1. Peter says:

    Can I encourage people to please read the video blurb carefully – particularly the part where one of these TV Licensing employees indicates his clear intent to quote the occupier entirely out of context in order to get the result he wants.

    The occupier of the property in this video does not legally need a TV licence, as he does not receive live TV programmes.


    • ember2013 says:

      I’ve seen a few of these videos on YT. Capita (working for the BBC) try to dupe people who do not use their TV to receive television signals to pay for a TV licence.

      Some pretend they have a warrant. Underhand BS that has caught out some innocent people, who then sign the admission form.


      • Peter says:

        These same two goons also feature in an even more disturbing video.

        They enter the home of a single mum, verbally abuse her in front of her young children and almost flatten one of the kids when they barge through the front door.

        Incidentally, that lady has no legal need for a TV licence either.

        That second video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llRfrBhO3sc


      • #88 says:

        Disgraceful. I think that BBC’s Watchdog ought be on to this sharpish.

        (But wherever you find lefties, you’ll find hypocrites)


  2. frk says:


    • Peter says:

      Sorry frk – hit the report link by mistake and no way to undo it.

      I was going to say that this brilliant animation is very close to reality. TV Licensing goons are paid on a commission basis, so will do virtually anything to get a result.


    • David Kay says:

      warrant or not, they’ve no right to force entry, the police are only there to prevent a breach of the peace, not to assist the TV licencing goons


      • Peter says:

        The guys featuring in that video were convicted of obstructing that search warrant.

        FMOTL types love to post that link, but funnily they’re never so keen to highlight the fact that TV Licensing “got their man” in the end.


        • John Standley says:

          Legally Licence Free resisters such as those at http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php reject the FMOTL stance as nonsense and a recipe for anarchy.
          That said, the video above is useful in showing how BBC TV Licensing use heavy-handed bullying tactics to persecute high-profile resisters. The householders in the video were Legally Licence Free, as am I.
          The FMOTL stuff is an unhelpful distraction from from the legitimate activities of those of us who oppose the BBC Licence fee and its disgraceful enforcement.


          • John Standley says:

            Peter, BBV TV Licensing did not “get their man” as he was not convicted of licence fee evasion. He was found guilty of obstruction. To repeat, he was Legally Licence Free at the time and has committed no offence with regard to the BBC Licence Fee


            • Peter says:

              Agreed. Poor choice of words on my part. I think it’s fair to say that TV Licensing were happy with the obstruction outcome, as it has certain deterrent value. It also means they make more money in court costs etc.


  3. John Standley says:

    I urge bbbc readers to check out http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php

    Please read through the posts about the abuses by Capita (aka BBC TV Licensing) of householders who are genuinely TV Licence free.

    http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php is frequently trolled by BBC TV Licensing and its sock-puppets, so the site is clearly having an effect.

    The Site does NOT condone License Fee evasion. A similarly named Facebook page has been set up to discredit http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info, which has no connection with the genuine one.


  4. Buggy says:


    Sounds like prostitution frankly, though I’ve yet to hear of any kind of Danegeld paid to prostitutes so as to be allowed to sleep with ones wife or girlfriend.

    “Auntie: lower than a cheap hooker.”


  5. stuart says:

    what i cant understand is on what grounds did the courts issue a warrant,why did he let them in his house and since when have the police been legal experts on issues like this,this video is horrific and is a clear breach of human rights laws,i think this video should be forwarded onto liberty,i am sure shami chakarbarti and her legal team could represent this couple in court as there are human rights issues on the line here,as for the bbc tv licence enforcers and there stalinist type tactics and abuse of human rights towards this couple,well bullys boys always get there day,never forget that.


    • Peter says:

      That’s the interesting thing. Part way through the video the TV Licensing goon says that the basis of the warrant is that one of his colleagues noticed a TV set on the living room wall when he previously looked through a window.

      That should not be any basis at all for a Magistrate to grant a warrant. It is very weak evidence, as there are many possible uses for a TV that do not legally need a TV licence (like watching DVDs, non-live web content etc.)


      • John Standley says:

        The problem lies with gullible magistrates – they are all too easily convinced by BBC TV Licensing officials that “evidence” of unlawful TV use has been gathered.

        I know there are legal moves to make the fines for TV Licence evasion a fixed penalty offence thus removing many cases from Magistrates’ Courts and removing from Magistrates any evidence of their complicity and ignorance in this subject.

        BBC TV Licensing offers training sessions to Magistrates to advise them in how better to prosecute alleged offenders. Can you imagine any other organisation being allowed to influence courts in this manner?

        Remember – TV Licensing and the BBC are not separate entities; the BBC IS the TV Licensing Authority. “TV Licensing” is a BBC-owned trademark used as an umbrella for all agencies enforcing the BBC TV Licence fee. Most of this work is sub-contracted to Capita Services plc.

        BBC TV Licensing door-knockers are actually Capita-employed commission-based salesmen/women – they are easily motivated into disreputable behaviour by this financial incentive.


      • Observation says:

        “DVDs, non-live web content etc”

        I’m guessing that a lot of judges wouldn’t even know what a DVD is.

        On the wider issue, I’m surprised that the police don’t have more important work to attend to. They seem to be rather selective about what constitutes a crime nowadays and violent crime, burglary and child abuse seem to come way down at the bottom of their priorities list.


        • deception says:

          “Statutory Declarations Act 1835” and “Oaths Act 1888(Oath of Allegiance” are what peace officers(police) and magistrates which are sworn under before they can carry out their own corporate office proceedings, and which is also supposed to guarantee “separation of power” in the joining of the the Unions. These are “acts of statute” which are honored by an “act of consent” and that is why the reason humans that live in the lands of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, are “NOT” sworn under these “oaths”, under a daily purpose. These “acts of statute” imply that humans sworn under the police corporation(peace office) and the magistrates corporation will obey and uphold the law(“corpus delicti”), and “NOT” obey and uphold legal fiction administrative commerce purposes for the corporate UK Government.

          As the Tv license is an “act of statute” then the right to “object” applies.

          If sworn in peace officers(police) and magistrates are acting on administrative purposes for any corporation except their own sworn in corporate office, then is a clear extortion, No different than gangsters acting on behalf of a mafia. Blackmailing innocent humans into, if the don’t pay up, then will feel the powers of the rules of law.

          “Commerce and legal fictions definitions”: “corporation”
          A “corporation” is an artificial creation of the “legal system”,
          its a non-existent entity, it’s a fiction. It can’t “do” stuff — it can’t
          control, nor help anybody. It’s the men and women who “do” stuff, in the
          “name” of the corporation.

          “Person” or “Strawman”:
          You as a living breathing human being cannot operate in the ficticious world
          of commerce, so the State created a legal fiction (a kind of corporation)
          with your name, this legal fiction (your “Person” or “Strawman”) is what is
          getting taxed, billed, and sent various presentments.

          And that is the “LAW” and “COMMON LAW”. You ever wondered how the quote saying, “THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE”

          Well there it is, corruption to the “CORE”!


    • Guest Who says:

      There’s a fair bit to worry about here beyond the ever charming notions espoused by two people charged with ensuring the BBC beast is fed at all costs.
      As mentioned, the legal basis for the warrant that kicked this off already seems suspect.
      But most of all I am in shock and awe at the behaviour of the police, in word and deed, in literal support.
      Beyond evident failures to understand the legal situation accurately, their whole mindset was frightening… Confess and we’ll go easy? If you have nothing to hide why argue? It just makes you look guilty?
      If about police action against even hardened violent criminals such footage would have Today to Newsnight gasping for resignations with a Panorama door stepping of the Home Secretary as centrepiece of an ‘investigation’.
      Even if fully ‘guilty’ (which they appear to have been found up front, contrary to evidence and legal due process), the whole spectacle screams of abuse and a descent into police state mind sets.
      A bunch of questions to be asked and people to be held to account… I’d hope.
      May well pop this to my MP to ask him if this is the national treasure he was telling me about, and ask if he’ll be saying or doing nothing if I get the knock on the door for cancelling the TVL dd.
      Wrong answer and he may need to edit one of his favoured quotes from his bio of Burke.


      • DB says:

        Imagine if everything in that video was exactly the same except it was from Moscow rather than Hartlepool. Goons from the state broadcaster turning up with the police to demand money from refuseniks. The BBC would probably do a story on it.


  6. JayBee says:

    All part of the divided nation that the bbc wants to conquer.

    Idiots coercing people into paying the licence tax and morons wearing police uniforms, looking after the needs of the rich and powerful.

    The bank of england prints the cash and sack loads of it are given to the bbc and police to keep us docile.

    How much longer before the powder keg explodes?

    It reminds me of the old soviet joke…

    The soviet union has two channels; Channel One is full of propoganda and Channel Two consists of a KGB man saying, “Turn back to Channel One.”

    The equivalent today is, You’ve paid the licence tax so you may as well watch the bloody bbc to get your money’s worth.

    Simple answer, don’t pay.

    Of course, the liblabcon-trick will just hand the bbc money directly but that’s another part of the cancer that needs to be excised.


    • Guest Who says:

      “Simple answer, don’t pay”

      You’d think.
      But I’m rather gathering from that video not doing so can lead to a certain amount of complexity.
      Especially if highly trained police officers are either thicker than bat guano, bent as nine bob notes, or both.
      I’d consider it a result if in future the local rozzers treat a call from TVL to head into a video-nasty trying to score a £20 commission for a Capita employee with the same enthusiasm they treat a traffic camera alert on a speeding D-reg Corsa without tax and insurance when there’s the chance of a Volvo doing 34mph.


  7. Cosmo says:

    Chris Patten certainly no Goodfella. Must be due for another bypass soon.


  8. Pounce says:

    If I found a couple of goons knocking on my door demanding entry in which to see if I was watching telly. I would have no problem letting them look around then when they came into the kitchen, I would cut their throats, chop off their heads and put them on a spike in the street with the notice that they infringed my human rights and they called me a Paki.
    The bBC would then devote lots of air time into making me into the victim. Well at least the bBC did just that for the murderers of Lee Rigby.


  9. Doublethinker says:

    Wouldn’t Sky or other rivals of the BBC be interested in showing this to the public so that all can see what our state funded broadcaster does to ordinary folks.


    • Cosmo says:

      How about “Watchdog”. would love to see the old wrinkly presenter cross examining fatty pang.


  10. Frank Words says:

    Let me tell you a story……..

    As you may know if there is someone aged 75 living in a household they can apply for a TV licence exemption which in effect means that household no longer has to pay for a licence as long as there is someone there aged 75 or over.

    When my parents first obtained a TV licence back in 1956 my mother applied for it. From then on all reminders where sent to her. Then a funny thing happened when she turned 75. The reminder was sent to my father who was younger than her by several years.

    How stranger they thought. So my father knowing the household was now entitled to apply for an exemption phoned the TV licencing authority and asked why they had suddenly changed the person they sent the reminder to (from the over 75 year old to the younger person).

    They claimed he had written to them stating he was now the relevant person (ie my 75 year old mother was no longer living there). Well that was a lie. He asked them to send a copy of his letter. Nothing more was heard about that and they duly received their exemption.

    It has puzzled me and my father ever since. Why did they send a reminder to my father the very year my mother became 75 and entitled to an exemption.

    How and why did they change their records.

    Was it sharp practice?

    The more learns about the BBC and its cohorts the less one trusts them


    • Observation says:

      The over seventy fives are not exempted from the need of a TV Licence. They receive a free TV Licence and the BBC get paid from the social welfare budget (appx £500,000,000 per annum).


      I personally think that the liability for a TV Licence should be waived for these people and also the disabled and the poor, sick and vulnerable. The BBC should not receive any funds whatsoever from the welfare budget, they should just suck it up and cut back on their extravagant spending habits.


      • Frank Words says:

        Thanks for pointing out that. Whatever way my parents could have been £100 plus worse off.

        As for the licence fee it should be abolished full stop where you are 75 or 25


        • Observation says:

          As for the licence fee it should be abolished

          Agreed. The TV Licence was introduced to fund the BBC when there was no other alternative to commercial advertising.

          The station was overrun by the Fabians who saw it as easy access to public funding, and they will not give it up without a fight.

          Our politicians live in fear of the BBC so they will not do anything that might trigger retaliation. I’m afraid it’s going to be down to the general public to just stop buying their “licences”, which is increasingly happening, especially with the young and tech savvy generation.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Do train and bus companies get the same subsidy to compensate them for reduced senior citizen fares? At least some of that half a billion could have gone to help more with their heating bills instead of paying for more BBC management positions, buyouts, and building wastefulness.


  11. will says:

    First remove the plank …..

    Citizens Advice is accusing councils of letting bailiffs get away with threatening and aggressive behaviour when collecting council tax debts.



  12. Barlicker says:

    The TV license fee is, of course, a flat rate tax. Perhaps it’s time it had a more accurate name – what about ‘the living room tax’ ?


    • Chop says:

      “Labour’s living room tax”….it has a nice ring to it, not that the BBC would brand it by that name.


  13. chrisH says:

    All we need is a synthetic case c/o Sky in regard of some victim clone like a Dugga, Maoty or Khan to “go postal” blaming the TV Licence goons for the riot/murder spree or death in a Capita van etc.
    Of course no real people need to be hurt…just spud guns, ketchup and a chopped onion ought to do it.
    Worth watching Hamas or Hezbollah, Peckham Boyz uploads to create the scam…God knows, the BBC rely on such snowjobs for 95% of THEIR news gathering these days!
    Might even be a MOBO or and Emmy in it!


  14. bodo says:

    Yes, “fuck you, pay me” pretty much sums up the BBC. When the BBC gets on their high horse and does a full week of items on pay day loan companies and the misery they cause”, do they never stop to think about the 180,000 people who were prosecuted last year by the BBC, representing one in 8 court cases, most of them women, many on benefits.

    And never forget, despite the BBC’s best efforts to appear at arm’s length to those doing the nasty deed, TV licensing is simply a brand name used by the BBC. It is every bit a part of the BBC as radio five or newsnight. The TV licensing authority, the organisation that has the power to prosecute, is also the BBC. It is the BBC that drags people to court, gets them prosecuted resulting in a criminal record with implications for the rest of their lives. Wonga doesn’t prosecute anyone. Who are the real bad guys?


  15. Scrappydoo says:

    The BBC knew exactly what they were doing when they developed Iplayer, It is their Trojan Horse, they have been pressuring behind the scenes for anyone with internet access to be forced to buy a tv license.

    On the Tv licensing web page “check if you need a Tv License”
    it says –
    “You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.”

    The first sentence is clear but the second is a bit naughty and it could be read that ownership of these devices requires a license.

    A tv license is not required for the ownership and general use of any of the devices mentioned, only if they are used to access Tv programs as they are being broadcast. Having an internet connection/wifi does not require a Tv license.

    It seems that the TV license inspectors can not be trusted and the police have no understanding of or interest in the relevant law .


  16. Simon says:

    our leftie betters at the bbc wouldn’t be bothered one bit by stuff like this. It is like Soviet police dragging people off, they don’t care


  17. Way cool, numerous extremely logical tips! I truly appreciate you crafting this article and the remainder of your web-site is terrific!