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.

Monday, 17 December 2012

TV Licensing Enfarcement: Another Botched Search Warrant

I'm your wicked Uncle Ernie... but no fiddling about today!

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas; Ev'rywhere you go; Take a look in the five and ten glistening once again; With candy canes and silver lanes aglow.

Waiting in our inbox this evening was an unexpected treat that warmed the festive cockles of our heart. It's been a pretty good couple of months already with BBC nonces exposed, Newsnight's dropped bollock on the McAlpine affair and George Entwistle paid £450k for achieving Sweet Fanny Adams.

Ian Doyle, the Brylcreemed goon made famous by TV Licensing's botched attempt to shaft Michael Shakespeare, has been captured on YouTube terrorising the legally licence free again. He might not be wearing glasses on this latest adventure, but there's no mistaking his hypnotic tones or tessellating brow lines. It must be heartening for Doyle to realise that his bosses consider him expendable by sending him out on all the high profile jobs.


Doyle is the lead Capita gobshite in today's 20 minute offering. He was attempting, very unsuccessfully, to execute a search warrant at the property of amateur film maker Danny Allen. We've followed Danny's YouTube channel for a very long time and are under no doubt at all that he does not require a TV licence.

The footage begins with Danny and his friend answering a knock at the door. They actually open the porch window and engage in dialogue with the Police Sergeant standing outside, who quickly identifies the fact he is accompanying TV Licensing as they execute a search warrant.

Legal arguments ensue about whether the warrant, granted under section 366 of the Communications Act 2003, is legally valid without the consent of the occupier. Should the occupier be legally compelled to prove a negative, solely to satisfy the curiosity of an organisation he has no legal business with? It's all very interesting, although veers a bit close to the Freeman of the Land ideology for our liking.

At one point Doyle tries, unsuccessfully again, to get the police officers to arrest the occupier for obstructing the warrant, but his request falls on deaf ears. They no doubt recognised the farcical situation unfolding before their eyes, with an occupier refusing to prove his innocence to TV Licensing when they had no evidence whatsoever of his guilt.

Doyle had lost all control of the situation by the time he attempted, unsuccessfully again, to caution the individuals peering through the porch window. He then abandons the visit with his tail between his legs, having failed to secure entry to the property. It just goes to show how weak TV Licensing's rarer than hen's teeth search warrants actually are. The Police Sergeant, obviously somewhat amused by the situation, manages a cheery wave goodbye as he walks down the garden path.

Our advice to anyone finding themselves in a similar predicament, TV Licensing on the doorstep with a search warrant, would be to allow them access to your property. The search warrant, whether obtained by fair means or foul, represents the will of the court and should be complied with. Humorous as Danny's video is, there is the distinct possibility the court will take umbrage at his lack of co-operation. As he genuinely doesn't require a TV licence, he may have unnecessarily caused problems for himself.

This video will be a serious embarrassment to the BBC, TV Licensing and Capita because it demonstrates just how little authority their employees have. It also shows that they can't rely on the unequivocal support of the police during an enforcement visit.

That's a message they really don't want made public, so please shout it from the roof tops!



Edit (16/11/13): We have just posted the final outcome of Danny Allen's search warrant obstruction case.

9 comments:

TJoK said...

Doyle really is become the laughing stock.

You see a distict pattern here.

LO releases goon video to YouTube. Capita/BBC don't take kindly to it and try to play dirty with unreliable 'detection' evidence to con search warrants out of gullible magistrates. DA is not the only one this has happened to. Indded the very victims can be read about on this blog and seen on YouTube.

I am literally chomping at the bit for them to target me for my anti TVL activities. I am not afraid of these bullies, nobody should be. If they do target me I'm hoping it's Doyle they send so we can complete the trilogy of his utter incompetance.

Fred Barney said...

Absolutely brilliant, and hopefully the end of search warrants. hahaha

John Galt said...

Okay, successfully frustrated the search without causing a breach of the peace, but I would have thought that this is not something that a court (bugger the BBC) is going to take lying down.

Admittedly, there is a genuine concern that these search warrants are not being issued on the basis of evidence as far as the criminal justice system goes, so where do they go now.

In theory, the BBC (ignoring this TV Licensing / Capita bullshit) should go back to court and complain to the judge that execution of the search warrant was attempted but was frustrated by those at the property refusing entry.

This would appear to be a potential charge of contempt of court although I suspect that questions of the validity of evidence would be justifiable mitigation.

All told, this would be a good point to get solicitors involved, but I suspect the BBC will just back off (as they don't like publicity of their failures).

If I was a District Judge and someone came into court to answer a contempt of court charge with a suit, solicitor and reasonable evidence that the search warrant was unlawfully issued, I'd probably throw out all charges.

Conversely, if I was a District Judge and someone came into court to answer a contempt of court charge with a load of Freeman-on-the-land arguments, I'd be probably think the contempt of court charge justified and throw the book at them.

The lads need to be careful from this point onwards as it could all go pear-shaped rather quickly.

TV Licensing Watch said...

It really is nothing short of scandalous that once again Police are actively interfering for and on behalf of Capita TV Licensing.

Police, speaking for and on behalf of Capita TV Licensing, serving the warrant for and on behalf of Capita TV Licensing and being utilised as a "battering ram" to gain access to the dwelling.

Note also at the beginning, that the police sergeant erroneously refers to Capita TV Licensing as "colleagues". As if the process carried out lawfully and properly weren't sufficiently bad enough by itself the police sergeant resorts to deception, seemingly in an effort to give Capita TV Licensing a veneer of police powers and authority that Parliament has not given.

Capita TV Licensing are not "colleagues" of the police attending because they not police officers.

Once again the usefulness of hand-held video cameras and audio-visual recording is clearly demonstrated in exposing the reality of Capita TV Licensing.

Anonymous said...

Your attention is drawn to two new FOI requests made via whatdotheyknow.com.
One is to Greater Manchester Police, and the other to Nottinghamshire police. Both deal with TVL search warrants and the apparent claim by BBC/Capita that their EO's can obtain confidential information from the police. Both police forces evaded the question stating 'information not held'. In other words, it goes on, but there's no paper trail. I would suggest that as many people as possible duplicate this request to their local police forces. It won't go down well with senior officers that the BBC is making this claim and should sour their relationship.

Keep up the good work. Great site.

Freddie Starr said...

If he doesnt have a tv then how can these guys have any evidence against him? Something smells very fishy here.

Anonymous said...

The problem is not that they have a TV, because as they said in the video they could have a hundred tv,s but for the BBC to do anything they need evidence that the tv is being watched live. How can a warrant even possibly help them in this situation. What are they going to do, sit you down and force you to watch it so they can do you;-)

Anonymous said...

Since Digital Switchover there are no devices (available to consumers) which are able to receive only TV signals and not radio signals. It is quite impossible therefore for the presence of any consumer device in a household to be a breach of the Licensing Act. Any magistrate issuing a warrant must therefore, necessarily, have been misled.

I get the scent of a prima-facia case that an interested group might readily obtain legal-aid to prosecute at our High Court against the BBC itself.

admin said...

Thanks for your comment Anon. I think you'll find that the "establishment" pretty much allows the BBC to do whatever it wants.