BBC Left Egg-Faced After Open Mic Blunder

The BBC were left egg-faced by an embarrassing blunder that saw behind the scenes regional audio broadcast live over the national news.

During the last 10 minutes of today's BBC News at One viewers in the North East & Cumbria region heard local news presenter Charlie Charlton, pictured above, and weatherman Peter Grant discussing Twitter, among other things. Grant pointed out that Cumbria were making lots of Tweets in a "political move", whatever that means in BBC parlance. Could he have been referring to the BBC Cumbria Twitter feed, which is certainly a throng of activity?

Grant went on to explain how he couldn't "be arsed" to do something and had very few Twitter followers. Charlton replied that she didn't have a Twitter account and had no interest in starting one. Charlton was then heard shushing Grant so she could read through some last minute script changes before their programme aired less than five minutes later. She was heard asking for some extra printed extracts of the script for "security purposes". Viewers also heard the BBC's Jim Knight testing the audio link for his outside broadcast from the market town of Morpeth.

At the end of the BBC's regional news Charlton apologised for any sound problems during the earlier national news programme.

Edit: The author apologises for incorrectly naming the weatherman as Peter Rowell, when his name is actually Peter Grant. That error has now been corrected. Peter Rowell is a convicted paedophile, who although previously featuring on the BBC payroll has nothing to do with the North East & Cumbria region!

TV Licensing Laid Bare

Over the last few days the TV Licensing Blog has been producing its first information book about the TV licence system here in the UK.

TV Licensing Laid Bare begins by identifying the key players in the TV licence system. The emphasis then shifts towards the legal basis of the fee, and clearly explains circumstances in which a TV licence is required. After a short analysis of how the licence fee is spent the book gives detailed information about how the TV licence is enforced. The book concludes with practical words of advice for the thousands of legally licence free people, who are regularly harassed by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

Our new book, TV Licensing Laid Bare, can be downloaded here.

Please share it with anyone else seeking advice about how to deal with TV Licensing.

How to Stop TV Licensing Letters

Every month TV Licensing send out thousands of intimidatory letters to properties without a TV licence, irrespective of whether they need a licence or not.

According to John Whittingdale MP, chairman of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee: "The tactics used by TV Licensing in their letters are intimidatory and cause genuine distress. Their records are not always correct, but they write letters that assume members of the public are criminals". 

Journalist Alex Singleton, who used to write for the Telegraph and now works at the Daily Mail, summarised his thoughts: "The letters sent by TV Licensing are not acceptable. Rather than treat the BBC's customers decently, TV Licensing instead sees them as vermin, sending letters that intimidate and cause distress".

The BBC, in its role of Licensing Authority, reviews and approves the wording of every TV Licensing letter that appears in their standard cycle. It should be of huge concern that despite widespread public criticism neither the BBC or TV Licensing see anything wrong with what they do. They consider it perfectly acceptable to threaten people with hefty fines and court appearances when they have no evidence of wrongdoing at all.

It is important for people to realise that TV Licensing's letters are riddled with legal half-truths and innuendo. They are designed to scare people into paying the licence fee, regardless of their legal need to do so.

So what can a non-viewer do if they want to stop the monthly arrival of TV Licensing's noxious correspondence? You can't do this by completely ignoring TV Licensing, which would be our normal advice. Be absolutely clear that no-one is legally obliged to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing, however, you will need to contact them to set out your stall, so to speak. Here are a few suggestions:

1. No-TV declaration: This option requires voluntary co-operation with TV Licensing. The occupier makes a no-TV declaration to TV Licensing either online or by phone. TV Licensing will record that no licence is needed, but will incorrectly claim they are entitled to come and check. They may place a guard on the address that stops letters for a fixed period of time, usually two years.

2. Cease and desist: This option requires contact with TV Licensing, although no co-operation is required. The occupier writes a letter to the effect that they are not using equipment to receive or record live TV programme services and consequently do not require a TV licence. The occupier asserts that TV Licensing's routine correspondence is causing unnecessary intimidation and harassment and demands they put a stop to it. The occupier also threatens legal consequences for TV Licensing if the letters continue. Past experience shows it's unlikely TV Licensing will comply with such a request, but they may place a guard on the address that stops the letters for a while. 

Legally speaking there is little doubt that TV Licensing's letters amount to harassment, but the threat of legal action is of negligible concern to the BBC and TV Licensing. Unlike the occupier, who will have probably worked hard to earn his/her money, the BBC and TV Licensing are given their money on a plate, so aren't worried about the cost of legal defence.

3. Return to sender: This option requires contact with TV Licensing, although no co-operation is required. It will not prevent them from sending further letters, but gives the occupier the satisfaction of causing the BBC and TV Licensing administrative inconvenience and expense. Full details outlined in our previous "TV Licensing: Speak to the Organ Grinder, Not the Monkey" post.

Modification of Equipment

An interesting thread has appeared on the TVCatchup forums.

Web forums are a marvellous resource, which allow the sharing of vast amounts of knowledge at the click of a mouse. Sadly, in TV licence terms, a considerable amount of that shared knowledge is incorrect. 

TV Licensing's PR harlots constantly drip feeding misinformation to the media, which is doing a remarkably effective job of filling peoples' heads with misconceptions about when a TV licence is required. It is not in TV Licensing's gluttonous pecuniary interest to clarify these misconceptions, hence their advance across cyberspace goes largely unchallenged

TVCatchup, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the name, is an online service that streams live TV channels. That being the case anyone watching TVCatchup should be covered by a valid TV licence.

The thread posed the question: "If I don't have a TV licence do I have to remove the tuner from my TV set?" The answer, contrary to many opinions expressed on that forum, is no.

Sensing the public's confusion we have previously posed this very question to TV Licensing. Knowing full well that TV Licensing thrives on public uncertainty, we made our question as simple as we possibly could:

"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?"

TV Licensing's unconditional response: "Yes".

Remember folks, if you're not watching or recording live TV programme services you do not require a TV licence. You do not legally need to bust a gut (or your equipment) to prove that negative to TV Licensing.

Repugnant TV Licensing Saleswoman

"Don't be silly" is the condescending introductory tone of the TV Licensing goon in this video, her biro wagging in wild disapproval at the prospect of being filmed.

The occupier quickly sets her straight that he can legally film anyone he likes in a public place. Had she bothered to read TV Licensing Visiting Procedures, freely available online thanks to the marvels of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, she would realise that she should have abandoned her visit at the first hint of a camera. But this crazy-eyed Italian sounding goon, who obviously knows better than her Capita paymasters, decided to hang around for a fight. Spittle flies from her mouth as her jaw distorts around her free-flowing lies.

The occupier explains several times that he does not watch TV, but she refuses to accept this at face value. She explains that TV Licensing's policy is to enter his property to confirm whether or not he is telling the truth. Evidently on the ball, the occupier rightly tells her she's not going anywhere near his property unless she has a court order.

When informed for the umpteenth time by the occupier that he does not need a TV licence she brazenly retorts: "I do not trust your word. TV Licensing do not trust your word". She then retreats with TV Licensing's favourite hollow threat: "We will come back with the police". Please see our previous post about TV Licensing threats to see our opinion on that.

The occupier replies: "You're not welcome here. Please do not come back. I do not want you in my place". In other words he has quite clearly withdrawn TV Licensing's implied right of access to his property, but I doubt she'll bother recording that on the system.

This goon is a truly despicable piece of work, who lacks the faintest concept of TV Licensing's own procedures.

BBC Shy on Snooping Powers

Today's news is abuzz with Big Brother Watch's research findings that a significant number of public authorities are misusing covert surveillance legislation and dodging their accountability on the issue.

The BBC is one of seven authorities named and shamed for refusing to confirm how it uses the archaic Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which has been dubbed a "snoopers charter" for its potential to unjustly invade people's privacy.

As the BBC has failed, we will answer on its behalf.

The BBC uses the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001 to authorise the use of television detection equipment at the properties of suspected licence fee evaders.

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". The BBC, as Licensing Authority, has a statutory duty to administer and enforce the TV licence system. Enforcing the TV licence is a dirty business, which the BBC seeks to distance itself from as much as possible. For that reason it performs its duties under the guise of TV Licensing. Several private companies, notably Capita Business Services Ltd, are contracted by the BBC to perform TV Licensing work.

TV Licensing relies heavily on doorstep salesmen, who it calls visiting officers, to determine the licensable status of the properties they visit. However, as no-one is under any legal obligation to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing or its employees, there are occasions when a visiting officer is unable to gain voluntary access to a property to establish its licensable status. In these circumstances TV Licensing might seek to gather detection evidence, under the terms of snoopers charter legislation, to determine whether the occupier is watching/recording TV programme services without a licence. TV Licensing has previously confirmed to us that detection evidence is only used to apply for search warrants.

We have serious doubts about the efficiency and validity of TV Licensing's detection evidence, which is supported by the fact it has never been presented for court scrutiny during the prosecution of an alleged licence fee evader. Quite frankly the science behind detection just doesn't stack up, as a read of our previous article will demonstrate.

The BBC has told us that it uses the snoopers charter legislation to authorise either general or specific television detection. General detection is where detection equipment is used in the locality of several target properties. Specific detection is when TV Licensing use their detection equipment against a single named property. In both cases it is one or more specific properties that are being targeted. TV Licensing is not empowered to arbitrarily use detection equipment wherever it likes, despite any suggestions to the contrary.

If TV Licensing wishes to use detection equipment it must seek authorisation from the BBC by completing a pre-printed form. The details on the form are personally scrutinised by either the Head of Sales and Marketing or the Head of Revenue Management in the BBC's TV Licensing Management Team, who are the only two Authorising Officers. The Authorising Officer must give a written statement confirming details of the detection they are authorising before they sign off the form. Once granted the authority is valid for eight weeks, but must be reviewed at the half way point.

So there you have it. A complete picture of how the BBC uses the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It wasn't that difficult, so I wonder why they're so shy in talking about it?

Edit (15/9/2015): The combined post of Head of Sales and Marketing has recently been split into two separate Head of Sales and Head of Marketing posts. This means that there are now three Authorising Officers in the BBC TVLMT: The Head of Revenue Management, the Head of Sales and the Head of Marketing.

Edit (2/2/2016): The BBC has inadvertenly let slip the actual TV Licensing detection figures for 2015. As we suspected, they confirm that the use of TV detection is exceptionally rare. It is certainly not widespread or routine. You can read more here.

Forcing the BBC to Talk

There are a lot of things I despise about the BBC, not least the way they allow TV Licensing to terrorise non-TV viewers without any evidence of wrongdoing at all.

Another thing I loathe is the way the BBC dodges legitimate requests it receives under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 simply because they're too embarrassed (or can't be arsed) to respond. It's a bit of a running joke that if the BBC doesn't want to respond it pretends the information is exempt from disclosure because it is held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. They often give this response when they are asked about production costs. I mean it's difficult to justify destroying hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of perfectly good vehicles on Top Gear when the country is crippled with debt. Far better to dodge the issue completely when asked anything on the subject.

I came across the following Decision Notice when browsing the ICO website. The BBC were asked about the costs of televising Children in Need. The complainant wanted to be assured that the BBC was spending its charitable donations wisely instead of using them to line the pockets of Terry Wogan and Fearne Cotton. The BBC, no doubt sensing the potential embarrassment of disclosure, fell back on its tried and tested journalism, art or literature get out of jail free card. The Information Commissioner disagreed and ordered the BBC to disclose the information requested in full.

The Decision Notice explains: "The Commissioner holds the view that financial information about a programme cost or payment made has no bearing on the ability of the programme maker to be creative. Indeed, in this instance the programme had already been created. Any later request for information about cost or payment can have no effect on the journalistic, artistic or literary creativity that went into the programme's production. The Commissioner does not accept that the requested information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and is therefore satisfied that the Act applies in this case."

On the basis of that ruling the BBC has no business rebuffing enquiries about previously broadcast programme costs using the journalism, art or literature exemption.

I would encourage people to ask the BBC for costs of production and presenter fees on the basis of this ruling. Please quote the above paragraph and cite the ICO's ruling in respect of Case Ref: FS50102474 when making your requests.

Remember that requests can be made very easily via the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website.

TV Licensing Penalising the Poor

Yesterday we gave a no holds barred account of how TV Licensing was meting out its own style of "justice" on some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Of the two dozen court cases we considered at least half of the defendants were in receipt of benefits and struggling to make ends meet. That pattern is replicated across the land, as TV Licensing employees invariably catch a higher proportion of the unemployed, disabled people and single parents at home alone during their daytime visits.

The Express published an article today, which highlights a second way TV Licensing are penalising the poor. It explains how those paying for their TV licence monthly by Direct Debit are forced to pay half the annual fee, around £70, upfront. The surcharge only applies to the less wealthy, however, since those who can afford to pay the £145.50 fee in full are not penalised.

The article explains: "Like a deposit on a rented flat, it is not returned until the viewers quit their contract by deciding they want to stop watching tele­vision altogether.

"Data uncovered through a Freedom of Information request shows that the extra £1billion stays in a Government-run Consolidated Fund account, from which the BBC receives a monthly grant."

A full report into the scandal is due to be published by consumer watchdog Which? next week.

Earlier this year the Telegraph, following our lead, explained how the BBC was coining in millions in extra revenue by backdating licences to the start of the month they were issued. Under current arrangements a licence bought on 31st August 2012 will be backdated to 1st August 2012 and expire on 31st July 2013, which means a person is paying the full annual cost for only 11 months of licence. 

If they pay by Direct Debit they could be getting ripped off twice by the BBC!

TV Licensing Threats and Intimidation: The Reality

Our distinguished colleague TJoKayaking, not his real name, went undercover earlier this month to observe TV Licensing's proceedings in court.

He chose Burton-on-Trent Magistrates Court, which was hearing a string of TV licence cases on 6th August. 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.

TJoK diligently noted the outcome of the 24 cases he heard that afternoon. No-one received a fine anywhere near the £1000 figure often bandied about by TV Licensing. In fact we don't know of anyone at all who has ever received the maximum fine.

Notice as well that most of the people TV Licensing prosecute are invariably female and financially disadvantaged. That's a trend replicated in court rooms across the land.

TJoK's observations:

1. An African female, who had only been in the UK 3 months, had only owned a TV for 3 weeks and was unaware of the need for a TV licence. She had very poor English language skills, so much so that her 8 year old son had to act as interpreter when TV Licensing visited. She offered to pay there and then, but the salesman told her to start paying by PayPoint instead. She has made regular payments ever since despite being in receipt of Job Seeker's Allowance. The case was delayed because she recently moved house, which meant the summons was wrongly delivered to her old address.

Outcome: 12 month conditional discharge + £60 costs.

2. A male who was unable to attend court.

Outcome: Case adjourned.

3. A female who had failed to respond to summons. She had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £75 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

4. A female. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

5. A female who had failed to respond to summons. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

6. A male who had failed to respond to summons. He had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £75 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

7. A female. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

8. A female who had failed to respond to summons. She had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £75 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

9. A male. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

10. A female who had failed to respond to summons. She had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

11. A male who pleaded guilty by post. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

12. A male who was summonsed only a week earlier. Magistrates decide to adjourn the case as it was brought too quickly.

Outcome: Case adjourned.

13. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had a previous conviction for licence fee evasion.

Outcome:  £55 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

14.  A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits.

Outcome:  £50 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

15. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He had learning difficulties, was in receipt of benefits and didn't really understand what a TV licence was for (join the club).

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

16. A female who pleaded guilty by post. A change of bank details meant she missed payment for her TV licence. She apologised to the court for her clerical oversight.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

17.  A female who pleaded guilty by post. She can't afford a TV licence, but bought a TV set on the spur of the moment at a car boot sale. Summonsed to court only 5 days earlier on 1st August, but the Magistrates allow the case to proceed.

Outcome:  £20 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

18. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for more than 6 months. In mitigation she told the court she was waiting for a new TV Licensing payment card and the TV Licensing salesman that nabbed her said that was okay.

Outcome:  £75 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

19. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. She was in receipt of benefits and had a previous conviction for licence fee evasion. She told the court: "If I buy a tv licence I can't afford to live which I why I keep getting caught".

Outcome:  £80 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

20. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for 9 months.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

21. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. In mitigation she told the court she had a young daughter and no local family so felt isolated.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

22. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. In mitigation she told the court money was very tight because her partner was being pursued by the Child Support Agency.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

23. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. In mitigation he told the court he'd forgotten to pay because of a family bereavement. When challenged by TV Licensing he offered to pay immediately and has since kept up with the payments.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

24. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He had been unlicensed for less than 9 months. He is disabled because of neck and back problems and is living on benefits. He apologised to the court and explained that he was finding life very difficult at the moment.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

TV Licensing: Speak to the Organ Grinder, Not the Monkey

The law makes the Licensing Authority responsible for the administration, collection and enforcement of the TV licence fee.

A lot of people don't realise that the Licensing Authority, as defined by statute, is the BBC. That's right folks, in the UK we have the farcical situation where the BBC is responsible for collecting licence fees to support the BBC. The more zealously the BBC pursues licence fee payment the more benefit it derives.

It wouldn't do for the BBC to openly send threatening TV licence reminder letters to members of the general public, many of whom have fond memories of curling up in front of Noel's House Party with a mug of Ovaltine for an evening of wholesome family entertainment. To maintain a safe distance from the evils of licence fee enforcement the BBC uses a trade mark, TV Licensing.

The TV Licensing name is used as cover by the companies contracted to do the BBC's dirty work. Capita Business Services Ltd does the majority of administration and enforcement work. Proximity London, who have previously been punished for printing TV Licensing lies, are unbelievably in charge of marketing, printing and public relations for a second time. Proximity subcontract TV Licensing PR to several other companies including Fishburn Hedges Boys Williams Ltd.

With all these different companies having a finger in the TV Licensing pie it is hardly surprising that the general public is confused about what TV Licensing actually is. For the sake of clarity TV Licensing is the BBC. It is a trade mark owned by the BBC and comprising companies acting on behalf the BBC.

Here at the TV Licensing blog we normally recommend that anyone legally licence free ignores TV Licensing entirely. Anyone who does not require a TV licence is under no legal obligation to communicate or cooperate with TV Licensing at all. Experience repeatedly shows that assisting TV Licensing is a waste of time, as they don't believe anyone making a no-TV declaration.

Some of the legally licence free prefer a more proactive approach against TV Licensing. After all, if they genuinely don't need a licence TV Licensing is completely impotent and a legitimate target for scorn. It has been suggested that the legally licence free, who will invariably receive the unwarranted attention of TV Licensing, should insist on dealing with the organ grinder (the BBC) instead of the monkey (Capita, Proximity et al).

Any of the legally licence free that wish to make a proactive stand against TV Licensing harassment should deal with the organ grinder as follows:

1. If you receive a TV Licensing letter return it unopened to the BBC.

Write on the envelope: "Unwanted Communications, Return to Originator: Head of Revenue Management, Room 4436, BBC White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TS".

Do not put a stamp on it, just pop it in the nearest post box. Bear in mind that if you do this the BBC and TV Licensing will know where the returned letter has come from.

2. If you wish to protest anonymously shred any TV Licensing letters you receive and return them to the BBC using the address given above. If you choose this option you should put a stamp on your envelope, as you have chosen to open TV Licensing's original correspondence.

