We're delighted to learn of yet another of TV Licensing's more dubious prosecutions unravelling in court.
You can read the full circumstances of the case on the TV Licence Resistance forums.
Briefly, for the benefit of speed readers, a lady with no legal need whatsoever for a TV licence unexpectedly received a gift of a TV set from one of her sons.
Entirely by coincidence a TV Licensing goon visited the property two days later, when the TV set was sat idly on the living room floor waiting to be set up.
Instead of slamming the door on the goon, the lady engaged in a bit too much casual chit-chat and was persuaded, by fair means or (quite probably) foul, to sign the completed TVL178 form to get the persistent goon to leave her doorstep.
Closer examination of the form revealed that she'd unwittingly admitted to using the TV set for receiving programmes without a licence for a period of two days.
You can read the satisfying outcome of this case on the TV Licence Resistance forums, as mentioned earlier.
The take home message must be: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE LEGALLY-LICENCE-FREE TRUST TV LICENSING.
A legally-licence-free person is under no obligation whatsoever to quell TV Licensing's sordid suspicions, however much TV Licensing might pretend otherwise.
Take care when answering the door to unexpected callers and always demand their identity before engaging with them. At the first whiff of a TV Licensing goon the occupier is advised to say nothing and immediately close the door.
What the occupier might consider an innocent throwaway comment, the goon might be itching to contort and play to their advantage. We've seen it time and time again.
TV Licensing has no concept of decency and can never be trusted to do the decent thing.
If you've found this article useful please consider using our Amazon link for your Christmas shopping or downloading our free ebook.
2 comments:
And yet again, another accused has allowed Capita/TV Licensing/Goons/BBC to get away scott free. Why aren't people manning the hell up and taking them on? I dispair!
The case probably was withdrawn not because of any kind-heartedness on the behalf of Capita but because by questioning validity of the statement it put the onus on Capita to prove the case. To have any chance of doing that they'd have to get the goon in question into court with a jacket and tie on to swear it was all true. Even then it's one person's word against another.
Post a Comment