Freedom from TV license oppression
Discussion
Cheese Mechanic said:
oyster said:
It's no different than me paying for fire services even though I take more precautions to avoid fire. And no different than paying lots of taxes that go to the NHS even though I eat healthily, exercise lots and don't have a dangerous job.
Actually, totally wrong, Fire services, NHS etc are vital services, the BBC is just another media comapny. AJS- said:
Mental and "crusty" for not wanting to fund a left wing state broadcaster? Really?
It's your DM punters who froth over the communist agenda of the BBC. Your crusties and job dodgers use the excuse of it being an oppressive tax on free people.
Read that forum link. In amongst the sensible posts is a lot of comedy gold.
funkyrobot said:
Cotty said:
AA999 said:
According to evidence on youtube it then goes:
8. Number of weeks later crapita and police turn up at doorstep with dodgy warrant based on made up evidence. Police force entry and allow crapita goons to look around. Crapita goons then state "you have the ability to receive live TV" and issue court proceedings against you.
That's about the size of it 8. Number of weeks later crapita and police turn up at doorstep with dodgy warrant based on made up evidence. Police force entry and allow crapita goons to look around. Crapita goons then state "you have the ability to receive live TV" and issue court proceedings against you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_nRsnd2-Lo
AA999 said:
funkyrobot said:
Cotty said:
AA999 said:
According to evidence on youtube it then goes:
8. Number of weeks later crapita and police turn up at doorstep with dodgy warrant based on made up evidence. Police force entry and allow crapita goons to look around. Crapita goons then state "you have the ability to receive live TV" and issue court proceedings against you.
That's about the size of it 8. Number of weeks later crapita and police turn up at doorstep with dodgy warrant based on made up evidence. Police force entry and allow crapita goons to look around. Crapita goons then state "you have the ability to receive live TV" and issue court proceedings against you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_nRsnd2-Lo
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/danny-a...
It is with some regret, although not total surprise, that we report that Danny Allen has been convicted of obstructing the search warrant TV Licensing attempted to execute at his home last December.
This has not been a particularly pleasant post for us to write. Since the result of Danny's trial we've been carefully weighing up the costs of highlighting TV Licensing's result, against the benefits of warning other people in similar circumstances - exceptionally rare as those circumstances are. Loathe as we are to promote any kind of TV Licensing victory, we have decided to outline the facts below as a warning to others on the receiving end of a TV Licensing search warrant.
There can't be many people who haven't seen Danny's hilarious encounter with TV Licensing goon Ian Doyle on YouTube. In case you somehow managed to miss it, you can read all about the events of that cold December day in our earlier post.
The twists in this story since we wrote our follow-up post are quite astonishing and almost defy belief. Back in August we explained how the court had decided TV Licensing were too late to bring charges against Danny. We published a letter from the court, which clearly stated that TV Licensing's charges were being withdrawn.
In a sickening twist of fate, we learnt a week after our follow-up that the court had made a blunder over the dates. TV Licensing had actually lodged their case within the time limits, but the court had overlooked that point due to staff shortages. The court wrote a letter of apology to Danny explaining their mistake and confirming that TV Licensing would be pursuing search warrant obstruction charges after all. We decided not to publish information about the court's mistake, because we didn't want to afford the BBC and TV Licensing the satisfaction of publicity.
A new summons arrived and Danny considered his options. He decided to plead not guilty and his trial was scheduled for 5th November 2013 at Harlow Magistrates' Court. Without going into too many details the famous "Freeman of the Land" (FMOTL) arguments deployed by Danny on the day of the search were rejected by the court.
Danny's lawyer did not dispute the validity of the search warrant or the circumstances in which it was granted, but he did raise a few questions about TV Licensing's attempts to execute it. The court viewed Danny's entire video of the botched search. Those events were thoroughly discussed and considered by the court, so there is little point delving any deeper. Suffice to say all of the possible weaknesses in TV Licensing's case, which were tenuous to say the least, were rebuffed by the court.
Danny was convicted of obstructing TV Licensing's search warrant, contrary to section 366 of the Communications Act 2003. He was fined £100 and has to pay TV Licensing £300 in costs. Perhaps more significantly he now has a criminal record thanks to adopting legally-baseless, albeit populist, FMOTL arguments in an effort to fend off TV Licensing.