It is a nice touch to include a small note with your returned shreddings: "This unwanted communication originates with TV Licensing and is being returned to the BBC for environmentally-sound recycling.  It is not intended to harass or intimidate in any way.  Indeed, it is harassment and intimidation by TV Licensing that is being avoided."

3. Display a sign at the entrance to your property with the following wording: "Capita employees banned, BBC employees welcome".

4. Write the BBC and inform them that if they insist on sending you letters you will only deal with them directly and not the TV Licensing companies: "I am writing to inform you that from the date of this letter, I will no longer communicate with companies working under the guise of the TV Licensing trade mark. I will only communicate with the BBC regarding licence fee matters. Please can you write to me, on BBC stationery, to confirm that you have noted my instructions?

"I will consider any further written communication using the TV Licensing trade mark to be in breach of these instructions, and I will return it to the BBC for environmentally-sound destruction. This is being done in protest at the policies of TV Licensing in respect of licence fee enforcement, and the malice and negligence with which they are carried out.  Their processes breach basic historical principles of British justice, and I shall not condone such behaviour, nor participate in it."

5. Inform the BBC that you are withdrawing the implied right of access for Capita employees to your property, but not that of BBC employees: "Henceforth, employees of Capita Business Services Ltd, including those working under the TV Licensing brand, are banned from these premises - their implied right of access is withdrawn. This is being done within my lawful rights to protect myself, my family and my home against unwarranted intrusion and harassment for commercial gain. The BBC and its staff remain unaffected."

Remember that you do not need to include your name for this instruction to be legally valid, although the BBC will undoubted pretend otherwise. Check out our previous WOIRA tutorial for further guidance.

TV Licensing Pursued on Fraud Charges

TV Licensing face fresh allegations of dishonesty after threatening a Glasgow student with prosecution for an offence he hasn't committed.

The student, who we will call Jack, received a copy of TV Licensing's most heinous threatogram to date, which wrongly implies the recipient will be heading straight to court to account for their licence free status. Closer examination reveals that the letter, which TV Licensing helpfully say the recipient "will be allowed to take into court", contains nothing more than legally baseless threats designed to scare them into paying for a licence they probably don't need.

Jack was so incensed with the menacing tone of TV Licensing's letter that he phoned them to complain. The employee he spoke to confirmed the organisation had no evidence of wrongdoing and passed the letter off as routine.

Jack has now written to TV Licensing informing them of his intention mount a private prosecution against them on the basis of the dishonest implications in their letter. He has informed them that he will be charging them to deal with any future correspondence, which might sound fanciful but it is no worse than writing to someone and accusing them of law breaking with zero evidence. 

His opening volley is shown below and we'll be very interested to see how the case develops.

Edit (2/11/14): You might also be interested in this post, where we explain how a TV Licensing Blog reader successfully sued TV Licensing for the time taken to process receipt of its threatograms. We encourage other readers harassed by TV Licensing's menacing correspondence to take similar action.

Shakespeare TV Licensing Victory Makes the Papers

The Thurrock Gazette today published details of how an Essex man successfully defeated TV Licensing in court after being wrongly convicted of TV licence evasion.

Michael Shakespeare, 54, from Grays in Essex was wrongly convicted on what can only be described as the most spurious of evidence. It was evidence so lacking in credibility that TV Licensing's own employees contradicted it in court.

We wrote about Mike's case back in April, shortly after his conviction had been quashed in the landmark ruling at Basildon Crown Court. Please read our back article carefully for an insight into the sinister and deceitful tactics employed by TV Licensing and fully sanction by Licensing Authority, the BBC.

To put not to fine a point on it the pivotal evidence that TV Licensing presented as fact was picked apart and fully discredited. TV Licensing's timings and witness testimony were riddled with inconsistency.

Where the Thurrock Gazette has led the big nationals will follow. Well hopefully!

TV Licensing Runner

Behold another TV Licensing employee who, quite rightly, doesn't think he's very photogenic.

This cheque-shirted vagabond must have felt right at home next to the bins, but that didn't stop him running as soon as he saw the occupier had a CCTV camera installed.

Sadly, as he remains silent throughout, we fail to glean much more of an insight into the voyeuristic tendencies of this most undesirable of visitors. In the finest traditions of TV Licensing we can safely say that he's a scruffy beggar, with his silver chest hair exposed from his untucked and underbuttoned deck chair cover.

If you spot this chap in the street don't forget to offer commiserations for his measly employment.

Bald TV Licensing Goon Repelled by Camera

A very short YouTube clip has appeared, which reinforces the effectiveness of the humble camera at scaring off uninvited TV Licensing employees.

The occupier opens his door and immediately announces his intent to film the shiny-headed miscreant peddling the BBC's immoral wares. There's no doubt that the visitor is from TV Licensing as he's clutching their favourite brand of PDA and opens the conversation with "have you recently moved here?" Any lingering doubts about his identity all but vanish when he scarpers the moment a camera is mentioned.

I'm sure he's a nice enough chap who finds himself in the embarrassing situation of working for Capita to earn a crust. After all, we're in the middle of the worst recession for a generation, so beggars can't be choosers. But surely there must be more honest jobs out there?

I hear prostitution pays quite well and unlike working for TV Licensing you actually get to keep all of the money you screw people for.

BBC Unveils Olympic TV Detector

The BBC has just unveiled its latest weapon in the battle against TV licence dodging scum.

The gold coloured handheld device, which is specially designed to celebrate the success of the GB Olympics Team, can pinpoint an unlicensed TV to within a few centimeters. It operates on standard AA batteries, has virtually no warm up time and takes as little as 20 seconds to get a positive result. The portable detector fits discreetly in the operator's trouser pocket and includes special buzz reduction technology to maintain the element of surprise.

The BBC boasts that the technology, which was created by their own crack team of inventors, can distinguish between two TV sets either side of a party wall. They remain characteristically tight-lipped about how the device actually works, but it is believed to contain a stimulating oscillator that moves rapidly in close proximity to a TV.

The BBC would not comment on unconfirmed reports that the Head of Revenue Management had personally tested the device and given it the green light.

Enjoy the Olympics TV Licence Free

Okay, I admit it, I was wrong about the Olympics.

Far from being the national embarrassment I expected they have thus far been a resounding success. I feel the £300 that I and every other UK taxpayer has invested in the Games hasn't gone to waste. They have truly put Britain on the map and their sporting legacy will last for decades.

Team GB has been working its socks off to deliver medals and the nation can be rightly proud of their magnificent achievements so far.

I was right about one thing though: The Olympics has paved the way for TV Licensing's propaganda harlots, Fishburn Hedges et al, to flood the local newspapers with scary tales of how many licence fee dodgers they have collared. Suffice to say, as with most other PR agencies, they don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Idle journalism means the newspapers print just about anything TV Licensing sends to them without confirming its accuracy.

Remember that a TV licence is only needed if equipment is used to receive or record live broadcast TV programme services. There are many ways you can watch the Olympics perfectly legally without a TV licence. Here are just a few:

1. Watch it non-live on a catch up service: You do not need a licence to enjoy previously broadcast non-live coverage on the BBC's iPlayer for example.

2. Watch live at a friend's place: If they've got a TV licence you could go and watch their telly instead. If you didn't want to impose you could take your laptop around and stream live TV via their broadband connection.

3. Watch live at the pub/club: I'm reliably informed by student friends that you can nurture a soft drink for at least two hours if you sip it slowly. That's just enough time to see the marathon.

4. Watch live at your local electrical retailer: Electrical retailers do not need a TV licence for their display sets. If you're a bit of a cheapskate you could visit Dixons and watch the best events there.

5. Become a TV engineer: If you're a TV fixer upper then you do not need a TV licence to test equipment you're working on.

6. Visit the big screen: Big screens will be showing live Olympics coverage in cities across the UK. Wrap up warm, take a few tinnies and watch 'til your heart's content.

 

The BBC is live streaming every Olympic event on its website. Don't quote me on this, but they have absolutely no way of knowing whether you really do have a TV licence when you're watching online.