TV Licensing

Who's Calling Please?

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:37:00 +0000

Another stunning insight into the exciting life of the TV Licensing Enforcement Officer has appeared on YouTube courtesy of Liam O'Brien.

He allowed the rodent-like TV Licensing employee access to his property and stood armed with a camera to capture the imminent exchange.

It was rather a damp squib actually. Liam managed to elucidate the fact that this vermin was indeed from TV Licensing, but the presence of a camera threw the mustachioed creature off guard and he quickly recoiled like a slug being sprinkled with salt.

Here's Liam's movie:

These short movies are gold dust. If you have any movies or images of TV Licensing people at work please send them our way (email addy in sidebar).

TV Licensing Propaganda Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:35:00 +0000

Achtung, achtung... we know where you live and we could call any time.

TV Licensing are at it again, peddling their immoral wares to desperate journos - journos so desperate they'd pawn their grandmothers to fill the otherwise bare column inches.

Their latest offering is a list of "humorous" excuses offered for non-payment. The list, which is almost certainly fabricated for the sake of publicity, includes comedic gems like: "The subtitles on my TV are set to French so I'm not paying a UK tax for something I can't read."

Eagle-eyed members at the TV Licence Resistance forum have spotted that several TVL representatives are parroting the exact same drivel up and down the nation.

TVL spokesman Jon Shaw said in the Mail on Sunday: "No matter how creative these excuses, people are breaking the law and risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."
TVL's Fergus Reid told the Sunday Express: "No matter how creative these excuses, people watching TV without a licence are breaking the law, and therefore risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."
TVL's Charlotte Reynolds told the Carlisle News and Star: "No matter how creative these excuses, people watching TV without a licence are breaking the law. They therefore risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."

It's as if there's a handbook of shitty TVL soundbites to spew out on command.

Edit: TV Licensing smut merchants Fishburn Hedges have been reading this article with interest.

Heading to University: TV Licence Explained

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:36:00 +0000

It's that time of year when thousands of students are apprehensively packing their cases for a new life in higher education. It's also the time of year when TV Licensing hit the newspapers with horror stories of how they'll be snooping through every hall of residence, like a raincoated flasher lurking in the bushes of Hampstead Heath.

Have no fear. With a little bit of know how you can still enjoy watching television, completely legally, without having to line the pockets of fat cat presenters or bloated Beeb executives.

TV Licensing is quick to point out that if you use television receiving/recording equipment in your own room then you will need a TV licence for that purpose. Most people jump to the conclusion that means purchasing a separate licence, when in fact the licence at your non-term-time address may already cover you.

The TV licence at your non-term-time address (probably your parents' home) will cover you to use a television receiver powered by its own internal battery. This means you can use your laptop to watch TV as much as you like as long as it's unplugged from the mains. According to TV Licensing's own propaganda 66% of students say they watch TV on their laptop.

Contrary to what they'd have you believe TV Licensing has no way of detecting someone who watches online TV. The internet service providers don't tell them (they'd be quickly out of business if they did) and your university won't either. Although watching online TV technically requires a TV licence there's practically no chance of being caught or prosecuted if you do.

Remember that TV Licensing has zero entitlement to your cooperation. You do not need to respond to their letters, speak to their scummy operatives or allow them access to your room without a warrant.

Related posts:
TV Licensing for Students

TVL Buckle to Bukovsky

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:56:00 +0000

TV Licensing has made an extraordinary admission in a recent letter to TV licence refusnik Vladimir Bukovsky.

The sixty year old former Soviet dissident alleges BBC bias and has actively campaigned against the licence fee. His high profile and outspoken opposition to the fee has been a thorn in the side of Britain's national broadcaster.

Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday has published the entire text of a letter received by Bukovsky from TV Licensing. It reads as follows:

"Reference: COM/410383/jw

Date: 3 August

Dear Mr. Bukovsky

Re: Television Licensing Requirements

Thank you for your letter of 17 July the contents of which are noted.

Whilst you are quite correct in pointing out that Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 "the Act" states that 'a television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence', this section must be read in conjunction with the accompanying legislation.

In this regard it is important to note that Section 363 of the Act states that a 'television receiver means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State'. The definition of 'television receiver' as set out in Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations 2004 (as amended) further defines a 'television receivers as 'any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for another purpose'.

