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.

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

TV Licensing Blog: Reader Challenge



The video above shows the moment TV Licensing goon Paul Moores visited a legally-licence-free Bradford property on 24th February 2012.

We've had a copy of this video since the day it was shot. The footage is exactly the same now as it was back then. It has not been edited in any way.

According to Moores, he heard a TV set on in the background as he walked away from this visit.

You can read all about it in point 9 of the Deposition we published yesterday: "As the officer left the premises he noted that a television set could be heard in use".

We have now listened to the audio of this video several dozen times and we cannot hear anything resembling the sound of a TV set. The microphone is quite good. We can hear the door unlatch, the occupier sigh, a gentle gust of wind, clear voices in conversation, but try as we might we just can't hear anything at all like TV noise. This despite the fact that the microphone is considerably closer to the inside of the property, and presumably the non-existent TV noise, than Moores' ears ever are.

If anyone can manage to hear a TV set, please drop us a comment below. It could be quite significant.

Edit: As you might imagine, feelings are running high about this one. We agree entirely with the sentiments expressed that something doesn't quite add up here. Sadly, as people are being very forthright at expressing their disgust, we will need to slightly edit a few comments before publishing them.

9 comments:

Ray Turner said...

I cannot hear a TV in that clip.

But the householder does indicate that there has been previous contact, shortly prior to filming, where id was shown.

So its hard to be completely 100% sure, on the basis of just this one clip.

WeirdWood said...

Nope, no TV sounds using my very acute audio recepters !

Chris said...

There is no television when the video starts either when the surrounding noise is quiet and the occupier is inside the property. Having read the deposition from the previous post it is all irrelevant waffle except the one statement that a television was heard. It is almost slipped in amongst the waffle so the judge is bored to tears by the time he gets to it and just says "oh whatever, granted". Clearly if Capita can obtain warrants based on a single statement that a television "was heard" then that is bad (legally license free activities on a television sound indistinguishable from live programmes), but if the goon is lying then I believe that is perjury.

Anonymous said...

Lets face it you have to be a crook or bully do do this kind of "enforcement" in the first place ,are there any honest goons ?

admin said...

We don't disagree with your opinion!

We know of plenty of crooks and bullies working for TV Licensing.

Dimblebore said...

Another example perhaps of Capita/BBC speak where the juxtaposition of unrelated words aims to convey a meaning that is not founded in reality - so "As the officer left the premises he noted that a television set could be heard in use" - a set somewhere else than in the premises he was leaving?

admin said...

As the Deposition is a document produced solely in relation to the premises named thereon, one would assume that the goon's observations are (or at least should be) based on the premises in question.

Knowing the way TV Licensing do things, you may well have a good point!

TheKnightsShield said...

I think we need to come up with some terms for these types of issues, such as "TVL Officer's ear", because there was nothing else in the audio of that video that even resembled a TV. For the TV to be audible to someone on the outside walking away from the property, the sound would have to be fairly loud. That is something that magistrates probably don't take into account when they are signing off on a search warrant. They should be held accountable for such a glaring mistake. Perhaps TVL officers should be made to carry cameras themselves so that they actually have PROOF before approaching a magistrate. Such a device could be made or modified in such a way that once video is recorded, it can only be viewed on the device itself, or else we'll have the problem of edited footage. I dregress; we need names for these types of things.

admin said...

I think "TV Licensing goon's ear" is a well-known condition by Magistrates. That's certainly the impression I get reading the Justice of the Peace's blog recently, where His Worship said he took most of what they said with a pinch of salt.

Sadly, TV Licensing victim apathy is also quite well-known. If a wrongly-prosecuted victim of TV Licensing just rolls over and takes it, then TV Licensing will undoubtedly get their result in court.