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.

Disclosure

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Journalists: Further Probing of TV Licensing Unjust Prosecutions Required

TV Licensing has been getting a well deserved media battering for prosecuting vulnerable people where there is absolutely no public interest in doing so.

However, owing to the way the Single Justice Procedure works TV Licensing has been able to claim that it was unaware of the unique mitigating circumstances in the cases highlighted.

But is that really the case? Did TV Licensing really not know that it was prosecuting a 62-year-old Sunderland woman who was severely sight impaired and had brain damage? Did it not know that it was prosecuting a 71-year-old West Bromwich man who was suffering from depression, is housebound and who understands little English?

Well the answer, in our opinion, is that despite its denials TV Licensing probably did know at least something about the personal circumstances of these individuals.

We base that on the fact that the TVL178 Record of Interview form, on which every TV Licensing prosecution depends, specifically asks the question "are there any personal circumstances that you would like us to be aware of?"

It is entirely likely the Sunderland woman informed TV Licensing of her circumstances when she was asked that question by the goon interviewing her on her doorstep. Similarly, it is entirely likely the West Bromwich man informed TV Licensing of his circumstances when he was interviewed on his doorstep.

Maybe TV Licensing didn't get the full story from these individuals when they were interviewed, but they were probably told enough to suggest that these cases were worthy of closer scrutiny in relation to the public interest test.

If there are any journalists reading who are able to take this further, we would ask them to get hold of the completed TVL178 forms in each of these cases and see if it really is true that TV Licensing was told nothing about personal circumstances of these individuals.

A decade ago if you said the Post Office was a corrupt organisation prepared to fit up its own employees in the criminal court, people would have looked at you as if you had two heads.

Do not be under any doubt at all about TV Licensing's inherent dishonesty and propensity to tell lies when it finds itself in a tight corner.

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

No comments: