This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

BBC related crime in here.

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby chomerly » Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:13 am

Well it's been a little over three weeks since i sent the letter of complaint and a notice of removal of implied right of access and fines for trespass but i've still yet to receive a response.

I wonder what they're up to? :thinks:
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby janet73 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:48 pm

My computer is a few years old. But there are a couple of sites through which I can receive either live or catch up TV via the internet. This surely must apply to everyone with broadband!
My ancient TV is about to go belly up and there are problems with the Sky box or LAN. So I'm genuinely thinking about ditching the TV along with the licence. So is it my fault that my computer, which I bought for use as a computer, can also receive TV signals via the internet? Are these guys seriously going to turn up with a warrant and investigate my computer?
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 9:10 am

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby chomerly » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:38 pm

It would be a tough one for TV licensing to argue in court, if it ever got that far, that you were liable for a TV license just because you have a mobile phone or computer in the home.
Even if you have a TV it still isn't 'illegal' to not have a license at the address whilst having a fully functional TV in the home.

Computers and mobile phones that are able to pick up live broadcasts via an internet stream are much different to a TV because both of the former items were never designed for that function.
The broadcast has had to be modified, so to speak, in order for it to conform to the device when it comes to computers and mobile phones. A TV however has been designed for the purpose of receiving the broadcast regardless of all of it's other functions.

I wasn't even aware that the BBC had the relating statutes amended to include computers and mobile phones which shows that they're trying all ways to cover the bases upon which we can argue out of it from.
The thing that they were never able to cover though is the fact that we are ONLY liable in COMMON LAW.
Something they can never fight against unless the PTB try to change the UK from a common law jurisdiction.
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby chomerly » Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:30 am

As promised, i have now pasted my letter that i sent to TV Licensing and also their response.
It may seem a little long winded but it serves as both a letter of complaint and also a notice.

This letter also contains a notice to which your attention is required.
Ignorance of the notice will not be accepted as an excuse.

To ,

Customer Relations
TV Licensing
BS98 1TL

I wish to complain about one of your agents who came, on Tuesday, May 3rd, to my home to inspect whether or not I have a television license for my home.

The agent who came to my address tried to enter on the land of my property by the side road where my property is situated.
I was across the street, no more than 7 meters away, chatting with a neighbour as my very young children were playing in the garden area.
I asked the agent, whom I thought was someone to read my energy meters, if I could help him. The agent started off with a somewhat evasive manner when he asked if I lived at the address.
I replied that I did and then he went on to explain that there was a record of a television being purchased at this address. I then asked him who he was and he quickly flashed his identity card and I noticed it had TV Licensing at the top.
I confirmed that I did indeed buy a television in December as a Christmas present for my son who does not live with me at my address.
He said “that’s fine. Do you have a television in the home.”
I responded by saying that “I have a couple of monitors.”

He just smirked and said “Ok, but do you have a television set in the home.”
It was at this point that I felt his demeanour change and I said that “I’m not going to confirm or deny whether I have television or not because I don’t believe in the BBC, what the company stands for and it offers nothing to me which I would be willing to pay for even if I did or did not have a television in the home.”
He interrupted me before I finished the last part of the sentence and said that, and I quote “it’s not for the BBC.”
I looked at him strangely and said “Please, don’t patronise me. The whole reason for licensing is because the BBC is funded by the money that licensing generates and whether it gets that money directly or indirectly is irrelevant. They still get funded from license fee payers.
And also, under European Community competition articles 86 & 82, when read together, make it unlawful for a company or corporation to demand monies for a service before I can choose to subscribe to other services.

(Article 82 prevents the restriction of markets to the detriment of consumers.
In this case the BBC requires that I pay the BBC before I have the choice to subscribe to other service providers. That is to the detriment of the consumer.
Article 86 requires the suspension of any national laws that favour a given undertaking such that the undertaking behaves in a manner that is a breach of Article 82.
An undertaking is any private or public organisation that engages in an economic activity.
This is something that the BBC does as it competes with other service providers I.e. ITV, Channel 4, Five, Sky etc. with its commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide)
He paused for a moment and seemed to get agitated and then went on to tell me that “it’s against the law to have a television in the home” to which I replied that it’s not.
He said that it is and again, I said that “it just isn’t as there is no law that stipulates that you must own a license if you have a television set within the home.”
He then argued that “there is a law against owning a television within the home and it’s the Communications Act 2003 that states that it is illegal to own a television in the home without a TV license.”
Again, I argued that “there is no law that stipulates what your telling me as that would mean a blanket ban on all television sets and it is not unreasonable to assume television sets today have more than one function.”
I also said that “the so called act you are talking about is a statute and that an act is a statute given the force of LAW with the CONSENT of the governed. And I do NOT consent.” But before I could finish he interrupted by saying that he’s not going to argue with me and that he’d just come back with police officers and a warrant to search my home for a television.
I replied by saying “I wasn’t aware that the BBC or TVLA could get a warrant to search my home” but again, before I was able to finish what I was saying he interrupted again and said something that I could not make out and it was at this stage that I decided to record the rest of the what was being said.
As I stated that I’m going to record this I asked if I could see his identification again and reached into my pocket to get my phone out.
He took out his identification, flashed it at me and then put it away before I had the chance to set my phone up to record.
I asked him to show it to me again as I didn’t see his name or photo clearly enough in order to verify who he actually was or to check to see if this persons photo on the I.D. was the same as the person who was in front of me.
He said “no, I’m not showing you my ID so you can record it.” and he started to walk off.
I said that “I’m going to be recording you any way” and he continued to walk away.
I set my phone to record and the rest of what was said can be seen via the YouTube website via this private link.

As you can imagine I am not pleased with the treatment I have been subjected to.
Upon a number of requests to see this persons identification I was only shown it twice, in quick succession which made only the logo of TV Licensing visible. This is, as I would suspect that you already know, is an offence in itself and that I have the right to report your company to Trading Standards for that refusal.

At no stage did this agent ask to enter my home to check for a television set and nor did he at any point ask me for my name. I would have refused both requests anyway as there is no lawful obligation for me to provide any of this information.
As I had stated that I would do at the end of the video as your employee drove off, I called the police as there was no real way to prove who this man was.


Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

1 Your Street, Your Town, Your City, Your Postcode

Notice is hereby given that Implied Right of Access to the above named Property
along with all associated properties therein, including, but not limited to, any private
conveyance in respect of the following have been removed and will apply to any
Employee, Agent, Principal, Third Party and/or other Persons.

Exemptions of notice are:
Police Officers acting under ‘Oath of Office’ and with a ‘Lawful Warrant’
Royal Mail and other Registered postal courier delivery services

Any infringement of this notice without express pre-written and signed
consent from the Legal Owner/Occupier may result in a fine of, but not exceeding, £250 plus costs
for each Person and Corporation separately, for each infringement made.

Also, it is in the interests for your company, its employees, agents, principal, third party and/or affiliates to know that there are security dogs on site and those dogs may be used (lawfully) as a deterrent to any unauthorised trespassers upon my property and may also be used (lawfully) to protect my property and anyone and everything within it. There are a number of warning signs (which conform to EU standards for universal warning signs for guard dogs) situated on and around the property that will signify the presence of dogs being on site.
I am also demanding that my legal fiction (Mr Your Name), and any associated details, are removed from your database and also the mailing list as it is unsolicited mail that you are wasting those who support the BBC’ fee’s on.

I may also be discussing my options with a solicitor and will also give copies of the video, police records, witness statements and this letter.


your: name

The response i received seems like a fairly standard response so i do plan on sending another letter to make sure that they comply fully with the notice.
It's interesting that they still feel the need to tell me that they are backing down but at the same time try and make it as though it's on their terms.

Compliant Reference: 000000

6 June 2011

MR Your Name (-- they still don't get it do they. --)
1 Your Street
Your Town
Your Post Code

Dear MR Your Name (-- Really. Again? --)

Thank you for contacting us about our visit to your address of 3 May. Your complaint has been recorded under the reference number given above. Please quote this if you need to contact us again.

It may be helpful to explain that whilst TV Licence revenue is used to fund the BBC, the licence fee is not payment for services or goods received.
It is the statutory fee, payment of which grants permission to receive or record any live television broadcasts.

We're responsible for ensuring that anyone who needs a TV Licence in the UK has one. In line with this, an officer was asked to confirm the licensable status of your address.

I note your comments about how the visit was carried out however. Our officers are expected to go about their duties in a professional, helpful and accurate manner.
To ensure that working instructions are followed, all officers are regularly monitored by their managers.

As your complaint doesn't reflect the expected standard, it's been raised with the visiting manager of the officer concerned, for appropriate internal action to be taken.

I have also noted your wish to withdraw the common law right of TV Licensing's officers to approach your property. Your instructions will be adhered to and further visits won't be made. We do however reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of TV receiving equipment.

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention and for giving us this opportunity to respond.

Yours sincerely

(an indiscriminate scribble)

Stuart Gorringe
Customer Relation

It's interesting how they make a point of saying,

..........the licence fee is not payment for services or goods received.
It is the statutory fee, payment of which grants permission to receive or record any live television broadcasts.

So in effect,
we are being told that we must purchase a licence for receiving live broadcasts from anywhere in the world while we are in the UK.
So that means that the fee taken, which the government and BBC make a killing off (literally), means that they're both profiteering from other broadcasters from across the globe if you have a satellite system that is able to receive their channels live.
Isn't that copyright theft in itself and also, isn't that in direct contravention of the European Community competition articles 86 & 82?


When i've had a sleep, i was called in to work on an emergency so i've been up all night, i'll give it some serious thought and see if i get a response.
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby pedawson » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:23 pm

Chomerly, here’s (below) something you might find interesting. Sorry for the length of the post.

But first I would like to state you have made a significant breakthrough here and you may not have recognised it.

chomerly wrote:We do however reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of TV receiving equipment

They are reserving a right, ‘What right is this?’
The other thng is they are admitting to ‘SPYING’
Agents in espionage [Spy]
snoop Verb
1. To be devious and cunning so as not to be seen
2. To secretly spy on or investigate, especially into the private personal life of others.

An Agent is someone that has been authorized to function on behalf of another.[7] There are several types of agent in use today.
Espionage is a crime under the legal code of many nations. The risks of espionage vary. A spy breaking the host country's laws may be deported, imprisoned, or even executed.

Spying or snooping is one thing, what about the equipment they use to detect the signal?
There are rules regarding the use of equipment, for use as evidence in court, are there not?
One such rule is that the equipment be ‘calibrated’, that the equipment is able to identify the suspect ‘directly’ and not be influenced by someone other tan the suspect; in other words how can they differentiate the TV you use from the TV next door, which my be only a foot away from yours.

Health and safety certificates for the equipment they say they will use to detect your transmission. What method and what equipment, so you can research; Current medical research as to the adverse affects with regards to health.
Disclosure, with regards to spying. It is only spying if they do not inform you that the are doing it, and they have to tell you when they are dong it or going to do it.
You have the ‘right’ to withdraw their ‘impliedright to snoop.

For your information, below is the definition and acts pertaining to broadcasting. And he scope by which you have the right to ‘Fair Use’
Notice the alternative ‘Narrowcasting’ you could have some fun with this.
I have read somewhere on this forum the suggestion that the BBC refrain from broadcasting their signals to your abode.

Broadcasting is the distribution of audio and video content to a dispersed audience via radio, television, or other. Receiving parties may include the general public or a relatively large subset thereof.

The original term broadcast referred to the literal sowing of seeds on farms by scattering them over a wide field. It was first adopted by early radio engineers from the Midwestern United States to refer to the analogous dissemination of radio signals. Broadcasting forms a very large segment of the mass media.
Broadcasting to a very narrow range of audience is called narrowcasting.
United Kingdom

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 defines a broadcast as "a transmission by wireless telegraphy of visual images, sounds, or other information which is capable of lawful reception by the public or which is made for presentation to the public". Thus, it covers radio, television, teletext and telephones.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 wrote:Fair dealing defences and permitted acts
Chapter III of Part I of the Act provides for a number of situations where copying or use of a work will not be deemed to infringe the copyright, in effect limitations on the rights of copyright holders. The existing common law defences to copyright infringement, notably fair dealing and the public interest defence, are not affected (s. 171), although many of the statutory permitted acts would also qualify under one of the common law defences: the defence of statutory authority is specifically maintained in section 50. This chapter of the Act has been substantially modified, notably by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 No. 2498 transposing the EU Copyright Directive: the description below is of the Act as it received Royal Assent.

Fair dealing defences
The following are also permitted acts (the list is not exhaustive):
• Fair dealing in a work for the purposes of private study or research (s. 29)
• Fair dealing in a work with acknowledgment for the purposes of criticism or review or, unless the work is a photograph, for the purposes of news reporting (s. 30);
• Incidental inclusion of copyright material in another work (s. 31);
• Public reading or recital by a single person with acknowledgment (s. 59);
• Copying and distribution of copies of the abstracts of scientific and technical articles (s. 60);
• Recordings of folksongs for archives (s. 61)
• Photographs, graphic works, films or broadcasts of buildings and sculptures in a public place (s. 62) (see Freedom of panorama);
• Copying and distribution of copies of an artistic work for the purpose of advertising its sale (s. 63);
• Reconstruction of a building (s. 65)
• Rental of sound recordings, films and computer programs under a scheme which provides for reasonable royalty to the copyright holder (s. 66);
• Playing of sound recordings for the purposes of a non-commercial club or society (s. 67);
• Recording for the purposes of time-shifting (s. 70);
• Free public showing of broadcasts (s. 72);
• Provision of subtitled copies of broadcasts for the handicapped by designated bodies (s. 74)
• Recording of broadcasts for archival purposes (s. 75).]

Criminal offences
Copyright infringement that may be criminal offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 are the:
• Making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others
• Importing infringing copies (except for personal use)
• Offering for sale or hire, publicly displaying or otherwise distributing infringing copies in the course of a business
• Distributing a large enough number of copies to have a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner
• Making or possessing equipment for the purposes of making infringing copies in the course of a business
• Publicly performing a work in knowledge that the performance is unauthorised
• Communicating copies or infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent prejudicial to the copyright owner)
• Manufacturing commercially, importing for non-personal use, possessing in the course of a business, or distributing to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder, a device primarily designed for circumventing a technological copyright protection measure.
The penalties for these copyright infringement offences may include:
• Before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
• On indictment (in the Crown Court) some offences may attract an unlimited fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby pedawson » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:37 pm

The first bit of my post referred to a quote from the letter you recieved.
chomerly wrote:We do however reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of TV receiving equipment

My best responce to this would be to counter their claim.
This statement by them is an 'OFFER' it would be wise to conditionally accept their offer
Rememer we should 'ALWAYS' accept offers, but the acceptance should always be conditional.
I have to give 'CREDIT' to this thought to 'WingstheONE' and for his / her link to Creditors in commerce.

Thanks WingstheONE.

Namaste, phil;
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby kevin » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:31 pm

be very careful what you accept with these gits, read this if you haven't already (you should have! )

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby chomerly » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:36 pm

I'm not sure i follow Phil mate.
I have enough trouble keeping up with some of things i've read on this site as my English is shit to be frank. In fact, most of my schooling was piss poor and the last couple of years at school was spent sitting in class rooms copying from a text book while the teachers spent their time having a cuppa and reading a book or marking a previous classes work.

I fail to see what other methods TVLA could use apart from standing in the street and looking through your windows with a pair of binoculars from afar.

I don't believe that TVLA have any sort of handheld or any vehicle based detection equipment and i fail to see how they could, with pinpoint accuracy, identify which household a signal was coming from if they did.
Furthermore, how could they then, with fact, prove that a television in the home is being used for watching live broadcasts?
Because someone owns a television doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to use it to watch live broadcasts as televisions today serve more than one function.
The fact that it has a receiver built in is irrelevant.

Is it illegal to own a television set? NO
Is it illegal to watch LIVE broadcasts according to THEIR law? Yes

The act which covers their law stipulates that it is an offence to watch LIVE broadcasts and it's quite clear in it's lettering to "customers" that this is the case.
The Communications Act 2003 even states,

Part 4
Licensing of TV reception

363 Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,is guilty of an offence.

If the avoidance of having a TV license is such a massive issue to the PTB as they make out then surely governments would be recommending that all TV's sold today have separate receiver hardware which can be bought at the same time or at a later date. Much like how it used to be when plasmas were first released.
They wouldn't do anything like that though would they as they would be afraid of the receiver units being sold on the second hand, or black market, which they can't trace. And it would also mean a massive loss in revenue because i'd bet that there would be a high proportion of the community that simply wouldn't bother.

I've read that thread you've linked Kevin a few weeks ago and i couldn't believe how he got screwed. I would have probably fallen into that same trap too.
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby thepalace1 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:57 am

Just a quick question along the lines of previous posts regarding Warrants of Entry.

a) If they came to my door with a warrant of entry that had NO WET INK SIGNITURE or COURT STAMP, is this not a valid warrant? Does a photocopy not suffice?

b i) If the warrant of entry is only an orders the right of ENTRY and the right to check equiptment, would I be able to switch the electricity of at the mains to stop the tv coming on?, or would that be against the warrant, would they have to provide their own power source to check the equiptment as someone else said some posts back about dragging the tv into the garden and hoping the have a generator to test it.

b ii) Surely if the warrant does not state that they can turn the electricity back on, then they cannot once I have flipped the fuse off.

Thanks in advance.

Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:52 am

Re: This has certainly been an eventful afternoon

Postby chomerly » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:30 am

As far as I'm aware, a warrant does have to have the court stamp, a wet signature from the Justice of the Peace (or Magistrate) with the name also printed and it is only valid for the reasons it gives.

In the case of your question I would read the warrant extremely carefully and at that point ask the officer if he is here under his oath of common law and to keep the peace
He/she will have to respond and to say no would mean the officer is there to enforce commercial law which is against his oath and then you can tell them both that you do not consent.
The officer has no standing, as far as I'm led to believe, as his role would have to be to arrest you for a criminal matter.
Also, the person serving the warrant, in this case a TVL agent, only has the same power as the officer accompanying him/her.
At common law, which the officer would/should be acting under, the warrant would be null and void as the Communications Act 2003 is statute law and as long as you have made it clear from the beginning that you are in lawful rebellion in accordance with article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215, there should be no case upon which the officer can act and therefore neither can the TVL agent.
You could also argue on court, if it gets that far, that the 'law' regarding TV Licensing is in direct contravention of articles 86 & 82 of the European Community Competition Rulings.

As for switching off the electricity, I can't see why that would be an issue. Personally, I would do that and remove the relevant fuses for all the plug sockets.
You don't have to do anything outside of what that warrant says.
If it states that you must show the agent any television sets you have in the house then you can do so but, if it is the only thing it says your required to do then you can ignore the agent and the officer when asked any questions and once the agent has completed his checks you can then demand they leave.
They can't just walk out of your home and then comeback with fuses to check the televisions after as they would need another warrant to do that.
One warrant gets them entry once.

Any officer or TVL agent can not touch anything in your home outside of what the warrant says.
If they do then they are commiting an act of criminal damage.

Remember the officer is there to keep the peace. Or at least should be. Nothing more.
User avatar
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.


Return to T.V. Licence

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests