Did you read that the BBC is prosecuting a viewer who has refused on principle to pay his television licence for seven years, amid claims the Corporation is fearful of a growing backlash against the fee?

Retired engineer John Kelly was one of several thousand people who have refused to pay since 2002 in protest at what they regard as bias in the BBC’s news coverage of issues such as the European Union. He and nearly all the other ‘refuseniks’, including former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, have so far escaped court – despite tens of thousands of prosecutions each year. But now he has received a summons which he believes has been prompted by a flurry of publicity about high-profile figures, including former BBC presenter Noel Edmonds and journalist Charles Moore, who are also threatening to rebel.

BBC shows true colours wasting OUR money persecuting Mr Kelly. What a disgrace.

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to PERSECUTION TIME

  1. Ady says:

    Trial by jury eh.

    Will be intruiging to watch over the coming months.

    As long as he doesn't come across as a pompus self important twit kinda thing he could definitely swing this one.

    Sooo…the REAL question is:
    What's their gameplan for when they lose??


  2. Ady says:

    "BBC shows true colours wasting OUR money persecuting Mr Kelly. What a disgrace."

    Not if it's a trial by jury it isn't.

    Now that it has become nothing more than a government propaganda mouthpiece the BBC licence fee is a fundamental issue for the people of Britain.

    He now needs to put a decent case together proving how crap and useless our beeb has become.


  3. backwoodsman says:

    I would think that by the time his defence team have submitted a list of beeboids they intend to call , to establish gross misuse of the public's funds, based on the pensions deals etc, revealed in todays Sunday Times, the beeboids might have second thoughts.
    If the blog admin can give details of any fighting fund, support website etc, we can get our friends on the other blogs / parties , to get full publicity for his public interest defense.


  4. deegee says:

    "BBC shows true colours wasting OUR money persecuting Mr Kelly. What a disgrace."

    Not at all. The BBC (actually TV Licensing) is prosecuting him as they have every right to do. DV implies (evidence please) that the BBC instructed TV licensing to go after John Kelly. The reality (as far as we can judge from the Mail Online) is that Kelly deliberately courted prosecution.

    I have to second Backwoodsman's plea. Please make public any details that will allow him to make this a 2nd MacDonalds case. We at B-BBC should be supporting him.


  5. myob says:

    The 'licence' is not a licence since all the money goes to the BBC which claims to be an independent broadcaster. It is a compulsory subscription. The government has no legal right to compel us to buy BBC, or Sky, or Daz. It might have a case to use the money for public service broadcasting, but to jail us for not paying Ross his millions certainly shouldn't succeed in a court of law. Which isn't to say that it won't. All best wishes for success to the rebels, I wish I had confidence in the law to produce an honest outcome, and that I could afford to join in.


  6. pete says:

    Kelly should take recordings of Eastenders, Casualty, Top Gear, Cash in the Attic and Celebrity Cash in the Attic to court as evidence.

    Surely no magistrate could fine someone for failing to pay for such trash.

    The BBC should be in court for misuse of public funds.


  7. Red Lepond says:

    A hunger strike could really bring things to a head: any volunteers?


  8. Martin says:

    deegee: Here is a quote from the TV licencing site.

    "TV Licensing" is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system. The majority of administration is contracted to Capita Business Services Ltd,


  9. Anonymous says:

    He'll get fined ,it's a magistrates court all they're concerned with is weather he's been watching tv without paying the bbc tax ,why he hasn't paid is of no interest to them .Jonathan Miller has already proved this.
    Don't pay & don't communicate with them it's the only way to fight them .


  10. Martin says:

    Here's an old one as well.

    Rod Aldridge quit as chairman of Capita Group Plc, the operator of London's traffic-toll system, the first casualty in a dispute over 14 million pounds ($24 million) of loans to Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party.

    Capita, yet another arm of Nu Liebour scum.


  11. Robin says:

    How are they going to prove he has been watching TV as they are broadcasting ?


  12. Martin says:

    Robin: Owning TV receiving equipment requires the ownership of a licence regardless of if you use it or not.

    As pointed out before, owning a computer or 3G phone also requires a TV licence as it is capable of receiving LIVE TV.


  13. Anonymous says:

    You're wrong Martin !
    You don't need a bbc licence just to own a tv or the other things you mentioned .
    Robin I'd guess he told the bbc he would not pay their levy but would still be using a tv to receive live broadcasts ,or tvl's goons will just lie in court (it's been known to happen)


  14. John Horne Tooke says:

    People are wondering why the BBC seem to be singling out a 70 year old retired engineerer to prosecute for non-payment of the licence fee. It could be a political move if this is the same person.

    "The below is from John Kelly who is Press Officer for the SW.

    All in SW

    Perhaps I can anticipate your views on the "interview" today.

    It was clearly a hatchet job on NF with no wide-ranging discussion on the EU as we were promised, but almost exclusively focussing on the flamboyant personality on the individual, to the evident amusement of the rapporteur at the end.

    I have suggested to our Press Office that a complaint is made to the BBC at the trivialisation of what is a vital and serious matter, as the introduction hinted at, but which never materialised.

    All a matter of "editorial judgement" they will say. Don't pay the TV tax, I say!*

    John Kelly

    * I don't pay mine!"


  15. John Horne Tooke says:

    That is

    "Press Officer for the SW [UKIP]"


  16. Martin says:

    Anon you're a prat. YOU DO NEED A TV LICENCE you idiot.

    If you watch LIVE TV (get it prat?) LIVE TV (again for you prat) you have to have a TV licence.

    Here is a quote from the BBC news website.

    "…The BBC News channel is available in the UK only. Don't forget, to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence …"

    Now do you get it prat?


  17. John Smith says:

    Martin Said

    Seems you changed what you said from one post to the next.

    Originaly you stated that "Owning TV receiving equipment requires the ownership of a licence regardless of if you use it or not.

    As pointed out before, owning a computer or 3G phone also requires a TV licence as it is capable of receiving LIVE TV."

    This is clearly incorrect as the ownership in itself does not require a licence, rather the receiving of the live broadcast signal (or live via internet).

    Upon this being pointed out, you changed your point to being one in which a licence is required for receiving live tv (correct).

    Misinformed or just plain ignorant?


  18. Martin says:

    John Smith: (AKA Anon) why are you posting back to your own post?

    Any device that can receive live TV requires a TV licence. With a phone or computer there is no current method of enforcement. But that does not mean you don't need one. The difference with a PC is that you don't need a licence to watch non live TV (yet) but the principal applies that if it CAn then you must have a licence. The BBC have been pointing this out for years. If you own a current TV licence that already covers your computer, although I'm not sure about a 3G mobile phone.

    I'm sure the rent boy using drug addicts at the BBC are already working on a way to enforce it.

    As with a TV set unless you are stupid enough to own up to having one to the child abuser that calls at your door then there is no enforcement.

    My originla post had LIVE TV in upper case for a very good readon.

    Can you make up your mind if you are going to post as 'Anon' or 'John Smith' (really original that name by the way)


  19. Anonymous says:

    It is the ownership of a device which can receive television signals which requires a license,whether you use it or not.That is why owning a video machine required a license.
    Try the excuse<"I have a TV but i don't use it",when the Gestapo comes round.
    The bastards don't even believe it when you DON'T have a television.


  20. Millie Tant says:

    Oh, Lordy, we've been over this one before! I'm afraid I don't agree that you must have a licence if you have a PC.

    I cannot immediately find the most recent demand letter, but the wording on an old licence I have just found, says:
    "You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment TO RECEIVE OR RECORD TELEVISION PROGRAMME SERVICES – for example a television set…PC with a broadcast card…"

    (The capitals above are added by me, not the licence people, to emphasise "TO receive…", i.e. the purpose of the thing.)

    Anyway, that means that if you use or install your PC for other purposes – which indeed most people have acquired PCs for other purposes, such as nattering on the net – you do not need a licence for it.

    Otherwise, it would say you must have a licence if you use or install a PC.