Therefore, a TV licence is only required where a television set is installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programmes.

You have stated in your recent letter that you have not watched television since 2001, accordingly your television set is 'not installed or used for receiving television programme services' at this time.

Consequently, on the basis of the information that we have, our view is that you are not at this time committing an offence contrary to Section 363 of the Act.

Yours sincerely

John Williams

Customer Relations Manager"

The underlined paragraph is of potentially explosive consequences for TV Licensing - the acknowledgement that Bukovsky doesn't need a licence merely because he claims not to watch TV.

It's difficult to see how they could now harass Joe Public into proving his innocence when they're prepared to take Bukovsky's word at face value.

Of course anonymous Joe Public can easily be brushed under the carpet.

Double Trouble

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:11:00 +0000

We've had a double-whammy of TVL scabs visiting our humble little blog today, with concurrent visits by Capita Business Services and Fishburn Hedges.

Hope you're enjoying the read as much as everyone else guys.

Another PR company, Ogilvy & Mather, seem to be taking a repeated interest too. Asking around it seems no-one is sure whether or not this company is also doing the BBC's dirty work. They certainly don't broadcast the relationship on their website if they do.

Maybe they just visit to see examples of how not to do it?!

I keep expecting TVL to contact us asking why we hate them so much. The answer is simple - your deceitful tactics terrorise innocent non-TV users in their own homes.

Be TV Savvy With Your Set

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:16:00 +0000

Imagine this situation - you don't watch television but you have an old set lurking under the stairs or buried in the corner of your spare bedroom.

That's not an implausible situation because if you're anything like me you'll object to throwing away a perfectly good TV set even if you don't use it.

If one of TV Licensing's goons came knocking* you'd probably think you were in the clear - after all, you've never watched anything on that dusty old set under the stairs.

Think again. It's a sad fact that that TV set could be "installed" enough for TV Licensing to prosecute you for licence evasion.

They consider a TV set to be installed if any broadcast image, however blurred or snowy, can made out when they flick through the channels.

It's not unknown for their employees to plug in their own aerial (be it finger, half eaten pie or whatever) in an attempt to see the slightest hint of an image, so they can threaten the householder with prosecution unless they instantly sign up for a licence. Coincidentally they earn commission for every unsuspecting punter they trap this way.

So the message is to make sure your unused TV sets are completely detuned, aerial removed and well hidden away. And don't let the bastards in your home unless you have to!

*If TV Licensing's goons come knocking without a search warrant we recommend you say nothing and close the door. If they start aggressively banging on your door, peering through your windows or shouting through your letterbox you should call the police. Remember they have no right of entry or cooperation without a search warrant.

TVL Search Warrants: Unscientific But Interesting

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:06:00 +0000

A survey of police officers shows that instances of TV Licensing executing search warrants are almost unheard of.

Over the past month I have been tracking down long serving and recently retired police officers to ask about their experiences of working with TV Licensing.

Regular readers will know that TV Licensing often threaten householders with the use of search warrants, but how often do these threats come to fruition? Hardly ever it would seem.

The officers in question have all served with Forces in the North East of England, including the large population centres of Newcastle Upon Tyne and Sunderland. I have spoken to 4 serving police officers, with a cumulative service of 28 years and 5 retired police officers, with a cumulative service of 53 years.

I put two simple questions to them:

During your time as a police officer have you ever been asked to accompany TV Licensing during the execution of a search warrant?
Do you know any other police officer who has been asked to accompany TV Licensing during the execution of a search warrant?

In response to the first question, none of the serving or retired officers said they had accompanied TV Licensing during the execution of a search warrant.

In response to the second question, only one of the retired officers said he was aware of another officer who had accompanied TV Licensing during the execution of a search warrant.

So there you have it - TV Licensing search warrants are as rare as hens teeth.

I should point out that legally speaking TV Licensing can execute a search warrant without the police being present, although they always opt for a police presence to prevent a breach of the peace.

Google Update

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:13:00 +0000

The Google Gods have joined our battle against TV Licensing by elevating us to third position on their main search engine.

If you search for TV Licensing on Google.com you'll now find us immediately below the official (less than honest) TV Licensing propaganda site.

I'm rather chuffed with that result!

Visitors from Google please visit our list of articles to read the underhand tactics employed by TV Licensing in their ruthless pursuit of the telly tax.

What Do They Know?

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:41:00 +0000

A few days ago I became aware of this brilliant website called What Do They Know?

It's a service that allows you to email Freedom of Information Act requests directly to public bodies. What makes it different is that the correspondence trail is published online for everyone to scrutinise.

You can send your requests anonymously, although they should be serious questions and not vexatious in nature. The BBC would be quick to refuse vexatious requests, despite the fact letters sent on their behalf by TV Licensing are vexatious (intimidating and economical with the truth) themselves.

If you have any questions about the licence fee I suggest you send the BBC an FOI request using What Do They Know? They are legally obliged to reply with an answer within 20 working days.

Unfortunately there are a few legal get-outs the BBC can use if they want to dodge questioning, but it's worth sending them a request anyway. Every request costs them time, money and inconvenience to process - just like when a genuine non-TV user tries to convince them they don't require a TV licence.

Detecting the Undetectable

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:29:00 +0000

During one of my regular TV Licensing related trawls of cyberspace I came across the Life With TV Licensing blog. It's a good blog, written more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve, and I encourage you to pay it a visit.

It charts the ongoing battle between Andy Mitchell, a retired engineer and genuine non-TV user, and TV Licensing. Andy dispensed with TV a few years back so has no need for a licence. TV Licensing honed in on his unlicensed status and commenced battle with their thinly veiled threats and half truths.

After several months of TV Licensing hate mail landing on his doormat Andy decided to withdraw their implied right of access to his property. They wrote back with their standard "we reserve the right to use other detection techniques" retort. This is where things began to get interesting.

A few months later Andy received another letter from TV Licensing saying they had used alternative detection methods and had "reasonable grounds to believe that television receiving equipment is being used, unlicensed, on your premises."

I think that aptly demonstrates what pathetic and opportunistic vultures TV Licensing actually are. They clearly fabricated their "reasonable grounds" in a further attempt to coerce Andy into paying for something he didn't legally need. How else could they have "reasonable grounds" to assume a genuine non-TV user was committing an offence?

I recently read another TV Licensing letter where their representative, bold as brass, point blank denied any of their employees had been convicted of assaulting members of the public in the course of their duties. A quick Google on Ron Sinclair reveals the indisputable truth of the matter.

TV Licensing: The database is crap, but our imagination and propensity to tell lies knows no bounds.

Free Online TV Streaming

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:34:00 +0000

"BBC online streaming" is one of the top search terms bringing visitors to this blog.

As the BBC haven't made massive inroads on the live online streaming front, I thought I'd bring you details of a brilliant alternative service.

One of the best services I have found for online streaming is TVCatchup.

TVCatchup is a free service that allows you to watch live streaming of more than 20 popular Freeview channels including all the BBC and ITV offerings.

Watching online is a popular option, not least because it virtually eliminates all chances of TV Licensing catching a licence evader in the act. It also means you can easily view TV anywhere with a broadband connection.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid. Undercover Detector Vans On Patrol.

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:58:00 +0000

Despicable an organisation as TV Licensing is you've just got to love the effrontery of their advertising campaigns.

No other organisation in the world would have the arrogance - an apparent legal immunity - to publish such fabricated nonsense.

Another laughable tit bit of TVL propaganda appeared the other day, with the announcement that they'll be patrolling the streets of Britain with new undercover detector vans.

Quite how you can make empty vans appear less empty is beyond me, but I'm sure TVL have discovered some sort of secret new detector van paint. No doubt it's a paint so secret that even the people filling the tins - who work in isolation from the outside world - don't know what colour it actually is.

A spokesman for TV Licensing said: "The new vans look just like any other van in the street. There used to be an urban myth that the aerials on our vans were dummies and didn't actually work - but the latest ones certainly do."

Indeed they work so well that the Information Commissioner recently agreed that if the BBC revealed accurate information about their detector van fleet it would "change the public's perception of their effectiveness."

Or, in plain English, the public would very quickly become aware of how ineffective (if existent) the equipment actually was.

