used at any time to catch evaders" (their words), would pass up the opportunity to brag about the usefulness of detector evidence in court. Unless it hadn't been presented in court, because it was of no evidential value.

The request can be read in full here.

The response, or lack thereof, just arrived today.

The BBC took the third option of saying they had the information but refused to disclose it. Despite being afforded the perfect platform to reinforce the public perception of detector van effectiveness, they chose not to. That silence speaks volumes.

It would seem the effectiveness of detector van evidence really is a myth!

Brew (Rhymes With Spew)

2011-01-22T10:17:00.000-08:00

Another two-bit PR agency hits our radar for its association with TV Licensing.

Brew (whoever thought of that one?) is the bastard offshoot of our favourite PR harlots Fishburn Hedges.

Together they're on a crusade to rid the web of everything anti-TVL. As part of their moral crusade they "correct misunderstanding of the law on blogs, forums and Twitter".

What a virtuous organisation they must be. If only they could encourage their clients to take a slightly less intimidatory tone with elderly and vulnerable non-TV viewers.

We eagerly await their correspondence, because they'll obviously want to correct all of the legal comment and stories we've published here.

TV Licensing Prosecute Online Viewers

2010-12-30T06:54:00.000-08:00

TV Licensing have successfully prosecuted online viewers without a television licence, according to reports in today's Daily Telegraph.

The prosecutions came to light when the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee tabled questions to the Licensing Authority, the BBC. In their written response to MPs the Corporation declared: "There have been successful prosecutions of people watching online without a licence."

An increasing number of viewers are turning to the internet to view TV content. As the law currently stands, a licence is required to watch live-streamed television programmes across the web. A licence is not required to watch previously broadcast programmes on catch-up services like the BBC iPlayer, 4oD or Demand Five. Ownership of an internet connection, just like ownership of a TV, does not require you to have a licence - although TV Licensing often have their own deceitful interpretation of the law.

Those opposed to the fee will likely be interested in the new tactics TV Licensing employ to incriminate online viewers. Several broadband providers have already refused to co-operate with TV Licensing's endeavours to police cyberspace.

Remember that regardless of your TV licence status you are not obliged to respond to any correspondence from TV Licensing.

In fact we strongly recommend you do not.

The Relationship Between the BBC and TV Licensing

2010-12-29T03:50:00.000-08:00

I've just been reading a fascinating thread about TV Licensing over at The Student Room forums. It's quite an old thread, but the information in the opening post gives a very accurate guide to students about TV licence requirements.

Having read the entire thread it is clear that there is some misunderstanding about who the main players are in the TV licence game. In this post I'll clarify the situation.

The government department responsible for setting the fee is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS decide the cost of the licence fee. They delegate the administration, collection and enforcement of the fee to the Television Licensing Authority.

The Television Licensing Authority, referred to as simply the Licensing Authority in legislation, is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC is responsible for collecting and enforcing the fee. It wouldn't do for the BBC's finest to extort money from the non-viewing public, so they contract out their TV licence duties to several private companies. These private companies, doing the BBC's dirty work, are collectively referred to as TV Licensing (TVL). TV Licensing is a BBC trade mark.

The companies operating under the TV Licensing name are Capita Business Services Ltd, iQor UK Ltd, PayPoint Network Ltd and PayPoint Collections Ltd and Proximity London Ltd.

Capita are responsible for the bulk of TV licence fee administration; iQor and PayPoint are responsible for fee payment services; Proximity London is responsible for marketing and PR.

Proximity London, who had a previous TVL contract terminated for dishonest marketing, subcontract most of their TVL work to Fishburn Hedges Boys Williams Ltd (who are regular readers of this blog - hi guys), Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd and PHD Media Ltd.

I shall focus a bit more on Capita. When you ring TVL to complain about their unreasonable correspondence, you will also be speaking to a Capita employee. If you are assaulted on your doorstep by a TVL representative, that too will be a Capita employee. The TV licence system is riddled with Capita.

It's very easy to get confused with all these different private companies sucking licence fee payer's money away from the BBC, but make no mistake that the BBC is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the fee.

