TV Licensing

A couple of days ago our attention was drawn to a new video apparently showing a TV Licensing goon behaving badly during his visit to a legally-licence-free property.

We believe the visit took place at a property in the Bracknell (RG12) post code area on Tuesday, 16th December 2014.

At first we were not totally convinced about this goon's credentials. It even passed through our minds that he might be an imposter rather than a bone fide Capita employed thug. Having studied the uncensored video carefully, we are now of the opinion that he really is from TV Licensing.

In all the years we've been doing this we have never seen a goon behaving as attrociously as this repugnant specimen. This goon sets an all time low for TV Licensing, which is no mean feat given the extremely dubious conduct of some of his colleagues.

Understandably, we are very keen to identify this goon and it is only a matter of time before we do. In the meantime the BBC and TV Licensing, who are reading this post, might like to warn this goon that we're on his case.

For reference, the goon's exchange with the legal occupier is transcribed below:

____________________

Occupier: Can I see some ID please?

Goon: Yep. There you go.

[The goon flashes his ID card momentarily towards the legal occupier]

Goon: You see it? That's it.

[The goon snatches the ID card away when the occupier attempts to study the details more closely]

Goon: Don't touch it please, thank you. Just like I won't touch your stuff, don't touch mine please. That's not right.

Occupier: Who are you? What's your name please. Identify yourself.

Goon: I'm from TV Licensing. I understand that you live here. This is [reads out full address and post code from handheld device]...

Occupier: I do not want to buy anything from you thank you.

Goon (shouting to camera): ...and this lady does not have a TV licence. She is cheating the system...

Occupier: Excuse me!

Goon: ...and she does not have a TV licence.

Occupier: I do not need a licence, okay? What's your name?

[The goon turns to leave the property]

Occupier: What's your name? Identify yourself.

[The occupier follows the goon slightly down the garden path]

Occupier: Is your care insured for this sort of purposes?

____________________

As you can see, the video footage is blurry in parts, but it still provides a good description of the rogue goon in question. He is Asian, between 30 and 40 years old, unshaven, wears thick black-framed reading glasses attached to a lanyard and has a gold ring on the second finger of his right hand. During the visit he was wearing a grey flat cap and a black outdoor coat with a white collar shirt underneath.

We are pretty sure, with a 97% confidence factor, that his Capita bosses will recognise that description and we'd like to think they would take him to task for his absymal conduct. We wonder how many other people he has accused of "cheating the system" on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever. How many of those people have ended up in court on the basis of his uncorroborated opinion?

A TV licence is only needed for those properties where equipment is installed or used to receive TV programmes at the same time they are broadcast to the wider public. Anyone not in that situation does not legally require a TV licence, and is under no obligation to assist TV Licensing at all.

With scum like this doing TV Licensing's dirty work, we reiterate that the best option is to ignore TV Licensing completely. Tell them nothing and close the door.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your Christmas shopping.

A small TV Licensing Blog housekeeping announcement: The latest edition of our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare, will be published on 1st January 2015.

The 2015 edition, which has been proofread and approved by our noble colleague TheJesusofKayaking (the BBC's most favourite kayaking enthusiast in the whole wide world), contains more than 60 pages jam packed with advice about what the licence fee is, how it works and how it is enforced.

Don't forget to snap up your copy on 1st January 2015. It's totally free and there's no catch at all. We just hope you find reading it as enjoyable as we did writing it!

TV Licensing has just released its latest tranche of canned press releases to newspapers across the land.

This time, in common with every other time they need a bit of a publicity boost, they are focusing on the weird and wonderful excuses supposedly given for non-payment of the TV licence fee. It's one of TV Licensing's favourite stories, which they regurgitate ad nauseum.

Of course there is no way of corroborating any of the excuses given by TV Licensing and we know, as a matter of fact, that TV Licensing frequently tell lies on the doorstep and in their promotional material. For some obscure reason the newspapers are still quite happy to print any fantastical tripe originating from the dysfunctional mind of a TV Licensing PR harlot.

Here, to redress the balance, we present ten TV Licensing lies:

1. TV Licensing lie: "Whatever you're watching; however you're watching it; your home needs a TV licence".

Source: A TV Licensing threatogram (see here).

TV Licensing truth: This is such a bare-faced lie that the truth speaks for it self. A TV licence is only needed for those properties where equipment is installed or used to receive TV programme services.

2. TV Licensing lie: "I'm not from TV Licensing".

Source: A TV Licensing goon speaking to the occupier of a correctly unlicensed property (see here).

TV Licensing truth: The same TV Licensing goon, Paul Beale, has been captured on video several times. His TV Licensing ID card was clearly displayed in one of those videos.

3. TV Licensing lie: "I didn't assault you".

Source: A TV Licensing goon speaking to the occupier of a correctly unlicensed property in the Redcar and Cleveland village of Carlin How (see here).

TV Licensing truth: The footage of this incident shows quite clearly that the goon did hit the occupier. It will be difficult even for TV Licensing to pretend otherwise.

4. TV Licensing lie: "We are not aggressive or threatening".

Source: This statement comes directly from TV Licensing's brand philosophy (more here).

TV Licensing truth: We know of many occasions where TV Licensing goons have been threatening and aggressive (see here, here, here and here for starters).

5. TV Licensing lie: "If you take an image of me and use it without my express approval then you're in breach of the Data Protection Act".

Source: Scruffy-looking barrack-room lawyer TV Licensing goon during a visit to a correctly unlicensed property (see here).

TV Licensing truth: It is perfectly legal, and positively encouraged, for the occupier of a property to film TV Licensing goons that visit that property or in a public place.

6. TV Licensing lie: "That's not my car".

Source: TV Licensing goon Paul Beale, speaking to the disgruntled occupier of a correctly unlicensed property (see here).

TV Licensing truth: A second video showed Beale driving the exact same car only a few weeks earlier.

7. TV Licensing lie: "We will not prosecute you".

Source: That's what TV Licensing told grieving widower Marcus Greenhouse, who understandably forgot to pay the TV licence fee shortly after the tragic death of his wife. Marcus paid the TV licence fee as soon as the genuine oversight was brought to his attention (see here).

TV Licensing truth: TV Licensing, in a further demonstration of their wayward moral compass, decided it was in the public interest to prosecute Marcus regardless.

8. TV Licensing lie: "TV Licensing will not accept an invoice for time and costs".

Source: That's what TV Licensing told our reader Phil, when he indicated his intention to take legal action against them (see here).

TV Licensing truth: TV Licensing was successfully sued and did eventually pay Phil's claim in full. We encourage others to follow suit.

9. TV Licensing lie: "One of the most prolific YouTube/bloggers (The Jesus of Kayaking) has repeatedly threatened violence against any TV Licensing goon".

Source: An email produced by a member of the BBC TV Licensing team, trying to rally the troops into battle against the evil forces at work on YouTube and in the blogosphere. Evil forces just like us actually! (see here).

TV Licensing truth: We are big fans of the YouTube channel in question and have never seen anything that remotely threatens violence against TV Licensing goons. Still, let's not let the truth stand in the way of a good story, eh TV Licensing?

10. TV Licensing lie: "I've now deleted your address from our system, which will stop any further letters being sent to you".

Source: A letter from TV Licensing to a licence-holder who had wrongly been receiving threatograms (see here).

TV Licensing truth: Much to the occupier's exasperation, TV Licensing continued to send threatograms to the correctly licensed address.

That is ten examples of TV Licensing telling bare-faced lies, with corroborable evidence supporting the fact.

TV Licensing don't provide any evidence at all to support the tripe they plant in the newspapers.

Now that the season of goodwill to all men and women (except TV Licensing goons) is now firmly underway, we thought we'd take a break from today's festivities to pen a few essential reminders for dealing with TV Licensing.

It is a depressing fact of modern life that many families will spend the Christmas period overindulging in food, drink and repeat TV programmes. TV Licensing goons will be out in force trying to capitalise on the excesses of the season. They really aren't bothered whose Christmas they ruin.

As we frequently say, a TV licence is only needed for those properties where equipment is used to receive TV programme services. A TV programme service, legally speaking, is any TV programme available at the same time, or virtually the same time, to other members of the UK public. This encompasses all TV programmes shown on any of the normal terrestrial, satellite or cable channels.

Anyone who does not legally need a TV licence, is under no legal obligation at all to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing. We recommend ignoring TV Licensing completely.

As past experience regularly shows, it would be a wasted effort trying to assist TV Licensing on a voluntary basis. Quite simply, TV Licensing do not believe anyone claiming not to need a TV licence.

We know that TV Licensing goons, whose continued employment relies on hitting near impossible performance targets (e.g. selling TV licences and detecting evasion), are sometimes forced into dishonest practices on the doorstep. The BBC and TV Licensing know this as well, but choose to retain employment terms akin to a thieves' charter.

In the event that TV Licensing do visit your property, please remember the following key points:

TV Licensing goons have no more legal rights than anyone else visiting a property and must leave immediately if the occupier instructs them to.
TV Licensing goons must show their ID on request. The occupier should be allowed the opportunity to inspect the card and verify the details by calling TV Licensing if necessary.
TV Licensing goons must never threaten the occupier with either the police or a search warrant.
The occupier is under no legal obligation to confirm their details or licence status to TV Licensing.
The occupier is under no legal obligation to speak to TV Licensing goons visiting their property.
It is perfectly legal, and positively encouraged, for the occupier to film any TV Licensing goons that visit their property. Whereas TV Licensing goons sometimes tell lies, the camera generally doesn't. The occupier is advised to keep the full, unedited footage of the visit in a safe place.

Finally, can we take this opportunity to thank all of our readers for their continued loyalty and support over the last year. We offer you all our best wishes for the season.

Don't forget that the next edition of TV Licensing Laid Bare goes live on New Year's Day.

The number of people agreeing that the TV licence fee represents good value for money has fallen to its lowest level in a generation, according to recent poll findings.

The poll, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Times, found that only 44% of respondents agreed that the TV licence fee was good value for money. This represents a 4% drop in support for the fee since the last comparable data was collected.

In contrast, 45% of respondents indicated their preference for an alternative method of BBC funding, including the introduction of subscription services and advertising.

As the law stands at the moment, a TV licence is needed for any property where equipment is used to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast. Payment of the £145.50 fee, which exclusively funds the broadcasting of the BBC, is required irrespective of the TV channel actually being received. This means viewers are legally compelled to fund the BBC, even though they might only ever watch non-BBC content.

In their response to a Daily Mail article on the subject, the BBC said: "At just £2.80 a week per household the BBC provides excellent value for money. It means that programmes like EastEnders, Strictly, Sherlock, Doctor Who and Match of the Day can be watched by everyone, not a select few, along with our radio stations, news, iPlayer and our website.

"Public support for the licence fee has risen since 2004 and remains the most popular way of funding the BBC - indeed, another YouGov poll for The Times earlier in December showed 51% support for the licence fee."

Back in October the Culture Secretary Sajid Javid, whose Department oversees the TV licence fee, announced that barrister David Perry QC is to lead a review into how effectively the BBC administers and enforces the TV licence system.

Two dozen multiple choice questions designed to test your knowledge of TV Licensing in general, and how closely you've been reading our 2014 blog articles in particular!

Please share our quiz with all your friends, to see how much (or little) they really know about the TV licence fee.

It's just for fun, but please post your score in the comments section below.

TV Licensing Blog Quiz of 2014 - ProProfs

The BBC has just released information about the number of TV licence cancellations since the financial year 2001/02.

The information, which was disclosed in a Freedom of Information response to WhatDoTheyKnow.com user Mr Richard White, shows a generally upwards trend in the number of TV licence cancellations until 2011/12, which is followed by a slight decline in the number of cancellations after that.

The number of licences issued has steadily increased over the same period of time, from around 23.2 million in 2001/02 to 25.6 million in 2014/15 (projected). Using a combination of those two values we have been able to calculate the percentage of TV licences cancelled in each financial year, which is slightly more meaningful than the number of cancellations alone.

Financial Year	Cancellations	Licences in Force	% Cancellation
2001/2002	678,712	23,157,215	2.9
2002/2003	686,600	23,485,613	2.9
2003/2004	725,926	23,898,749	3.0
2004/2005	810,338	24,161,532	3.4
2005/2006	897,997	24,418,757	3.7
2006/2007	972,069	24,545,516	4.0
2007/2008	1,000,073	24,740,047	4.0
2008/2009	989,680	24,871,994	4.0
2009/2010	1,017,876	24,963,799	4.1
2010/2011	1,030,837	25,103,079	4.1
2011/2012	1,048,889	25,226,072	4.2
2012/2013	1,017,340	25,338,330	4.0
2013/2014	945,750	25,460,801	3.7
2014/2015	915,042	25,568,000	3.6

Note that projected values are shown for the financial year 2014/15.

Towards the middle of the financial year 2012/13 the BBC was rocked by the revelation that Jimmy Savile, a former television and radio presenter, had sexually abused dozens of children during his time at the Corporation. Despite massive public outcry at the time, it would now appear that very few people actually cancelled their TV licences in protest at the BBC's handling of the Savile scandal.

Perhaps a few more people will cancel when Dame Janet Smith publishes her final report, which will undoubtedly reveal the true extent of Savile's crimes and exactly what the BBC knew about them.

Last year more than 100,000 women were convicted of the heinous crime of using a television receiver without a licence.

Almost 70 percent of TV licence evasion cases considered by Magistrates' Courts involved female defendants, according to figures uncovered by The Times (subscription).

They were convicted of a victimless crime, when at the same time thousands of drunks and drug users escaped prosecution by receiving a verbal reprimand or £80 fixed penalty.

Horrific as these statistics are, the fact that TV Licensing is more likely to target women is hardly earth-shattering news. TV Licensing rules are such that they will happily prosecute whichever adult answers the door of a property where licence fee evasion is taking place. During the daytime, when most TV Licensing enquiries occur, that person is more likely to be a woman.

Under current legislation a TV licence is needed for all properties where equipment is installed or used to receive "as broadcast" TV programmes. Although the TV licence is used exclusively to fund the broadcasting of the BBC, a TV licence is required regardless of the TV channel a person chooses to watch.

The 65 year old system of TV licensing harks back to different era, when the BBC was the only broadcaster in the UK. Today, with literally hundreds of non-BBC TV services adorning the airwaves, it is a perverse anomaly that TV viewers are still forced to pay for a service they might not want or use.

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, an active campaigner for the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion, told The Times: "Sixty-nine per cent of the convictions are female, just because they happen to be at home when the licence fee inspector calls.

"The licence fee is an anachronism, it discriminates against the poorest in society."

More than two-thirds of those convicted of TV licence evasion are women, according to shocking statistics reported by The Times yesterday.

Talk show presenter Petrie Hosken took the opportunity to discuss the story on her LBC Radio show yesterday. The segment was broadcast in the final hour of the show, between 12 noon and 1 pm.

Having listened closely to the show, there are a couple of points we'd like to begin by clarifying:

The maximum fine (not minimum, as mentioned by Petrie) for TV licence evasion is £1,000. The BBC is very keen to publicise this maximum figure, but when the Sentencing Guidelines are taken into consideration most of those convicted receive a much lower fine. Magistrates do have some flexibility when it comes to the level of fine they impose, although as an indication we consider that most first time offenders will receive a fine of around £150 (if employed) or £50 (if unemployed/on benefits). Even in the most severe of cases, where a person has several previous convictions for TV licence fee evasion, we have never known a fine in excess of £500. The vast majority of those convicted would also have to pay a contribution towards TV Licensing's prosecution costs, which currently stands at £120. Anyone receiving a fine would also have to pay the victim surcharge, which currently stands at the greater of £20 or 10% of the fine value.
A person cannot be imprisoned for TV licence evasion. As mentioned above, the maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine. Those people ending up in prison, are there for the separate offence of non-payment of fines.
A TV licence is only needed for those properties where equipment is used to receive TV programmes, regardless of the channel they are broadcast on. Petrie mistakenly claimed, on several occasions, that a TV licence was only needed to watch programmes on BBC channels.
A TV licence is not needed merely to own or possess such equipment, contrary to the opinion of caller Dave in New Cross.

Some key quotes from Petrie's show:

____________________

Petrie: "I want to talk about the persecution of non-licence fee payers when it comes to the BBC."

Petrie: "Last year 32 people were sent to prison for failing to pay a TV licence bill. Unbelievable. When you hear on a regular basis that burglars, muggers and seriously bad people get community service after 30 or 40 things are taken into account in court - people are still going to prison for not paying their licence fee. What a waste of money."

Petrie: "The latest figures also expose the time and cost to the taxpayer of prosecuting the crime. TV licence cases accounted for 1 in 10 of all cases in the Magistrates' Court in England and Wales, with more than 3,000 cases a week going to the Magistrates' Court."

Petrie: "How can it be a criminal offence, ending up with a prison sentence, to not pay to watch your telly?"

Mick (on the Isle of Wight): "The BBC employs a company called Capita, who are like bully boys."

Mick (on the Isle of Wight): "If you go onto YouTube and type in 'TV Licence Goons' there's loads and loads of videos. People are uploading videos all the time. If they knock on your door, the first thing you want to do is record them. They don't like being recorded. They will ask you to put your camera down, but you've got every right to film in a public place. Not all the time, but I guess 8 times out of 10, they'll walk away because they don't want to be put on YouTube."

Petrie: "There can't be anybody, in the world, who believes that this should be a criminal offence?"

Claire (on the Isle of Wight): "I see the TV licence as a forced purchase."

Claire (on the Isle of Wight): "The BBC, like a bunch of fascists, are basically forcing us to purchase their product. I think it's totally wrong."

John (in Knebworth): "I find it quite appalling that the Queen and her representatives could put you in jail for something so daft."

Ian (in Edgware): "This is one of the best subjects I think you've ever done. I think the BBC and their licence system is disgusting."

Ian (in Edgware): "I'd like to see the BBC redone as an opt-in service. And if it was an opt-in service, I can assure you that I would opt-out of it."

Mark (in Sittingbourne): "I'm a spokesman for TV Licence Resistance, which is kind of an informal organisation opposed to the licence and the way that it's enforced."

Petrie: "Surely it is time to decriminalise TV licence evasion."

Paul (in Enfield): "Prison is over-populated and there's a shortage of staff. To not pay your TV licence and end up with a criminal record - you're ruining people's lives."

Paul (in Enfield): "I don't understand why people should be forced to pay for something they don't watch."

Herbie (in Harrow): "The BBC is a great organisation, but how many people would pay for the repeats that we get year in and year out? And for those plush offices that they've got? You know, we're paying for their extravagence and we get no entertainment."

Christina (in Amersham):"My entertainment is LBC, books and my dog. The only reason I pay for a TV licence is my husband, but he certainly isn't watching the BBC."

Jason (in Bushey): "Just over a year ago I got a letter from them. We we're paying by Direct Debit and we missed a payment, so we got a threatening letter threatening to take us to court. I got so annoyed I threw out the Freeview box."

John (in Barnet): "I retired as a Magistrate 6 years ago, after 20 years in inner London. When I was interviewed, before I was appointed, I was asked if there was anything I'd like to change in relation to the law. The first thing I said was we should decriminalise TV licence evasion. I have never changed my views over the years. I don't think it should be an offence. Not even a civil offence."

In today's post we respond to an email from one of our readers.

Our reader writes:

Dear TV Licensing Blog,

A few days ago I saw a YouTube video where a TV licence inspector refused to leave the doorstep when told to by the occupier. The inspector said he was on official business and wouldn't leave until his questions had been answered. He also failed to identify himself properly, apart from saying he was from the TV licence people. The inspector kept on asking if the person who answered the door was the occupier, even though he'd been told to leave. What powers and authority do TV licence inspectors really have?

Mel

TV Licensing Blog replies:

Dear Mel,

Thanks for your email and apologies it has taken a few days to respond. As you might expect, we have reduced our normal operations over the Christmas period.

Having read your description we are not entirely sure of the YouTube video you are referring to. That said, over the years we have seen many examples of TV Licensing behaving badly on YouTube. It seems to be tolerated, if not accepted, practice that TV Licensing employees (who we refer to goons) will bend the rules in order to achieve near impossible performance targets.

As you seem slightly unfamiliar with TV Licensing, it is probably best if we provide some background information before addressing your specific question.

The BBC is legally responsible for all aspects of TV licence enforcement and administration. TV Licensing is a trading name used by companies contracted by the BBC to undertake this function. The TV Licensing operations contract is held by Capita Business Services Ltd, which employs the goons that visit unlicensed properties. Capita also employs TV Licensing call centre staff, maintains the TV Licensing website and collects TV licence payments on behalf of the BBC.

Turning now to your specific question. TV Licensing goons, in the normal course of their enquiries, have no more legal rights than any other visitor to a property. They do not have the automatic right to enter a property, nor do they have the automatic right to inspect equipment therein. Remember that TV Licensing goons are employed by a private company and are not officials in any sense of the word.

According to TV Licensing's own rules, which are contained in a lengthy document called the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures, a goon must behave in a polite manner at all times. TV Licensing goons must show their ID card and leave immediately if the occupier tells them to.

In our experience, which is borne out by the video you describe, TV Licensing goons frequently ignore the rules by failing to show their ID card and leave when told to. We always recommend filming TV Licensing goon encounters, just in case they do decide to break the rules. The occupier is well within their legal rights to film any TV Licensing goon that visits their property, regardless of the goon's opinion on the matter.

In conclusion, TV Licensing goons have no more legal powers or authority than anyone else that visits a property.

We hope that fully addresses your question. If you require any further information please download our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare.

Best wishes of the season.

Peter

If you have any questions you would like answered on the TV Licensing Blog, please email us with the words "Reader Letter" in the subject line. Our email address is in the sidebar. As mentioned on the About page, we can't guarantee to respond to every email but will try our best.

A new edition of our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare, has just been published.

The January 2015 edition includes some of TV Licensing's latest bloopers, including the fact they have been successfully sued by a TV Licensing Blog reader.

The book 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 the 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 regularly harassed by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

The latest version of TV Licensing Laid Bare can be downloaded free with our compliments from this page.

Please share it with anyone else seeking advice about how to deal with TV Licensing. For the latest advice please like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

The very best wishes for the new year to all our readers.

Our reader nsabournemouth, who recently decided to adopt a legally-licence-free lifestyle, has kindly agreed to us publishing an email he has just sent to the BBC, BBC Trust and TV Licensing.

He has also copied in his local Member of Parliament, Andrew Bridgen MP, who is currently campaigning for the decriminalisation of TV licence fee evasion.

We have made some adjustments to improve the readability of nsabournemouth's email, but the essence remains the same.

____________________

To the BBC, BBC Trust and TV Licensing,

As of today (1st January 2015) I will no longer be in need of a TV licence, because I don't watch TV as it is being broadcast.

On contacting TV Licensing I was advised by an agent called Wendy that only her manager can decide that a withdrawal of implied rights of access instruction stands. Unless I am very much mistaken, it is for me to decide who has the right to enter my property or come to my door - not Wendy's manager.

I've come across many videos on YouTube of 'enforcement officers' telling lies, being aggressive and allegedly peering through the window of a young girl's bedroom. It's all very unpleasant stuff and on speaking with another advisor, Tom, he informed me that these videos were staged by opponents of TV Licensing. I ask that TV Licensing provides me with proof to back up these claims.

Behind my change in viewing habits is an utter hatred for the BBC. I hate the fact that I am required to pay for a TV licence even if I don't watch BBC content. More so my hatred stems from the way in which the BBC has conducted itself. Child sex abuse allegations, employees going on strike and the poorest in society faced with having to spend money they don't have to fund the lavish lifestyles of BBC employees.

The BBC is an organisation that cares very little for the people who fund it. I could go as far as saying the BBC is worse than any private company, because they at least have to fight for every penny they make. The BBC, on the other hand, is guaranteed funding regardless of how poor its performance.

As technology and viewing habits change the BBC finds itself getting left behind. Instead of moving forward, it defends a regressive funding method that assumes non-payers are guilty of a crime. This leads to some horrific harassment of law abiding people.

In a blog post James Heath said that the BBC is democratic. How is funding it by fear of criminal record, court, fine and prison democratic? Democratic would be asking me if I wanted to fund the BBC. Democratic would be letting me consume live TV from other broadcasters without fear of the BBC sending me to prison.

Over the past 2 years the BBC has sent out 47 million threatening letters, even to people who have passed away. Last year 159,369 people were cautioned or prosecuted for not funding the BBC. Those employed to seek out people without a TV licence are paid commission for licence sold or person taken to court. Is that something the British public should be proud of? Something other countries are jealous of?

To receive live TV I require a Virgin or Sky box as the Freeview service is extremely poor in terms of reception. As I have made the democratic choice not to subscribe to Virgin or Sky, I will be unable to have live TV. As I won't be watching live TV that should be the end of the matter, no TV licence for me, but it's not as easy as that.

The BBC assumes I am guilty of a crime and as such will send me threatening letters and employ the services of a private company to knock at my door. Their sole purpose is to try and catch me out and get someone, anyone, to buy a TV licence or sign a false admission of guilt. On TV Licensing's website they use scare tactics such as the threat of enforcement officers and detector vans to frighten people into paying for a TV licence they might not need.

To that end I have attached a letter removing your implied right of access to my home. I do not want to be bullied and harassed by BBC hired thugs. I also fear for my wife, who is scared that one of your hired thugs will turn up and trick her into making a false statement. The BBC, something the British public should be proud of? I certainly do not want you in my home with my baby here.

I've got absolutely nothing to hide from anyone. I'm a law abiding citizen, yet the BBC makes me feel like a criminal because they wrongly think I'm watching TV as it is broadcast. Making people feel like criminals for choosing not to watch TV as it is broadcast - what sort of country is this?

The BBC or the BBC Trust hasn't earned my trust. The BBC doesn't have my respect and I don't see it as a national treasure. I see them both as self-serving monsters, who live off the backs of the hard working British public. Your continued assumption that the British public support you is false and it only serves to prove otherwise.

The BBC will do everything in its power to keep the British public living in fear. This is the job of Alice Dickerson, who walks around Westminster trying to convince people that BBC should still use threats of criminal records, court and prison to secure its funding.

The BBC is morally bankrupt, out of touch, out of date and hanging on by invoking fear. The scare tactics used to harass people are reprehensible

There is a very bad smell of corruption, waste and biased coming from BBC towers and the British public will no longer be putting up with it. I wish my not needing a TV licence was based on principle, rather than my inability to receive live TV. Sadly the BBC prevents me from exercising my democratic right not to pay for its services.

I am sick of your lies, your waste and your threats. I expect TV Licensing to abide by my instruction not to visit my property. I also expect the BBC and BBC Trust to simply sweep my concerns under the carpet, as they appear to have done with child sexual abuse allegations.

TV Licensing has decided not to prosecute a foreign student, who complained to the police about the threatening and dishonest interview technique used by the goon.

You might remember that our reader Sera wrote to us explaining how her flatmate had been duped into signing one of TV Licensing's infamous TVL178 Record of Interview forms.

To briefly recap, the goon had arrived at the shared student property and told them that they had been watching TV without a licence and needed to pay the £145.50 fee immediately.

The students, who hadn't even installed a TV receiver in the fortnight they had been in occupation, rightly stuck to their guns and refused to pay. Sera told us: "He wanted to inspect the property, but we refused because his attitude was bad and he seemed very shady".

Eventually, having been bamboozled by questions, the students were keen to get the goon out of the property. In an effort to hasten the goon's departure, Sera's flatmate signed his paperwork in the mistaken belief it was a simple survey.

They now realise that the goon's survey was actually the TVL178 form, which they have now had the opportunity to inspect more closely. Sera continued: "Looking back at the form, it contains incorrect information. The TV Licensing man did not tell us he was interviewing us under caution or that the form could later be used in court".

This morning Sera has sent us another email explaining how she has just learnt that TV Licensing has decided not to pursue any charges against her flatmate.

Her flatmate got in touch with the police shortly after the goon's visit, but the police incorrectly refused to accept a complaint over the phone because "it is not a police matter, it's a civil matter". Quite how allegations of perverting the course of justice can be a civil matter remains unclear, but the police's ignorance of the law is only to be expected.

Her flatmate phoned the police again the following day and eventually, after much to-ing and fro-ing, managed to get a reference number for the incident. The logic was that if the matter did get as far as court, at least the complaint would be on file.

The next working day her flatmate contacted TV Licensing, but got no further forward as it had not yet received the completed TVL178 from the goon in question.

About a week later a subsequent phone call was made to TV Licensing, in which it was stated that the police had been contacted about the behaviour of the goon in question.

A few weeks after that a letter arrived from TV Licensing stating that it would not be taking any further action.

Much as we approve of TV Licensing's decision not prosecute, it does mean there will be no closer legal scrutiny of the incident in question. We have previously commented on TV Licensing's strategy of pulling the plug whenever questions are raised about the quality of its evidence or integrity of its employees.

TV Licensing is unlikely to investigate this matter any further. It will likely be filed in the drawer labelled "disgruntled evaders who make complaints and escape prosecution". That's the suspicious mindset of the BBC's militant revenue generation arm.

Still, at least Sera's flatmate is in the clear.

Two different TV Licensing goons have been caught on camera in the last 24 hours.

As we've mentioned on many previous occasions, it is perfectly legal for the occupier of any property to video or audio record any TV Licensing goons that visit. The goon does not need to be informed, nor do they need to consent, for such recording to take place. The only legal way a TV Licensing goon can prevent the occupier from recording is by physically withdrawing from the property, but for some strange reason you get a few goons that seem to enjoy their moment of fame and act up to the camera.

We strongly encourage the recording of TV Licensing goon visits. By exercising their legal right to record, the occupier deprives the goon of the opportunity to fabricate or embellish the circumstances of the visit later on. The presence of a camera also serves to moderate the TV Licensing goon's behaviour and focus their mind on conducting the visit correctly.

The first video was shot in Scotland. The beany-wearing TV Licensing goon, shown in the image above, is clearly a bit of a chancer. He begins by incorrectly saying that the occupier doesn't have authority to record him. Of course the goon knows full well that being recorded is part of the job, because the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures say as much. The goon goes through the now familiar mantra of reciting the address out loud, in the mistaken belief that doing so will prevent the video being uploaded to YouTube.

The second video was shot in the Teesside area. The goon, who had previously been recorded during an earlier visit to TV Licensing malicious search warrant victim Mick Oldfield, was a bit more subdued at the prospect of appearing on camera for the second time. The occupier gave him the silent treatment, but the goon persisted with his doorstep patter. The goon, who is also very familiar with the rules on recording, challenged the occupier about the camera on several occasions. He arrogantly left the property asking if he should tidy his hair for the camera.

If you're the occupier of a legally-licence-free property, then please keep your camera charged up and ready by the front door.

If you know the name of either of these TV Licensing goons then please get in touch. We look forward to identifying them - particularly the Teesside one.

Michael Shakespeare, who was wrongly convicted of TV licence evasion, has spoken live about his experiences on Russia Today.

His story almost defies belief. Briefly, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the case, he decided to invite TV Licensing into his home to prove that he didn't legally require a TV licence. The goon that visited, Ian Doyle, was quite satisfied that there was no evidence of unlicensed TV reception at the property. TV Licensing, who don't like outspoken opponents like Michael, decided to go ahead and prosecute him anyway.

You'll have to read our earlier post to see the extraordinary lengths TV Licensing went to in order to wrongly criminalise a completely innocent man.

Thankfully the Crown Court saw through the farce of Michael's Magistrates' Court trial and his conviction was overturned.

Below is a full transcript of Michael's interview with Russia Today presenter Bill Dod. It was broadcast live at 7.15 pm on 6th January 2015.

____________________

Bill Dod (BD): Michael, good to see you. Just tell us briefly about your story. You were arrested, but you didn't actually have a TV. There's something quite sinister that happened?

Michael Shakespeare (MS): The law requires you to have a licence if you watch live broadcasts. If you watch catch-up programmes or pre-recorded programes on, for example, a computer or monitor, you don't require a licence.

BD: And you made it very clear to the authorities that you had no (need for a) licence and interestingly enough they came to visit your property.

MS: I invited them to come, because the regime they operate is so - well some people would say, and I agree - is so oppressive and so aggressive that they keep writing to you, even though you say "look, I don't need your product". I actually invited them around.

BD: They came around and there was no indication at all that you had live television?

MS: The inspector (Doyle) spent half an hour examining the equipment that I had and interestingly enough he said at the time, because I captured it all on film, that he was quite satisfied that I wasn't breaking the law. He went away and 5 months later I was summoned to court.

BD: Why?

MS: It's strange. The prosecution (TV Licensing) produced a piece of evidence from my actual film, or a copy of it, that had an image showing on the TV.

BD: And it was an image of what? A live broadcast?

MS: Well they claimed it was. It was a still image.

BD: Right, so basically you were set up and then you were then taken to court because they accused you of having a TV. Just very briefly, why do you think they corrupted the image and pretended that you had a live TV in your room when you didn't? Just very briefly.

MS: Well obviously I can't say that they corrupted the image. They downloaded the film - the clip that they used - they downloaded it from an unspecified source. An unverified source.

BD: Anyway, you did clear your name. The fact is, don't you think it is right though that people should be brought to account if they do not pay their TV licence?

MS: Personally, no.

BD: Why not?

MS: Because it's a bad law. It's unfair, it's anachronistic.

BD: How else should you get programmes funded? For example, free programmes, as it were, from the BBC. Open access. How else should it be done?

MS: Subscription. That's one model that's been put forward.

BD: But we have a public service broadcaster, which should obviously be supported by the public?

MS: But Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster. They have a public service remit as well.

BD: But what about the fact that people going on holiday - it's not just TV licence fees, but council taxes as well - if you haven't paid up do you think it's right that border control police can actually apprehend you?

MS: I don't actually, no.

BD: Why not? You're breaking the law.

MS: Because they make mistakes. People make mistakes. You're saying that the state should restrict people's freedom of travel on the basis that they say you've not paid your fees.

BD: So just very briefly, if you don't have a TV licence or, as I say, do have a TV at home in the future, would you actually refuse to pay the licence fee? Just briefly.

MS: Yes, I would personally.

BD: And you would be prepared to go to jail for this?

MS: I would be personally, yes.

BD: Michael , thanks very much indeed for joining us. Michael Shakespeare live here on RT UK. Thanks for watching us.

____________________

We think Michael did very well to keep his opinions to himself on the subject of who actually doctored the dodgy video footage. We're in little doubt and it doesn't sound like the presenter is either!

As RT has now aired TV Licensing's dirty laundry in public, it would be nice if the national press now followed suit and gave Michael's story the prominence it deserves.

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

At the end of July 2014 we reported on a bizarre TV Licensing search warrant visit to a Kent property.

The visit was bizarre in the sense that the occupier acted perfectly reasonably throughout, but the TV Licensing's goons conducting the visit - Phillip Carvill and Alfred Gjergji - still indicated search warrant obstruction charges as a possible outcome. Their search uncovered no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception, despite that fact that Carvill personally attempted to install some equipment in a desperate attempt to incriminate the occupier.

We didn't think for one moment that TV Licensing would have the brass neck to pursue any trumped up obstruction charges, but apparently we were mistaken. In a remarkable demonstration of TV Licensing's vindictiveness, the occupier of the property was actually summoned to court on those charges.

TV Licensing's actions further reinforce our belief that it pursues search warrant obstruction as some sort of perverse consolation prize, even when it uncovers no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception.

Clearly TV Licensing doesn't like to lose face by searching a property where there is no evidence of unlicensed TV reception, so it tries to contort the circumstances to its own advantage. When the victim of TV Licensing's malicious search appears in court the newspaper headlines will always be "Joe Bloggs Convicted of Search Warrant Obstruction" instead of "TV Licensing Wrongly Searches Home Without TV". Of course if Joe Bloggs is acquitted of search warrant obstruction the newspapers won't want to know, so TV Licensing wins with either outcome.

In our earlier article we summarised some of the key circumstances of the visit that makes search warrant obstruction slightly implausible in our opinion:

The occupier allowed TV Licensing entry very quickly, as soon as he has checked their ID and established the purpose of their visit. The time stamp on the video shows that the goons were inside the property within 45 seconds.
The occupier immediately showed the goons where the TV set was and offered them the chance to examine it. At no time during the visit did the occupier stand anywhere near the TV set, or attempt to block the goons' access to it.
The occupier rummaged around to find the remote control and attempted to hand it to the lead goon (Carvill). The lead goon refused to take it, instead trying to get the occupier to incriminate himself by turning on the TV set. It is entirely understandable that the occupier refused to turn on the TV set in these circumstances.
The Notice of Powers and Rights (view here), a document given to the occupier that outlines TV Licensing's rights during the search, does not state that the occupier needs to answer their questions or help them turn on equipment.
The lead goon actually attempted to install the TV set by plugging in the power and aerial leads himself. Even if TV programmes had been seen, it is difficult to reconcile how the occupier could have been guilty of an offence due to the goon's actions of installing the equipment.
Both goons clearly lacked the technical ability and mental aptitude to operate and inspect the equipment present. On several occasions they were heard to say "I don't know how this works".
The occupier remained calm, well-reasoned and civil throughout. He had the forethought to explain his actions throughout the video. He also clearly explained the goons' actions during the video.
The goons made no attempt to caution the occupier until about 8 minutes into their visit, by which time the younger one had virtually completed the TVL178 Record of Interview form. Given this elementary breach of procedure, we'd suggest the completed form is evidentially worthless.
At no point was any TV programme image ever displayed on the TV screen (in case anyone tries to superimpose a frozen image from The One Show later on). The only images seen were the DVD player's welcome screen and the TV's own internal menu screen.
Chapter 16, Section 2 of the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures (which is usually redacted by the BBC) states the following in bolded print: "NB - a refusal to provide name, to cooperate with the interview or to otherwise be "difficult" does not amount to an obstruction of the warrant".

The occupier attended court to plead not guilty and the case is currently adjourned pending his trial. We will be following this very closely. In this case we really do think TV Licensing has bitten off more than it can chew.

Stay tuned for further developments in this very interesting case.

Using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we asked the BBC to provide some more information about a TV Licensing goon hitting a member of the public.

The incident, which we wrote about last August, happened in the village of Carlin How near Middlesbrough. The video footage leaves little to the imagination. It clearly showed the moment the elderly TV Licensing goon ran up to the occupier and struck his camera with a solid blow.

The BBC has just provided its response, which shows characteristic indifference to the goon's poor behaviour. Time and time again we have seen how the BBC apparently couldn't give a stuff about the antics TV Licensing goons get up to in the name of revenue generation.

The BBC retains legal responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the TV licence fee, but is very happy to pass the buck to its wayward contractor Capita whenever a TV Licensing goon behaves badly. The BBC maintains a distance from its TV Licensing brand so it can conveniently abdicate its responsibilities whenever the going gets tough.

An internal email from the BBC TV Licensing Management Team to the BBC Press Office said the following: "A video appeared on YouTube today where a householder follows a TV Licensing enquiry officer to his car and films the number plate. The officer then appears to push the camera away and the householder then accuses the officer of assault.

"We haven't had any request for comment, but we usually refer any enquiries about EOs' behaviour to Capita as their employer.

"If approached, our line with be that EOs are expected to follow a strict code of conduct."

Nothing much there, although notice how the BBC's TV Licensing Management Team are immediately playing down the idea of an assault. As we said, the footage speaks for itself. There is no doubt at all about the goon's actions.

Our eye is also drawn to a visit record form, which appears to show that the goon in question reported the fact he had been filmed. Spookily enough - and I'm sure the BBC, as masters of deception, would claim it was a genuine oversight - the goon appears to have omitted the fact that he actually hit someone during the same visit. Why might that be?

We are surprised at how little information the BBC has actually disclosed, considering they have been sniffing about this story for the past five months. That may be a further indication of how little importance they attach to TV Licensing goons behaving aggressively on the job. Just as long as the cash keeps rolling in, eh?

You can read the full text of our request and the BBC's response here.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your shopping.

In today's post we respond to an email received from one of our readers.

Our reader writes:

Dear TV Licensing Blog,

I am a student living in a university hall of residence. The university has told all livers-in that they must have a TV licence to use a television in their room. The university has also said that it co-operates with TV Licensing.

I rarely watch television because I'm involved in several clubs and don't have much spare time. For that reason I don't see the value in buying a TV licence. I occasionally watch television on my laptop, but it's very irregular and mainly confined to Celebrity Big Brother late in the evening.

What are the chances of TV Licensing catching me watching television programmes on my laptop?

Please can you let me know. Thanks ever so much for all the help your awesome blog has given me so far.

Jenny

TV Licensing Blog replies:

Dear Jenny,

Thank you for contacting the TV Licensing Blog. We're grateful for your kind words and pleased you enjoy reading our articles.

As a regular reader of our blog, you're probably aware of the law already. Briefly, for the benefit of any newcomers also reading this reply, a TV licence is required for any property where equipment is installed or used to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast to the wider public.

If you only watch TV programmes on unplugged equipment powered by its own internal battery (such as a laptop, tablet or mobile phone), then the TV licence of your non-term time address would normally cover you. That being the case, the simple way to stay within the law would be to unplug your laptop before viewing.

Suppose your non-term time address didn't have a valid TV licence, which is pretty unlikely, then you would have to buy a separate licence to cover the reception of TV programmes within your hall of residence room. That would be the case regardless of the equipment you were using, whether plugged in or not.

Of course you could adjust your viewing habits and watch non-live catch-up services instead, which would not require a TV licence at all.

Turning to your specific question, if you continue to watch Celebrity Big Brother late in the evening then it's pretty unlikely you will be caught by TV Licensing. TV Licensing has to catch a licence fee evader in the act of receiving TV programmes in an unlicensed property before it can prosecute.

TV Licensing does not have any special equipment or authority to tap into people's web history, nor is it entitled to ask for that information from the internet service providers or university. Given the circumstances you describe, it is very unlikely TV Licensing would ever catch you in the act of receiving TV programmes without a valid TV licence.

As TV Licensing goons have no special rights of entry, you can deprive them of any evidence by simply refusing to speak to them if they call. Definitely do not let them into your room. TV Licensing is known to employ undesirable individuals, some with proven criminal tendencies, so as a lone female student it would be unwise to let them in, particularly if they call in the late evening when it is quieter anyway.

From a legal standpoint the university should not be providing TV Licensing with student information or allowing them access to any student's room without their permission. If the university was to provide TV Licensing with student information, then that would almost certainly be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I hope that addresses your question. If you require any further information then you might find our free ebook useful. There are also some student information sheets on the Resources page.

Please tell all of your student friends about the TV Licensing Blog.

Best of luck with your studies.

Peter

TV Licensing, the BBC's despicable revenue generation arm, has continued to wrongly threaten a Leicester TV licence holder, despite being corrected on at least SIX separate occasions.

Ann Boseley, 64, told the Leicester Mercury how she had been plagued by TV Licensing's threatening correspondence ever since she moved to her current property three years ago. TV Licensing's aggressive enquiries are despite the fact that Ann holds a valid TV licence.

It's a common story and one we hear with alarming regularity.

Ann told the Mercury: "I'm so angry and fed up. At first I thought I'd done something wrong, but it wasn't me at all. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

"Not only that but it's costing me a lot to ring them (TV Licensing). Sometimes I'm on the phone to them for more than half an hour, and I've only got a mobile phone, so it's costing a fortune."

TV Licensing has received a lot of criticism for the tone of its routine enquiry letters, which are automatically distributed to unlicensed properties. The letters, which are often daubed in bold red print, threaten the recipients, more than 80% of whom do not legally require a TV licence, with a court appearance and £1,000.

In reality the letters, dubbed threatograms, are nothing more than a kite-flying exercise designed to illicit information and TV licence fee payment from the recipient, whether they actually need a TV licence or not.

Ann continued: "It's scary when you get the letters. In one they even said they had opened an investigation into my house.

"I live on my own and some of the letters have got big, bold red writing on telling me that I have received an official warning. It's quite threatening."

The Mercury contacted TV Licensing, who duly trotted out their well rehearsed line that mistakes can when you've got a database with 30 million addresses on it. For the seventh time TV Licensing has said it will put matters right.

Ann shouldn't raise her expectations too much, as the letters will probably continue to arrive anyway. TV Licensing is the epitome of incompetence and anything it says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

A Capita TV Licensing goon has been caught on camera showing a disguised ID card to the occupier of the property he was visiting.

We don't know much about this incident but the video footage, stills of which are included in this article, shows that the ID card displays the name "Martin" with no surname. The text is blurred, but we've had a lot of practice deciphering blurred text and we're pretty sure, with a 97% confidence factor, that Martin is the name shown.

TV Licensing ID cards, many of which are depicted in the TV Licensing Blog, always have a visible forename and surname. That being the case, we'd suggest that Martin has somehow disguised his ID card to keep his surname hidden from view.

Martin is clearly a TV Licensing goon with something to hide. Why else would he call at someone's property with a disguised ID card? Could it be, perhaps, that he bends the rules when the camera isn't rolling? Is he one of the many TV Licensing goons prepared to write almost anything, truthful or not, in order to meet stiff performance targets and keep their managers happy?

Perhaps Martin is shy about the prospect of being named and shamed across the web. That's the risk a person takes when they work for an organisation as morally corrupt as TV Licensing.

If he doesn't like the TV Licensing requirement to show his ID card on request, then perhaps he should be seeking alternative employment?

If anyone knows Martin's full name please drop us an email and we'll be happy to share it with the world.

Bracknell TV Licensing Goon Behaving Badly

TV Licensing Laid Bare: New Edition Coming Soon for 2015

Top Ten Lies Told by TV Licensing

Don't Get Stuffed by TV Licensing This Christmas

BBC Losing Support Over TV Licence Fee

TV Licensing Blog Quiz of 2014

TV Licence Cancellation Statistics

Women Are The Biggest TV Licence Dodgers

LBC Radio: Women Convicted of TV Licence Evasion

Reader Letter: What Powers Do TV Licensing Inspectors Really Have?

TV Licensing Laid Bare: 2015 Edition Published

TV Licence Cancellation: One Man's Email to the BBC

Update: TV Licensing Won't Prosecute Foreign Student

A Brace of Capita TV Licensing Goons Caught on Camera

TV Licensing Malicious Prosecution Victim Speaks Live on Russia Today

TV Licensing Pursues Bizarre Search Warrant Obstruction Charges

BBC Indifferent to TV Licensing Goon Hitting Member of the Public

Reader Letter: Can TV Licensing Catch Online Viewers?

TV Licensing Wrongly Threatens Licence Holder Despite Being Corrected SIX Times

Martin: A Capita TV Licensing Goon With Something to Hide