Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download BBC on-demand programmes via the iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a TV licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.


As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Saturday 21 February 2015

TV Licensing Dodgy Deposition Case: An Update

We have been following the story of how YouTube user j2Lightworker, real name (Jonathan) James Fallows, has been trying to hold TV Licensing to account after it wrongly searched his former property.

Anyone unfamiliar with James' case will find detailed background information in our earlier post on the subject. 

As someone who never watches TV programmes, James was flabbergasted at becoming the victim of a TV Licensing search warrant visit. 

That visit, which took place towards the end of June 2012, found no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception - then again it wouldn't do, given the legitimacy of James' licence free status.

Given that James' innocence had been confirmed, he was curious at the evidence TV Licensing presented to Magistrates in order to obtain the search warrant in the first place. Before proceeding, anyone unfamiliar with the search warrant process might like to read our detailed post on the subject.

To put not too fine a point on it, it would appear that the evidence presented by TV Licensing was flawed. That evidence, which was presented on oath, can be viewed in full in our earlier post. It is directly contradicted by video footage James obtained of TV Licensing visits prior to the warrant's execution.

Even giving TV Licensing the benefit of the doubt, it would appear that questions remain about the quality of evidence it presented during the search warrant application. Quite simply, TV Licensing's account and that shown in James' video do not match. One of them must be wrong and the source of that error, which has resulted in an innocent man's home being violated, is surely worthy of closer investigation.

James' initial approach was to raise his concerns with Kirklees Magistrates' Court, which had authorised the search of his former property in the first place. Contrary to expectation, the court wasn't the least bit concerned at the idea that TV Licensing may have laid inaccurate information on oath. The court did, however, suggest that the police may be more interested in hearing James' concerns.

That being the case James took his complaint to Bradford Central Police Station. Having laboriously explained the situation to the civilian desk officer, he was eventually rewarded by the presence of a real police officer. That officer, Inspector David Apsee, flippantly rejected James' concerns and refused to take his complaint. 

Trade unionist Apsee, who clearly believes that TV Licensing is above the law, has since been disciplined for the unprofessional way he dealt with James on that occasion. Despite acknowledging its poor handling of James' complaint, West Yorkshire Police has been loathe to investigate matters any further.

That brings us about up to date, but this matter is not going away. James and his supporters are still actively pursuing an investigation into the evidence presented by TV Licensing. Letters, emails and a dossier of evidence are flying all over the place, so it will surely only be a matter of time before James' concerns are taken seriously.

It is a matter of grave concern that the police and courts, who should be working to uphold the law, have closed ranks to make James' quest for answers as difficult as possible.

Watch this space for further updates.


Anonymous said...

I think a lot of it is that the police view thees Goons as officers due to there supposed ability to interview under caution that's a bit like giving a monkey a machine gun and rewarding it for everyone he shoots they don't realize they are commission led salesmen

Unknown said...

The courts are already clogged up with TV Licence prosecutions so imagine the strain that would be put on an already stretched system if everyone followed James Fallows example by demanding to see the deposition made against them then actively pursuing any descepency they find.

That will be the main motivation behind trying to give James the run around in this case. They simply don't want to be inundated with empowered people demanding answers from them.
The fact that someone somewhere has perjured themselves on oath seems to have passed the police and the court officals by and someone is getting away with perjury because of this.