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 or record live broadcast television programmes then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

Monday, 1 September 2014

Taking the Fight to TV Licensing

The below contribution has been sent to us by a reader called James, who questions what right an organisation as corrupt as the BBC has to bully licence fee payment from non-consumers of its service.

I moved into my new rented property on 13th March of this year. I am in bereavement for my beloved wife and needed some time to rest and adjust to life on my own. Shortly after moving in I received my first letter from the TV licensing authorities. I found the style and content of the literature to be inflammatory and so decided to ignore it. Soon afterwards a second letter came and I decided to do the same as they had already caused me upset by the inappropriate correspondence they had sent me the first time. A third letter then arrived informing me that they had authorised a visit to my property which may come during the morning or the evening on an unspecified visit. Their assumption appears to be based on their own misguided self authorisation and not on any legal framework which will grant them automatic right of entry to my home. Indeed, although I am the tenant and have a legally binding agreement - the ignorance and arrogance of the TV licensing authority do not seem to have given this adequate consideration. Becoming increasingly inflamed by their correspondence, which by its very nature is designed to cause alarm and distress which is unlawful under harassment laws -  I decided to ignore them once again. Hence, the fourth letter now informs me that a court date will be set. All of this has been born from my refusal to participate in their annoying little game of stimulus/response. I have signed no documentation. I have had no contact with anyone visiting my property and yet they instigate a prosecution against me with no evidence of the one point of law they need to successfully mount a case against me - this being that I have been watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. Such disgraceful behaviour is beneath contempt and I am dearly looking forward to my court appearance where I will (thanks to the advice given on this AMAZING site) ask to be armed with the evidence they have against me. I believe it should be unlawful for this prosecution to be initiated and shall be writing to the new Chairwoman of the BBC Trust and the Office of The Attorney General to alert them as to the practices of threats and intimidation being employed by the TV licensing authorities in order that yet another layer of complaint can be added to their already blemished record of ill treatment towards members of the British public. The prosecution’s case will rest solely on one singular point of law - as mentioned above. In litigation, as many here will be aware - there is prosecution AND defence. Now then, English law provides a platform for both sides to contend against each other. I find this marvellously exciting as it will provide me with an opportunity to question and destroy the prosecution’s case against me. My defence is simple. Times have changed. Legislation has not. It is apparent that the BBC would like the license fee to also cover the shiny new (7 yr old) BBC iPlayer - but to their frustration and resentment - legislators have not agreed to this until after the 2015 General Election. So, what do we have here? A frustrated corporation desperate for cash to pay their so called highly talented "stars" exorbitant salaries while the rest of us struggle to put food on the table - who despite knowing that legislation only covers watching live broadcasts - STILL construct their method of acquiring income based upon threats and intimidation. This is a corporation running scared and who can only resort to such antiquated methods of extortion because the law won't support them in any other respect. What does this mean? It means that I can watch any TV programme I wish - at a time of MY convenience - not theirs - for free - whilst the BBC corporation must shoulder the cost of all their productions that I decide to watch whilst they are impotent to do anything about it. Amusing no? I think so, which is why I am so looking forward to my court date as it will be better than a day out at the beach. I’ll even take a packed lunch and a cream cake just for good measure.

And whilst I am on the subject of talent - I do not think that the likes of Graham Norton, Jeremy Clarkson and Jonathan Ross are worth their weight in salt – never mind 7 figure salaries which the BBC themselves have refused to publish. I find it deeply hypocritical that the TV licensing authorities wish to extract funds from the British public whilst the BBC refuses to declare the salaries to whom those same funds are being allocated. Are these people for real? Yes, unfortunately, this would appear to be the case. On the subject of funding, I did not read or hear of any refunds being given to license fee payers dating back to the seventies to compensate for the apathetic will to investigate claims against the now late Jimmy Savile for violations amounting to sexual abuse. The same arrogant corporation also appeared to distant itself from similar claims made against Stuart Hall, Chris Denning and Rolf Harris. Is the license fee payer expected to contribute to a corporation that refuses to acknowledge, let alone investigate such serious claims of misconduct? May I remind members of the public, and the British Broadcasting Corporation  that it was license fee payers who paid these people's wages. Surely it should be considered unlawful to contribute to such atrocious and unacceptable activity - yet the TV licensing authorities appear to be blissfully ignorant of this - which is why I would feel perfectly within my rights to ask the TV inspectors that knock on my door if they are on the sex offenders register. After all, I am perfectly entitled to know where my money is being spent...aren't I? The current model for acquiring revenue for the BBC has gone past its sell by date and is in need of review. With UKIP making serious headway in British politics - do not be surprised if the legislation to renew the Royal charter is repealed altogether, as I have been informed by a senior member of the party that the current model is unsustainable. The BBC then, needs to find other ways to fund its lavish and extravagant lifestyle such as that enjoyed by the presenters aforementioned in order to survive. Will they be able to achieve this? Well, in order to answer that question, we need to quickly pop across the pond to our American counterparts and in the words of President Obama - "Yes we can". So why don't they? Because the current model - supported by members of the public who are intimidated and threatened with court action provides a very comfortable living for BBC executives who will do anything to maintain the status quo.. In the words of Douglas Carswell recent defector from Conservatives to UKIP – “We need change”. The time of reckoning has come. Daddy Rat draws his proverbial sword and offers those who threaten to infringe upon his freedom the opportunity to engage in conflict as I will demonstrate quite clearly to these people...how the hunter... becomes the hunted...and....if a prison sentence is all they have in their armoury against me, I openly declare that in the current economic downturn - I could do with a holiday anyway. Wish me luck won’t you? Oh and please say a little prayer for my beloved wife – She was Mummy Rat... and like me – was a strong advocate of fighting authoritarian regimes like the BBC and TV licensing inspectorate who are so deeply enamelled by their own arrogance they have forgotten the merits of courtesy and respect.

Links of interest:




Saturday, 30 August 2014

TV Licensing PR Campaign: Licence Fee Only Forty Pence a Day

TV Licensing has just launched another PR campaign, which is designed to highlight what they perceive as the exceptional value of the TV licence fee.

TV Licensing is a trading name used by the companies contracted by the BBC to undertake TV licence enforcement and administration work. The BBC, as the statutory Television Licensing Authority, retains overall legal responsibility for all TV Licensing matters, although it often goes to great lengths to distance itself from the TV Licensing brand.

The new campaign poses the question "what could you buy for 40 pence?", which is the approximate daily cost of the £145.50 annual TV licence. Media harlots Proximity London, former purveyor of TV Licensing lies, have created a series of trails that will air on BBC Radio 1 and 1 Xtra over the coming fortnight.

According to The Drum, the trails are "a bid to remind students that they must pay for a TV licence if they watch programmes on their laptops or mobile devices." That statement is actually incorrect, because as we have previously explained most students will already be correctly licensed to receive TV programmes on their mobile devices.

Catriona Ferguson, Head of Marketing at TV Licensing, said: "This campaign is targeted at students who may be paying their own bills for the first time as they move into student accommodation.

"Focusing on Radio 1 and 1Xtra’s demographic of younger listeners, the campaign aims to encourage students to recognise the value of a TV Licence and reinforces the need to be licensed whatever device they are using."

Our eyes lit up the moment we first saw this campaign, because of the clear way the message can be manipulated to the detriment of the BBC and TV Licensing.

Results of a recent poll on the Mirror website.

Thanks to Chris1963 at the TV Licence Resistance forums for highlighting that for the equivalent of 40 pence a day a person could enjoy both Netflix and Amazon Prime without the legal need to buy a TV licence. They would also be able to enjoy BBC Radio and Online content, neither of which legally require a TV licence.

How else could 40 pence a day be better spent than buying a TV licence? We encourage witty ideas in the comments below!

Thursday, 28 August 2014

TV Licensing Telephone Enquiries: Speaking to a Person

Despite the breadth of TV Licensing information available on the web there are some people who would rather call TV Licensing and speak to a person.

TV Licensing is a trading name used by the companies contracted by the BBC to undertake TV licence enforcement and administration work. The contractor responsible for call handling is Capita Business Services Ltd. Calls to TV Licensing's 0300 790 6131 number, which can also be used for goon fishing reports, cost the same as calls to a standard geographic number.

Anyone calling TV Licensing for "assistance" faces a baffling array of 71 options spread over 7 different menus. Depending on the nature of their enquiry that could mean a caller faces almost two minutes of irritating menu options before being connected in the right direction. In all likelihood they will then have to wait even longer for a call handler to become available.

Full details of all the menu options can be viewed on the Please Press 1 website, but we will summarise the most important information below.

The quickest way of speaking to a TV Licensing call handler is the following:
  • Call 0300 790 6131.
  • Listen to the 30 second welcome message (tortuous, but you can't do anything else at this stage).
  • As soon as the voice begins to read out the first menu options press 5.
  • As soon as the voice begins to read out the second menu options press 5.
  • As soon as the voice begins to read out the third menu options press 3.
  • As soon as the voice begins to read out the fourth menu options press 2.
  • Your call will then be connected to a person who will attempt, probably very poorly, to answer your specific TV Licensing questions.
By anticipating the menu options in this manner you can avoid almost two minutes worth of TV Licensing claptrap and save almost two minutes worth of call charges.

TV Licensing Targeting Students

It must be that time of the year again, with TV Licensing filling the pages of dubious local periodicals with scary stories about the possible consequences of students evading the TV licence fee.

In anticipation of TV Licensing's latest campaign we wrote a Student Guide to TV Licence Rules a few weeks ago. If you're a student who hasn't read it we suggest you do, because it explains several perfectly legal ways to enjoy TV without the need to buy your own TV licence.

The latest newspaper article to attract our attention appears in today's South Wales Evening Post. The piece, which we can be entirely confident was written by TV Licensing's PR harlots and published verbatim by lazy journalists, contains a quote by a student who is about to start studying for a Masters degree at Swansea University.

Cait Dacey is quoted as saying: "When you first move away to university all the different bills and arrangements you need to make can be quite daunting, especially when you move into your first shared house.

"I hadn't realised that you needed a licence even when watching TV on your tablet or phone but the TV Licensing website has lots of useful information so it's easy to figure out what you need."

In common with all TV Licensing press releases, the words are carefully chosen to draw people towards the incorrect assumption that they must buy a TV licence.

In most circumstances anyone watching TV programmes on a tablet or phone will already be correctly licensed, by virtue of the fact their home address (non-term time address for students) is covered by a valid TV licence. They will not need to rush out and buy a separate TV licence at all.

If Cait Dacey is reading this we'd appreciate if she'd drop us a line and confirm the fact that she was actually interviewed by TV Licensing (or one of their PR agencies) and not the South Wales Evening Post as readers are meant to infer.