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.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

BBC News: Dishonest TV Licensing Terrorises Grieving Widower


We're that used to the BBC proclaiming how great the BBC is, that we were pleasantly surprised to see a TV Licensing-critical report airing on BBC News today.

The minute-long segment shows recently bereaved widower Marcus Greenhouse, who was summoned to court for TV licence-fee evasion just a few weeks after the unexpected death of his wife. 

His words are quoted below:

"Ill in depression, I recently lost my wife; unexpected death, she died at the age of 36 and, like I say, I've been in and out of depression and it (the TV licence) was just one thing that slipped my mind. The wife sorted all of the bills out and it was just one of those things.

"The inspector come and knocked on my door. I held my hands up and told him 'yep, I admit, I've not bought a licence', but what got me was I paid there and then. I bought a full licence on the day and they said no further action would be taken. The next thing I know I'm here today (Warwickshire Magistrates' Court) dealing with a summons that's been issued to me.

"I was a few weeks, a month, 6 weeks maximum out. Pick on the ones who haven't had one (a licence) for 12 months or 2 years - the ones that don't want to buy a TV licence. For somebody that's a few weeks out and then come and knock my door and I get victimised, I think it was wrong."

Marcus was convicted of TV licence-fee evasion. He received a £35 fine and has to pay £60 in costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

A grieving man criminalised on the dishonest word of a TV Licensing goon who would probably stiff his granny for the price of a Mars bar.

The word sickening doesn't quite cut it.

9 comments:

Ray Turner said...

If only a few weeks out, i.e. less than a month, Marcus would have paid for that viewing time when he bought his new licence...

This case also nicely proves your point about saying nothing to the Goons on the doorstep. It would have been much better for Marcus to have said nothing to the Goons and then purchased a new TV licence through the usual channels, rather than respond to the intimidation on the doorstep.

TV Licensing Watch said...

quote:
" . . I bought a full licence on the day . . . . LIE> and they said no further action would be taken. . . "

If people in the tv licence abolition movement were paid a quid for each time we got to know about that particular TV Licensing scumbag lie we'd all be millionaires.

John Galt said...

It also goes to prove that TV License evasion is an absolute offence. If you fess up to it then you are bang-to-rights.

All that is left is mitigation.

Best answer is say nothing, shut the door and call the the police if the goon keeps hassling you.

Without a court issued search warrant the goons have no more rights than a gypsy flogging lucky heather.

Marcus Greenhouse said...

It wasn't a lie, That is what the officer did say to me. I first offered to set up a monthly plan but he refused saying further action would be taken. I replied with fair enough and continued to answer his questions. Not really in the right frame of mind to be dealing with the incident on that day but did what I thought was best at that time. The officer the reaches the part as to why which I then explained. That's when he said if I brought a full license that no further action will be taken. I obliged and paid 145.50 to his little palm help computer thingy. I have no reason to lie.
Also there were about 200 offenders on Monday and same planned for Tuesday at Warwickshire courts. Where TV licensing were trying to push through as many as they can before parliament pushed this bill through. Obviously trying to gain money before it all stops. Again the rich robbing the poor as is the case as been for a long time in this country.

admin said...

Marcus, thank you very much for your comment. I am very sorry to hear about the sad loss of your wife.

The earlier comment you're referring to, by our good friend TV Licensing Watch, is certainly not labelling you a liar - it is highlighting that the goon who told you "pay up to avoid prosecution" was a liar.

In our experience TV Licensing employ a lot of habitual liars, so your tale is sadly very common.

You may already know that the BBC - who I'm sure were very nice to your face when they interviewed you - are the same duplicitous scumbags responsible for all things TV Licensing.

The BBC is fully aware of the sinister and dishonest tactics TV Licensing use, but choose to turn a blind eye and deny any responsibility when challenged. The BBC is directly culpable for all the sordid little antics carried out in the name of TV Licensing.

You might also be aware, that Capita is the BBC TV Licensing contractor responsible for fleecing people on their doorsteps and hauling them before court. Many Capita goons are motivated more by earning commission than doing an honest day's work or fulfilling any sense of justice. All costs awarded by the court are paid back to Capita, for them to spend on more goons to earn yet more commission.

The whole BBC TV Licensing racket is a sick national disgrace. Hopefully the end is nigh.

TV Licensing Watch said...

Many thanks TV Licensing Blog. Sorry to read that you thought we were calling you a liar, Marcus Greenhouse.

We never doubt the the veracity of the victims of Capita BBC TV Licensing.

TheKnightsShield said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_name

The second sentence of the second paragraph says it all for one of the possible reasons why companies use trading names/trade names. It also gives a reason for why companies use them.

Personally, I don't think companies should be allowed to use trading names for the purpose of distancing themselves from their products and/or services. At the end of the day, they have a legal responsibility to their products and/or services. Trading names just gives them an escape clause to avoid legal action, which shouldn't be allowed. One could argue that in court I suppose, but it would probably just fall on deaf ears, so it would be a futile effort. If the BBC are responsible for the licence, then shouldn't a representative of theirs be in court? One would rightly think so.

TV Licensing Watch said...

Speaking of sickening doesn't quite cut it, TV Licensing Blog, have a read of the following quote:

" . . . I have initially made enquiries of the BBC TV Licensing Management Team, and have confirmed that no one within the BBC holds material relating to the induction and training provided to all categories of TV Licensing visiting parties and visiting officers. As these individuals are employed by Capita, their induction and training is primarily an internal matter for Capita.

Capita has no obligation to - nor does the BBC ask Capita to – advise it of these matters. . . "

BBC have completely washed their hands of the whole disgustng TV Licensing charade.

admin said...

Total abdication of responsibility, TV Licensing Watch. I wouldn't expect anything less from an organisation that spun decades worth of lies to conceal the child sexual predation of the likes of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall (plus others, yet to be named).