Despicable TV Licensing Goons Executing Search Warrant

TV Licensing executed a search warrant in Hartlepool yesterday in what may have been their most despicable visit to a legally-licence-free property ever.

The visit, captured in a 25 minute video uploaded to YouTube, begins with two TV Licensing goons (who we’ll refer to as Baldy and Beardy, although we can think of many less flattering but equally accurate descriptions) standing on the doorstep with two police officers. Tempers are clearly frayed, as the occupier vocally asserts that he does not watch live broadcast TV programmes within the property. The occupier also explains how he has previously informed TV Licensing that he no longer needs a TV licence, after cancelling his Virgin Media subscription back in 2012.

Within a short period of time it becomes apparent that the occupier is of the Freeman of the Land (FMOTL) persuasion. Demonstrating his misguided FMOTL logic, the occupier incorrectly announces that “an Act is not the law; it’s an agreement between two parties” and “this is not a criminal matter; it’s a civil matter”. Contrary to popular FMOTL belief TV licence evasion is a criminal offence.

The occupier asks Baldy goon what evidence they presented at Teesside Magistrates’ in order to obtain the warrant. Baldy confirms that during a previous visit one of his colleagues (during either this visit or this visit) had seen a TV set on the wall of the front room. That evidence seems a little tenuous to say the least, but it was obviously sufficient for some dribbly old JP to authorise the search. Crucially, Baldy also confirms that the occupier had previously withdrawn TV Licensing's implied rights of access (WOIRA) to the property.

The occupier, who is clearly aware that TV Licensing goons are employed by hapless BBC contractor Capita Business Services Ltd, expresses his disgust towards their kind: “I do not trust these people (Capita) at all, with their bully-boy techniques and trying to intimidate people”.

Clearly overwhelmed and confused by the situation, his FMOTL arguments falling on deaf ears, the occupier retreats further into the property and shows the goons the TV set mounted on his living room wall. The goons and police follow, with PC 1804 taking up the lead speaking role on behalf of Cleveland Police (possibly one of the most corrupt police forces in the UK, if you Google Sean Price and Dave McLuckie). It’s at this stage that the worlds of legal fact and TV Licensing fiction becomes blurred.

I do not suppose for one moment that the two TV Licensing goons will record the full facts and context of the living room conversation that ensued. It is rather fortuitous that the occupier had the good sense to capture the entire visit on film, as the unprofessional behaviour of both goons almost defies belief.

In the living room the occupier explains that the TV set on the wall is displaying non-live (e.g. non-TV programme service) content streamed from a hard disk drive. This viewing of this content categorically does not require a TV licence. Baldy goon, seemingly without a flicker of conscience, makes the incorrect statement: “Under the Telecommunications (sic) Act 2003 if you have receiving equipment than you must have a TV licence”. 

That is not the case. The law is quite clear that a licence is only needed if equipment is installed or used for the purposes of receiving TV programme services. Owning or possessing equipment capable of receiving TV programme services is totally irrelevant - even more so in an era when anyone with web access is only a few clicks away from watching TV. It is the act of receiving TV programme services that matters - not the capability to do so. His farcical argument is analogous to saying anyone who has a car on the driveway and beer in the fridge is a drink driver.

His colleague, Beardy, asks the occupier to put BBC One on for them. The occupier, wisely sensing their honey trap, refuses to turn on BBC One as he is not correctly licensed to do so.

PC 1804 then chips in with this incorrect piece of information: “Once you have the facility to receive it (TV programmes) you need a licence”.

In a bid to prove to the two bumbling goons that a licence is not needed to merely own any sort of equipment, the occupier navigates to the TV Licensing website and reads them an extract: “You only need a TV licence if you watch or record live TV”. 

As the occupier taps at the keyboard Beardy goon says: “You’re streaming it live, aren’t you?” The occupier quickly reiterates that he has not been watching any live TV programmes, to which Baldy goon replies: "You can't prove that you haven't been, can you?" The occupier, clearly exasperated by this stage, replies: "You can't prove that I have".

Maybe it's because of the closeness to Christmas, but beardy goon decides to pursue some pantomime style of questioning:

Beardy - “Is this (image on TV set) coming through the computer, is it?”

Occupier - “No, it’s coming from a hard disk drive”

Beardy - “How did it get onto the hard disk drive?"

Occupier - “From a DVD”

Beardy - “How did it get onto the DVD?”

Occupier - "Don't give me that bull. It was made in a TV studio. It wasn't broadcast by the BBC or any other entity"

His voice breaking with distress, the occupier pleads with PC 1804 "can't you see what they're trying to do?", but he's clearly thick as pork so it too falls on deaf ears.

By this stage Beardy goon is taking a keen interest in the completion of his TVL178 Record of Interview form. As he scratches away with his crayon the occupier rightly asks to see what is being written. Beardy isn't too keen to show his scribblings, but eventually relents and lets the occupier read.

At about 13 minutes and 40 seconds this story takes its most alarming twist when the following is said:

Occupier - "All right, I'll show you TV 1, but not through the computer because obviously I can receive it through the computer, but it doesn't mean I watch it. Anybody with a computer can receive it"

Baldy (cuts off occupier mid-sentence) - "So you're saying you can receive it? That'll do us, that's all we need. We just need your admissions, that'll do us. You've just said, in front of a police officer..."

Occupier - "Have I watched it though? Have I watched it?"

Baldy - "That's not  for me to judge"

PC 1804 (incorrectly) - "I believe the point of law is that if you have the facility to receive it you need a licence"

Occupier (quite correctly) - "It's not. Just because you've got the equipment doesn't mean you're going to commit the crime"

After further heated discussion the occupier reluctantly gives his name to Beardy goon. Beardy goon approaches the occupier's wife to get her to sign the TVL178, but she refuses.

The goons and police leave shortly afterwards.

This is by far the most sickening TV Licensing search warrant video we have seen. The way the goons are clearly prepared to twist, contort and selectively quote the occupier's words out of context is a matter of grave concern. That PC 1804 stands by without saying anything is also alarming, as is his dire lack of knowledge about TV licence law.

If this one does end up going to court the BBC can be sure that we will be very vocal about the unscrupulous way this search "evidence" was collected. They can also be sure that we'll be packing the public gallery at Teesside Magistrates' in support of their most recent victim.

TV Licensing are low-life scum, pure and simple. The actions of these rogue employees, when amplified far and wide across the web, will do nothing but reinforce that opinion with the wider public.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Edit (20/12/13): These two TV Licensing goons have been caught on camera executing another Hartlepool search warrant. Their behaviour on that occasion is equally disturbing. See this post for more information.

Edit (20/5/14): We now have confirmed names for both of these goons: Baldy is Terry Docherty, who lives in Sunderland, and Beardy is Burgess Nasr, who lives in Marske.