We can state, quite categorically, that Danny has never used a TV receiver in his property. We have seen video footage of him telling TV Licensing employees that fact, despite them denying any knowledge of his no-TV status in court. Had Danny allowed TV Licensing access they would have confirmed there was no evidence of unlicensed TV reception. They would also have also suffered untold damage when video footage of their fruitless search was distributed across the web.
Despite TV Licensing having achieved a technical victory in court, there is no denying that Danny's case has been a particularly unedifying experience for them. The way they toyed with proceedings right to the time-limits demonstrates their action was brought more in spite than public interest. After tickling Danny's balls in a protracted bout of legal foreplay, TV Licensing have seen him punished by the court to the tune of £100. That's hardly a significant money shot.
We strongly suspect that TV Licensing's aggressive and legally unjustified targeting of Danny's property stems from the fact he has previously posted anti-TV Licensing videos on YouTube. TV Licensing has previous form for vexatiously pursuing their outspoken opponents, even when there's no credible evidence of unlicensed TV reception. TV Licensing goon Doyle, who previously featured in their botched prosecution of Michael Shakespeare, confirmed to the court that he was often sent to deal with high profile cases. That seems to reinforce the notion that Danny's was a special case.
As we have previously said, anyone who adopts the ill-informed mantra of "search warrants require consent" or "TV Licensing search warrants are a civil matter and not worth the paper they're printed on" is asking for trouble. These arguments have been tested by experienced lawyers in court, instead of unqualified barrack room lawyers chasing popularity. The people coming out with these dangerous rabble-rousing soundbites are not those standing toe-to-toe with TV Licensing.
If their arguments were correct that "Acts are only law if you consent" then the country would be awash with drug dealers immune from prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; people could go about stealing without fear of punishment under the Theft Act 1968; arsonists could torch whatever they liked without worrying about the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I think those examples totally obliterate any nonsensical logic that Acts are not subject to the full force of law.
In the exceptionally rare event that TV Licensing do appear with a warrant, the occupier is advised to co-operate with their search. By far the best option is to avoid all contact with TV Licensing, thus depriving them of any opportunity to obtain a search warrant in the first place.
Please consider everything we have said carefully.
TJoK has produced a final video conversation with Danny Allen, where they discuss his feelings about the outcome.
Importantly, it's nothing to do with a TV licence though. they prosecuted him for obstruction of the warrant they obtained (which he was guilty of). How they obtained that warrant is a whole other matter (including whether it was done so legally or on fabricated evidence).
The advice I posted earlier still stands; refuse entry if they come knocking on a speculative visit and ask to 'take a look'. If they turn up with a warrant, let them in but say nothing. From the evidence of many YouTube videos, even the TVL idiots seem to think that acknowledging your device could receive broadcasts (any PC, mobile phone, tablet etc COULD receive live streams over the internet) is sufficient to take you to court. Even the Police have clearly stated on some of the footage that "if you have a TV, you need a licence" which is wholly incorrect. You can only be prosecuted if you are caught (or admit to) watching or recording TV as it is broadcast. The onus is on TVL to provide evidence that you were doing so, not on you to prove you weren't. One cannot prove a negative.
Also ignore the 'Freeman on the Land' bulls
t - it will get you into serious trouble as they have no clue what they are talking about and live in La-la Land. From what I recall of the video, it seems to be FMOTL crap around the warrant that got that guy into trouble.
The advice I posted earlier still stands; refuse entry if they come knocking on a speculative visit and ask to 'take a look'. If they turn up with a warrant, let them in but say nothing. From the evidence of many YouTube videos, even the TVL idiots seem to think that acknowledging your device could receive broadcasts (any PC, mobile phone, tablet etc COULD receive live streams over the internet) is sufficient to take you to court. Even the Police have clearly stated on some of the footage that "if you have a TV, you need a licence" which is wholly incorrect. You can only be prosecuted if you are caught (or admit to) watching or recording TV as it is broadcast. The onus is on TVL to provide evidence that you were doing so, not on you to prove you weren't. One cannot prove a negative.
Also ignore the 'Freeman on the Land' bulls
t - it will get you into serious trouble as they have no clue what they are talking about and live in La-la Land. From what I recall of the video, it seems to be FMOTL crap around the warrant that got that guy into trouble.It does seem to be the "I know my rights", "you can't make me", FMOTL types who get bother, probably becaus it looks evasive. I've had the inspector come round three of four times over the years and never been asked for access to check I'm telling the truth, and never had them return with or without a warrant.
DonkeyApple said:
Ooh. We just stepped up the mental. 
Nah I think the facts speak for themselves.A TV Licensing enforcement officer has been convicted of rape after prosecutors argued he'd used his employment as the ideal guise to cover his depraved fantasies.
Jurors at Middlesbrough Crown Court heard how Gary Catterick, 49, of Broadwell Road in the town, forced himself on the pregnant woman after she took pity on him when his car broke down during one of his TV Licensing rounds last November.
On what was a bitterly cold evening, the young victim offered Catterick a "cuppa" on her doorstep, but she didn't invite him inside.
Exploiting the opportunity Catterick walked into the house and raped the woman in the presence of a sleeping child.
Judge John Walford told Catterick: "You cruelly and self-indulgently repaid the kindness and consideration of this young woman by raping her.
"She was young and vulnerable, she was a victim in her own home while her children were there."
The jury of 8 men and 4 women took less than 2 hours to find Catterick guilty of the woman's rape. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life.
Kevin Hamilton of Newton Heath, Greater Manchester and Oluwagbenga Olaniyan of Gravesend, Kent.
Hamilton stole £3,000 worth of cash payments taken in his role as a TV Licensing enquiry officer, working for Capita Business Services Ltd. His fraud was uncovered when one of his victims complained that she hadn't received her TV licence despite having paid for it weeks earlier. In a desperate bid to avoid detection Hamilton falsely claimed his receipt book and cash were stolen during a mugging, which he even reported to the police. Hamilton was convicted of fraud at Manchester Crown Court in May 2010.
Olaniyan fabricated interview records, because he was struggling to meet stiff performance targets demanding that TV Licensing enquiry officers catch at least one evader every hour. Fearing the loss of his £16,000 a year job with Capita Business Services Ltd. the father of four decided to create some incriminating interview statements, thus bumping up his success rate. The deceit was uncovered when one of Olaniyan's randomly selected victims complained about being summoned to court when she didn't even have a television. Olaniyan was convicted of four counts of false accounting and one of perverting the course of justice at Maidstone Crown Court in October 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYmLRq59-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCdKqVJSy4
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/bbc-executive-...
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/how-jimmy-savi...
Mental indeed.
4v6 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Ooh. We just stepped up the mental.
Nah I think the facts speak for themselves.A TV Licensing enforcement officer has been convicted of rape after prosecutors argued he'd used his employment as the ideal guise to cover his depraved fantasies.
Jurors at Middlesbrough Crown Court heard how Gary Catterick, 49, of Broadwell Road in the town, forced himself on the pregnant woman after she took pity on him when his car broke down during one of his TV Licensing rounds last November.
On what was a bitterly cold evening, the young victim offered Catterick a "cuppa" on her doorstep, but she didn't invite him inside.
Exploiting the opportunity Catterick walked into the house and raped the woman in the presence of a sleeping child.
Judge John Walford told Catterick: "You cruelly and self-indulgently repaid the kindness and consideration of this young woman by raping her.
"She was young and vulnerable, she was a victim in her own home while her children were there."
The jury of 8 men and 4 women took less than 2 hours to find Catterick guilty of the woman's rape. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life.
Kevin Hamilton of Newton Heath, Greater Manchester and Oluwagbenga Olaniyan of Gravesend, Kent.
Hamilton stole £3,000 worth of cash payments taken in his role as a TV Licensing enquiry officer, working for Capita Business Services Ltd. His fraud was uncovered when one of his victims complained that she hadn't received her TV licence despite having paid for it weeks earlier. In a desperate bid to avoid detection Hamilton falsely claimed his receipt book and cash were stolen during a mugging, which he even reported to the police. Hamilton was convicted of fraud at Manchester Crown Court in May 2010.
Olaniyan fabricated interview records, because he was struggling to meet stiff performance targets demanding that TV Licensing enquiry officers catch at least one evader every hour. Fearing the loss of his £16,000 a year job with Capita Business Services Ltd. the father of four decided to create some incriminating interview statements, thus bumping up his success rate. The deceit was uncovered when one of Olaniyan's randomly selected victims complained about being summoned to court when she didn't even have a television. Olaniyan was convicted of four counts of false accounting and one of perverting the course of justice at Maidstone Crown Court in October 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYmLRq59-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCdKqVJSy4
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/bbc-executive-...
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/how-jimmy-savi...
Mental indeed.
You don't want to Google what some Channel5 retuners got up to. You'll never be able to watch 'When Nazi Sharks Attack' again.
You certainly wouldn't be able to pay for any supermarket goods again either.
And never call the Police for help, take a taxi anywhere or use a solicitor.
In fact, I'm not sure you should use or pay for any service again. You should certainly disconnect your broadband and put your phone in the bin.
Also, just to kick the hornets nest in its face, of all the people I've heard espousing getting rid of/wholly free-marketising the BBC, none of them have ever seemed particularly nice.
I'm sure there are some, but in my experience it seems to always be monied conservative or libertarian, value-of-nothing types.
I'm sure there are some, but in my experience it seems to always be monied conservative or libertarian, value-of-nothing types.
trashbat said:
It's the plumbers you have to watch out for. I've seen several documentaries about the appalling things they get up to.
This is true. In league with the water companies and their oppressive demand for payment. It's probably best to remove all the plumbing so when their officials come round you can show them that you do not facilitate live flow. You'll need some buckets but will have to steal them as some employees of bucket vending establisments will have been found guilty of rape or theft.
DonkeyApple said:
And this is legitimate grounds for not paying for a TV license?
Well...erm..yeah. Garry Glitter had his fans too, it does not mean I want to be one of them.DonkeyApple said:
You don't want to Google what some Channel5 retuners got up to. You'll never be able to watch 'When Nazi Sharks Attack' again.
I couldnt care less.DonkeyApple said:
You certainly wouldn't be able to pay for any supermarket goods again either.
And never call the Police for help, take a taxi anywhere or use a solicitor.
The fact is we KNOW about the BBC's antics vis a vis pedophilia. And never call the Police for help, take a taxi anywhere or use a solicitor.
DonkeyApple said:
In fact, I'm not sure you should use or pay for any service again. You should certainly disconnect your broadband and put your phone in the bin.
And there you make the entire point for me.I can CHOOSE to do that without any harassment thereafter!
Clear?
4v6 said:
DonkeyApple said:
And this is legitimate grounds for not paying for a TV license?
Well...erm..yeah. Garry Glitter had his fans too, it does not mean I want to be one of them.DonkeyApple said:
You don't want to Google what some Channel5 retuners got up to. You'll never be able to watch 'When Nazi Sharks Attack' again.
I couldnt care less.DonkeyApple said:
You certainly wouldn't be able to pay for any supermarket goods again either.
And never call the Police for help, take a taxi anywhere or use a solicitor.
The fact is we KNOW about the BBC's antics vis a vis pedophilia. And never call the Police for help, take a taxi anywhere or use a solicitor.
DonkeyApple said:
In fact, I'm not sure you should use or pay for any service again. You should certainly disconnect your broadband and put your phone in the bin.
And there you make the entire point for me.I can CHOOSE to do that without any harassment thereafter!
Clear?
OK, I'm glad I am aware of this now. I had no idea.
DonkeyApple said:
So, in short, when you pay your TV License you are tacitly bankrolling and supporting peadophilia, rape and burglary?
OK, I'm glad I am aware of this now. I had no idea.
Glad you learned something new. OK, I'm glad I am aware of this now. I had no idea.
Whats your opinion of the other point though?
The main one of being able to choose not to engage the services of any other private company and be free from harassment and threats of legal action simply for deciding not to sign up to their services?
4v6 said:
Whats your opinion of the other point though?
The main one of being able to choose not to engage the services of any other private company and be free from harassment and threats of legal action simply for deciding not to sign up to their services?
Since the BBC isn't a private company, why don't you compare like with like and try to exempt yourself from the need to pay national insurance, council tax etc?The main one of being able to choose not to engage the services of any other private company and be free from harassment and threats of legal action simply for deciding not to sign up to their services?
I don't have any children so why should I pay for schools? My house isn't, I would hope, currently on fire, so I should be able to choose not to inconvenience myself with bills for that particular service without being harassed by bailiffs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff