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 on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a 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.

Sunday, 10 June 2012

TV Licensing Respond to Voyeur Video

Last month we brought you the story of a TV Licensing detector van crew who were apprehended by an irate father defending the privacy of his 9-year-old daughter.

Moments earlier he had observed the occupants of the van, employed by TV Licensing contractor Capita Business Services Ltd, pointing their equipment towards the child's bedroom window. You can read the entire story, which was captured on video, in our previous post.

Unsurprisingly the father complained to TV Licensing shortly after his confrontation with their van-bound vermin.

TV Licensing have just sent a letter of response, which is reproduced in the images below. We particularly like the following extract: "We're also very concerned that you have published your video recording, which misrepresents the behaviour of our staff. Please remove all defamatory video recordings and internet postings immediately. We're considering our options at this stage and reserve the right to take further action to redress this matter."


TV Licensing's letter of response confirms they were using detection equipment on the property in question. TV Licensing's own Chris Christophorou, who we'll be hearing a lot more about in the future, has previously confirmed, on oath, that using detection equipment involves pointing a "detection camera" through the windows of the target address. That being the case it is entirely plausible that the TV Licensing goons in this case were aiming their equipment towards the child's bedroom window. Given those circumstances we defy any reasonable person not to find that behaviour perverse. We are also reminded that convicted paedophile Daniel Lishman used his past employment with TV Licensing as a cover for targeting young girls, so it's not as if acting on their behalf automatically precludes more sinister surveillance motives.

In conclusion we think the "pervert" and "dirty old man" comments made in the video were justified in the context and can't imagine anyone will be rushing to delete their video uploads. We're sure the video's creator would be happy to argue the point in court as that will invariably mean all of TV Licensing's sordid little secrets being aired in public.

5 comments:

Andy Morgan said...

Pure scumbags. I don't know which is worse, Paedos or TV Licensing people. Obviously the same thing in certain instances. Disgraceful.
Just try pointing your cameras at my Grandaughter and see where I end up shoving that camera! Court or no Court!!

admin said...

Thanks for your comment Andy. Very well worded.

33_hertz said...

These TVL creatures don't enjoy the light shining on them, do they? lol

Great post sir!

TJoK said...

I have in my posession a copy of a search warrant application for that was presented to a magistrate.

In that warrant application for TVL state that there is a large lens that focus the light (from a tv set) onto 'a specially sensitive device'.

This large lens and equally enigmatic sensitive device has been the subject of freedom of information requests as to what they REALLY are and if the methods of calibration as a control. Low and behold the FOI's are refused in interests of 'the detectection of crime.'

What is happening here is this....

There is a detector van but all it contains is a couple of disgusting goons of the ilk you saw in the LiveLeak video and the YouTube videos before Google rolled over to have their tummy tickled by TVL yet again. The detector van contains NOTHING over and above the following optical devices-binoculars and digital camera.

That's it and nothing more. Thanks to this blog, the Freedom of Information Act, the fact that the evidence gathered by the mythical van has NEVER been used in evidence in a UK court proves once and for all that the tv licence detector van as they'd like us to believe it simply does not exists.

TVL were lying in the warrant application form I mentioned and they are lying in the letter they sent the legal occupier who SAQW WITH HIS OWN EYES OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL DAYS observing his house with BINOCULARS.

The legal occupiers only mistake was to contact TVL to withdraw TVL's implied right of access to his property which aggravated them into sending their pathetic, shitty little van round with a couple of pieces of lowlife scum in (enforcers) in it round in a patheic attempt to prove the home owner was a liar (which he isn't).

If soemone takes the trouble to write a letter or email stating they don't receive live signals then that should be taken as a word good enough, but oh no, not for that disgusting bunch who are so desperate to extract that precious £145.50 out of every living breathing soul in the UK they have to resort to LYING, BULLYING and INTIMIDATION to get innocent people to roll over. Thankfully this legal occupier and millions of others can see through their lies and take a stance against them.

Anonymous said...

The inly way I can think of that TV detectors could work is using ambient light fluctuations from your TV being filmed by Capita perverts aiming cameras at your windows
.
If you have semi transparent curtains they can detect the light fluctuations and correspond them to live broadcast TV at that time.
The chance of them admitting this s the limit of their snooping and the fact that they point cameras into you house is ridiculously unlikely,
So \i recommend darl curtains and a fuck off and prove it in court attitude whether you need a license or not.