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.
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.
No No I have to disagree, I think you're reasonable assumption of very low numbers is incorrect, it's much more likely that the numbers are so high that they do not want you to know, venal capita is very skilled at using secret exemptions to hide unpalatable information from the public.
ReplyDeletePlus they are so far up the home offices arse if a pr guy there speaks you can see capita's tongue waggling.
The fact of the matter is the scumbags have hit on a sure fire way to gain entry into your home and allow the police to intimidate you into compliance.
interestingly the police are quite happy to stand and watch capita thugs victimise and terrify vulnerable citizens (they like lone women best, preferably elderly) and do nothing as capita perform blatent falsification of witness statements and various other forms of purgery shitting all over PACE.
I have experienced this first hand it is sickening.
Capita thugs forced entry to my ill pensioner mum's home with a search warrant while the cowardly PCSO hovered in the hall not wanting to know...
ReplyDeleteBy the time we arrived, she was in tears on the sofa, extremely unwell and distressed with two thugs stood over her, one at the back and one at the front, trying to get her to agree to the caution and falsifying the statement before we arrived.
They refused to let me see what they were writing. When my brother informed them it had all been filmed, the senior thug picked up the prosecution statement and they left. Since no prosecution statement was served and we had video evidence of abuse of PACE, bullying and fraud, we thought it was over.
The thugs submmitted the statement to court, the judge refused to hear or see any of our evidence, refused to let a close family member speak for her, made her cross-examine the thugs she is terrified of, despite knowing that since the incident she has been under mental health care, declared a guilty verdict and fined her £300.
A few hours after the hearing, my Mum collapsed and was rushed to hospital. She is appealling...
oh by the way, she is a non-viewer and doesnt require a TV license. Any support on points of law and adherence to PACE would be much appreciated.
Beware these 'Search Warrants'. If there's someone at the door who you do not recognise, don't speak to them, or open the door. They are still not permitted to make a forcable entry, and can only access if you let them in, or sometimes if you leave a door or window open.
ReplyDeleteThe Courts hate these warrants, and the amount of time wasted in TVL cases. However, the TVL representatives lie through their teeth in Court. NEVER sign any of their so-called statements. In fact, a friend of mine had a statement prepared saying "I confirm that (your name) does not have a TV set connected to any form of external receiver; Wall Ariel Socket; Satellite Dish or DVB (Digital receiver Box). Therefore, I have ascertained that no TV signals are being received at this address".
Then ask the TVL rep to sign, name and date it.
They will refuse. If there is a Police representative present, add, in handwriting, that the TVL rep refused to sign the document, even though the case had been proven (as stated above).
If they then take you to Court, you will have first hand, written evidence that they're wasting your, and the Court's time.
They did proceed to Court, where I asked the TVL rep:
1. Was the TV connected to a DVD player?
he said yes.
2. Was the TV monitor connected to an Apple iPod?
He again said yes.
3. was the TV monitor connected to a Sony Playstation games machine?
4. Again, yes.
5. Did the TV monitor have a built in Analog-Digital converter?
6. I don't know. *
7. Was the Tv monitor connected to a DVB?
Yes. **
8. Was the TV connected to a SKYbox or FreeSat Box?
Not that I could see. ***
9. Was the TV monitor receiving a TV live programme when you arrived?
No. It was switched off.
10. Did you switch the TV monitor on?
11. Did you receive a live TV programme?
Yes. ****
* If it had a built in unit, it would not require connection to any other source, such as a DVB.
** Lie number one. The set was not connected to a DVB. There isn't one.
*** Correct - but - if it was receiving a reception via a DVB, it wouldn't need a satellite converter box. So he didn't check very thoroughly.
**** Lie number two - the big one. The set cannot receive live TV.
12. What time was it when you received a TV programme? (Make sure you know).
About 10.15am.
What programme was on, and on which channel?
***** I hopped various channels.
13. How did you channel hop?
Using the TVs remote control.
As this TV monitor was bought second hand, it has never had a remote control, so did you bring your own?
No, I used yours. (Remember, there's a Police witness watching).
You did not, in fact, ever manage to receive a live TV programme on the set. I asked you to sign a statement confirming this. Why did you refuse to sign this? It would have closed the case, and saved us all the time, and the Courts time, here today. I'm not a legal person, but if you've lied to the Court, I believe it's called contempt.
You should then have the opportunity to cross examine the Police person.
a. If they signed your statement. Just ask them that they did sign the statement, reading it out to the Court.
b. If he/she didn't sign it. Ask them why. Then ask them in Court whether they saw the TVL rep receive any reception on the TV monitor.
Result>
Kicked out of Court, and the lying TVL rep charged with contempt of Court.
Lovely