Buying TV Equipment

2010-12-28T05:01:00.001-08:00

Around this time of year lots of people are buying television equipment in the run up to Christmas or in the Boxing Day sales.

Whenever you buy or lease equipment capable of receiving or recording live television signals the retailer is legally obliged to ask you for the address where the equipment will be installed. At the end of each month the retailer sends this information to TV Licensing for them to crossmatch against their ever-expanding database of invasive information.

Not surprisingly some people object to having to give an address for simply buying non-offensive electrical goods. Their enthusiasm to provide this information is even less so if they're aware of the relentlessly harassing TVL correspondence that lies in wait.

As I said earlier, the retailer is obliged to ask for this information and can be prosecuted if they fail to send complete and accurate records to TV Licensing. The legal onus for disclosure is on the retailer and not the customer. A person buying television equipment is under no obligation to provide an address at the point of sale, although most stores will refuse the transaction if they do not.

The best course of action is to provide a false house number and postcode - pluck the numbers out of the air, but be sure to give the correct format. If the shop assistant is suspicious because it isn't listed on their computer, just tell them it is a new build and the postcode hasn't been listed yet. In my experience most shop assistants aren't bothered at all what you tell them, as long as they have something to report to Big Brother at the month end.

I wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year - apart from those employed by the BBC, Capita or Fishburn Hedges who I hope burn their turkeys!

Information Commissioner: BBC Must Divulge Capita Contract Details

2010-12-27T05:43:00.000-08:00

The Information Commissioner recently ruled that the BBC were wrong to withhold details of "sweeteners" offered to the main TV Licensing contractor.

The initial Freedom of Information Act request, made on 9th May 2008, has been bounced backwards and forwards between the requester, BBC, and now the Information Commissioner, for almost two years. In that time the BBC have tried their utmost to avoid giving any details of the incentives given to Capita as part of their TV Licensing agreement.

Initially the BBC argued that providing the information would be too costly, but their own internal reviewer deemed this decision inappropriate. Having failed on the cost argument the BBC resorted to using the commercial interest get-out, which allows public bodies to withhold information that could be damaging to their business.

With the Information Commissioner taking an increasing interest in the case, the BBC backtracked on their commercial interest argument. In more recent representations to the Information Commissioner the BBC resorted to their almost routine argument that disclosure would be prejudicial to the prevention and detection of crime.

Eventually, after almost 20 pages of concise legal discussion, the Information Commissioner concluded that the BBC were wrong to withhold the information. He ordered that they make a full disclosure by 11th January 2011.

We'll publish that disclosure here in full as soon as the BBC bother their contemptuous arses to prepare it.

More Footage of TVL in Action

2010-11-13T07:05:00.000-08:00

Browsing YouTube for TV Licensing related videos, as I often do, I came across a recent addition showing a Visiting Officer being turned away by a householder.

To give him his due, this TVL bloke conducts himself in a perfectly respectable manner. The householder is obviously aggrieved that he has been bothered by TVL for the tenth time, so evicts the unwelcome visitor by removing his implied right of access.

After a short discussion the TVL bloke flees the scene. Shame that a seemingly pleasant chap has ended up working for such a pitiful organisation.

Captured In Full: The Non-Intrusive TVL Visit

2010-08-13T05:19:00.000-07:00

Smile!

Some great new video footage of the lesser-spotted TVL scab has appeared on YouTube, thanks to the ingenuity of TV Licence Resistance forums' M. Shakey.

Shakey, a genuine non-TV user who TV Licensing have no reason to harrass, voluntarily invited the maligned organisation into his home to inspect his equipment for compliance with television licensing laws. Having baited the trap, Shakey was confident TV Licensing would jump at the opportunity to sniff around his bedroom drawers and stick their equipment into various apertures around the family home.

Armed with a camera he recorded the entire episode, which is now stored in perpetuity thanks to the magic of YouTube.

The story begins with the elderly TV Licensing "Enforcement Officer" inspecting a television set, which he quickly found to be detuned and suitable for playing DVDs and digital radio only. He then systematically moved from room to room inspecting the other sets, similarly to no avail. Evidently proficient at his job, he went to the trouble of scrolling through every TV channel to check there was no reception. There was nothing. The marvels of digital TV mean that television reception is now an all or nothing game, with even the slightest detuning erasing all trace of a picture.

The PC in the lounge took his eye - perhaps he was clocking it for Corsa Boy, who we know likes to sniff around unoccupied homes for his own gratification. Even an untrained person can establish the presence of a functioning TV tuner card (Control Panel > System) in about 30 seconds, so it seems strange that TVL man was sniffing around the various files and folders of the machine for at least 4 minutes. What did he hope to achieve? Bear in mind this is a man with no legal right to be searching for anything other than TV receiving or recording equipment. This would be the case even if he had a search warrant, which he obviously hadn't in this case.

I'd love to give more of a commentary, but my PC speakers chose last night to die on me and I haven't replaced them yet.

Edit: Unfortunately the YouTube videos that did appear here have been removed from the web by their creator M.Shakey. Apparently M.Shakey, having publicly embarrassed TV Licensing by showing the ineptitude of their non-intrusive visit, is again the victim of TV Licensing vendetta.

Edit: Yay! Shakey's video is back on YouTube, albeit in a shortened version:

Telegraph on TV Licence Evasion Rates

2010-07-30T11:09:00.000-07:00

I can't believe I missed it but a couple of weeks ago The Daily Telegraph's David Elstein wrote a very insightful article about TV licence evasion statistics.

As we all know by now the Beeb, bless them, can't give a straight answer about how many people they prosecute for licence evasion. If they revealed the true figure we'd all be rolling around on the floor laughing at how ineffective their database and "alternative detection methods" actually are.

Thankfully David, carrying on the DT's fine tradition of embarrassing TV Licensing, has drawn together several pieces of evidence revealing, at most, only 11.3% of licence evaders are caught. He writes in his article:

"[In their Annual Review] The BBC records 25.459m licences, but also admits to a 5.2 per cent evasion rate, which equates to 1.324m evaders. If we assume that the rate of 168,800 prosecutions for evasion the previous year continued in 2009/10, and that all were successful, we can calculate that there were 1.493m evaders in total, of whom just 11.3 per cent were actually caught."

It gets even better:

"Given that of the 25.459m licences in issue 4.008m were paid for by the government, on behalf of exempted over-75-year-olds, and that 68 per cent of the remainder paid by direct debit, the true evasion rate was much higher than 5.2 per cent. Eliminating the over-75s and the direct debit homes reveals that the households who needed to be pursued by TV Licensing numbered just 6.775m: so the total evasion rate was 22 per cent, and the successful evasion rate was 19.5 per cent."

So next time the BBC refuse to divulge the number of people they prosecute for licence evasion it'll further confirm what we know already - they're pretty poor at catching people!

Met Police Response on TVL Search Warrants

2010-07-24T02:56:00.000-07:00

Patrons of this TV Licensing Blog will know already that the quasi-official organisation known as TV Licensing, e.g. the BBC dressed as Dick Turpin, regularly like to intimidate people who don't actually need a TV licence.

It's very easy to scare £145.50 from pensioners, single mothers, students and low-income families, to use it for the virtuous cause of lining Jonathan Ross's pockets.

Even if you lack electricity, a TV signal, a TV set the simpleton mentality of TV Licensing is that you couldn't survive without the gogglebox. By their logic the lack of a licence for your property means you're an evader and you'll find it virtually impossible to convince them otherwise - not that you should have to.

One of TV Licensing's favourite threats, particularly to people who pour scorn on their impotent and uneducated doorstep salesmen, is to fetch the law and come back with a search warrant. It won't surprise you to learn that they very rarely do. So rarely in fact, we thought it would be interesting to ask the Metropolitan Police Service just how often TV Licensing had asked them to help with a search warrant.

The question we posed to the MPS under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000:

"I am making this request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

"Please tell me how many times agents representing the BBC (including the organisations known as "TV Licensing" and "Capita Business Services Ltd.") have requested the assistance of the MPS in the execution of search warrants issued to them.

"I'd be grateful if you could tell me the number of these requests received by the MPS in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009."

The response we received:

"To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted at Territorial Policing Headquarters, the Specialist Crime Directorate and the Performance Information Bureau.

"The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request, therefore, the information you have requested is not held by the MPS."

From that response, or lack thereof, it's reasonable to assume that instances of TVL contacting the MPS for assistance are low in the extreme - so low they don't bother to keep a record.

This, combined with our previous research, further corroborates the idea that TV Licensing virtually never apply for search warrants, instead preferring to extract (sometimes false) confessions from the doorstep.

TVL Knuckle Dragger Calls

2010-06-21T14:21:00.000-07:00

Browsing TV Licence Resistance forums I found the story of newbie poster marcostandy.

Marco, probably not his real name, had an unsolicited visit from one of TV Licensing's representatives. The TV Licensing goon quickly flashed his official looking ID and then set about spouting the usual drivel about £1000 fines, search warrants and sooper-dooper detection equipment so advanced it can tell what you heated up in the microwave last Monday teatime. All complete lies of course, designed to intimidate people who don't know any better.

Marco quite sensibly closed the door on the bedraggled vermin contaminating his line of sight. He then reached for the camera and took a few photos of the aforementioned goon, who by this time was sitting in his car and probably falsifying the visit record.

As all defeated TV scumbags do he uttered something about bringing the police next time before scuttling back under his rock. They rarely do return with the police, because the police hold these quasi-official pondlives in even lower regard than we law abiding non-TV-users do.

A couple of those photos are reproduced below for your viewing pleasure:

So if you work in Jobcentre Plus and see this chap claiming JSA next week you'll know he's on the take. He'll probably be driving the same car, registration number YX51 PXF.

New TVL Billboard Poster

2010-04-05T02:30:00.000-07:00

Kind of anyway...

Full credit to Yorkie Bar from the TV Licensing Resistance forums for this absolute gem of a piss take.

Behold Mark Thompson, BBC Director General, sitting on the bonnet of an Audi Quattro in the style of Gene Hunt from cult TV show Ashes to Ashes. He's clutching the same green dildo-type portable "tv detector" that has featured so prominently in previous TVL propaganda.

The message "fire up the Quattro Val" is in reference to TVL's famous Val Smith, who has such flair for writing threatening letters to non-TV users. She also has a different signature for every day of the week!

In case you hadn't spotted the similarity the design was inspired by New Labour's (unfortunate) attempt at a recent campaign poster.

Phoney TVL "Official" Targets Vulnerable

2010-01-24T05:14:00.000-08:00

The Sheffield Star reports that a bogus TV Licensing "official" is prowling the streets of the city.

The male fraudster cold calls on the elderly and infirm demanding to see their television licence. He has successfully gained access to several properties, although the paper fails to mention if anything was stolen.

We recommend that you are always suspicious of anyone claiming to be from TV Licensing. Even if they are the genuine article it's almost certain they'll try and fleece or intimidate you.

Simply say nothing and close the door on them.

Another TVL Visitor

2010-01-09T04:59:00.001-08:00

This video has just appeared on YouTube.

To his credit this TV Licensing representative has a perfectly pleasant manner during this visit. He doesn't invent any legal jargon and doesn't pretend to have any more powers than he actually does. He just listens to what the householder has to say, makes a quick note of it and leaves.

Note also that, pleasant enough as this chap seems, he is actually visiting the property in breach of the householder's withdrawn implied right of access.

DAB Radio Reception

2009-12-21T08:57:00.000-08:00

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the BBC used to actually respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Now they rarely bother replying "on the grounds of prejudicing law enforcement."

They've since wised up to the fact that many people were able to piece together the different pieces of their FOI jigsaw and create a full picture of just how ineffective TV Licensing actually are.

Crucially, even the Information Commissioner has confirmed that TV Licensing's limited effectiveness relies on the public perception that they have all-singing all-dancing detection equipment and if the truth was out we'd all fall about laughing.

The BBC have now airbrushed their entire stock of old FOI responses, but the damage is already done.

One FOI question posed (FOI request RFI20080234) before the censors were let loose was about the use of a digital television receiver for the reception of DAB radio.

That glorious ray of TV Licensing sunshine, Natalie Saunderson, replied unambiguously that: "You do not need a TV licence if you only use a TV to listen to digital radio broadcasts and not to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown."

So Natalie says you can have that Freeview box without a licence after all!

Do You Know This Man?

2009-12-16T08:08:00.001-08:00

Another fascinating insight into the life of the lesser spotted TV Licensing scab appeared on YouTube a few days ago.

You can tell he works for TVL from the weird spacing between his eyes, vacant expression on his face and chunky folder he carries. Also no legitimate cold caller would have the arrogance to do what he's about to.

The TVL salesman, nicknamed Corsa Boy by the uploader, paid a surprise visit to his home. After banging on the door Corsa Boy disappeared around the side of the house and into the back garden to have a good look through the windows. No doubt he was a burglar in a former life and was casing the place for a future job. It's certainly difficult to imagine why any law abiding person would vanish into someone else's back garden uninvited.

Unable to find a television to steal on this occasion Corsa Boy revisited the front door, rattled the letter box a few more times and then drove away (presumably in a Corsa).

As I always say, videos like this are gold dust. The sight of someone filming stops TVL dead in their tracks. Keep your camera charged up and by the door for such an eventuality.

If anyone knows who Corsa Boy is we'd be delighted to name and shame him.

Fishburn Hedges: Maybe you'd care to put some PR spin on why this creature feels the need to illegally rummage around someone's private property?

More TVL Stupidity

2009-12-16T02:55:00.000-08:00

Browsing the web for TV Licensing related stories I came across the plight of Scots viewer Shaviji Puri.

Mr Puri mistakenly thought he'd paid his £141.50 telly tax in full, so was pretty alarmed when TVL send him a final demand for payment. It transpired that he'd actually been £1 short on the payment, which was enough to provoke the TVL bully boys into their usual downward spiral of intimidatory correspondence.

Being a law abiding person Mr Puri was horrified at the threat of a £1,000 fine over his £1 oversight, so he quickly rang TVL to sort the matter out. He received a rude awakening when his offer of settlement was refused by the dysfunctional organisation. Instead he would have to request a refund, always a ball ache of petty bureaucracy, so that he could make a full payment all over again. It appears that as good as their database is (or rather not) they are unable to relate two different payments to the same address.

To make matters worse Mr Puri was warned that if he watched his TV in the meantime he would be breaking the law and could face legal redress.

Another brilliant example of TVL customer service.

Fishburn Hedges (who, as subscribers to our feed, will undoubtedly read this article soon): Is it any wonder that a sizable chunk of the population think your TVL puppet masters are a bunch of worthless twats?

New TVL Website

2009-11-17T13:28:00.000-08:00

The enemy has an attractive new website, designed to give the unsuspecting public the misapprehension that they're a respectable organisation.

According to them the new TVL website makes it much easier to pay for your licence and update your details online.

Now they've got their electronic presence in order it's about time they worked on the interpersonal skills (and honesty) of their knuckle-dragging visiting officers.

Fat chance!

Who's Calling Please?

2009-10-10T02:37:00.000-07:00

Another stunning insight into the exciting life of the TV Licensing Enforcement Officer has appeared on YouTube courtesy of Liam O'Brien.

He allowed the rodent-like TV Licensing employee access to his property and stood armed with a camera to capture the imminent exchange.

It was rather a damp squib actually. Liam managed to elucidate the fact that this vermin was indeed from TV Licensing, but the presence of a camera threw the mustachioed creature off guard and he quickly recoiled like a slug being sprinkled with salt.

Here's Liam's movie:

These short movies are gold dust. If you have any movies or images of TV Licensing people at work please send them our way (email addy in sidebar).