BBC Trust Completes Licence Review

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:30:00 +0000

You might remember that the BBC Trust were conducting a review of the television licence. The Trust - an allegedly independent body tasked with ensuring the Corporation delivers quality and value to the licence fee payer - has just published its conclusions.

The lengthy document is available for full download here, but the BBC kindly emailed this summary of key review findings to everyone who completed their online questionnaire.

Summary of review findings:

Most of you thought that it was fairly clear when a TV licence was needed. However there was some confusion about watching TV programmes on a computer or a mobile phone, for example when using the BBC’s iPlayer. We have asked the BBC to make it clearer to people whether or not they need a licence in these situations.

Most of you thought that the BBC offered a good range of ways to pay for a TV licence, and the ways were on the whole suitable for you. A small number of people would prefer to be able to pay at the Post Office rather than at a Paypoint. We understand this concern, but having looked at all the evidence we think that using Paypoints offers better value for money for licence fee payers overall.

Some people felt that the rules about the monthly direct debit scheme were confusing and potentially unfair. In particular it seemed unfair to some people that in the first 6 months of a new licence you have to pay for a full 12 months’ worth of licence. Any changes to the rules about this have to be decided together with the government’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport. In our report we have suggested that they should look at the schemes to find out whether they could make them simpler for people to use in the future.

One of the most important findings was that a lot of you thought that the letters the BBC sends to people about TV licensing do not always meet their aim which is to be clear and concise, and polite but firm. Many of you told us you thought the letters are threatening and rude, and that they presumed guilt. We have asked the BBC to improve the tone of their early letters which are sent to people who have only just become unlicensed, to make sure these letters are not rude or threatening. However, for properties which have been without a licence for a long time, the tone of the letters will stay broadly the same.

The majority of you told us that you thought the tone of the marketing and advertising about the need for a TV licence is not appropriate. Some of you felt that it is heavy-handed or intimidating. However when we did our focus group research, we found that many people thought it was the right thing for the BBC to run these kind of adverts to deter people who might not otherwise pay their licence fee. We didn’t recommend any changes to the tone of the advertising, but we did ask the BBC to find a better way to measure whether the advertising is working or not.

Some of you felt there are problems with record-keeping, and told us that you receive letters from TV Licensing when you already have a licence. The BBC is already working on this, but it our report we have asked them to make sure they keep trying to improve the database and that they find ways to measure how accurate it is.

Many of you told us that you do not have a TV set. Most of you felt that the BBC’s policy for people with no TV is not good enough. We have asked the BBC to make it easier for people who do not have a set to notify TV Licensing about this, because you told us you didn’t feel it was easy enough.

Some of you believe that you should not have to notify TV Licensing at all if you don’t have a TV. We understand this, and we do not think anyone should be forced to notify TV Licensing. But we do agree with the BBC that if someone does not have a TV but chooses not to let them know, they have no real alternative but to send letters to remind them about the law. This is because without contacting people, TV Licensing cannot tell which households do need a licence, and which do not have a set. We hope that by making the process easier, more people will choose to notify TV Licensing in the future. We think that the improvements we have asked for in the tone of the letters should also make them more acceptable people without a television.

Another recommendation we have made is that the BBC should not make any money out of customers when they phone up about their TV Licence. To make sure this happens we have asked them to change all their telephone numbers to start with 03 instead of 084. 03 numbers are guaranteed to cost no more than a call to an 01 or 02 number, and they count towards any inclusive minutes in a phone contract (this includes landlines and mobile phones).

In conclusion: Many members of the public told them they didn't like TVL's advertising or letters, so they asked some tame BBC supporters (AKA their focus group) the same question to redress the balance. When they heard the answers they wanted they decided it was acceptable for TVL to continue sending their trademark threatograms and broadcasting their trademark "Big Brother is watching you" type propaganda.

Incidentally the summary above came from Lucy Tristam who works for the BBC TV Licence Management Team and not the BBC Trust.

TV Licence Protests: May Day Bank Holiday

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:56:00 +0000

Protests against the TV licence fee will be taking place at the following times and locations on Monday, 4th May 2009:

BBC Broadcasting House, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2LR (11.30 am).
BBC Birmingham, 102-108 Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1AY (11.30 am).
BBC Manchester, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester M60 1SJ (11.30 am).
BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London W1A 1AA (march from Trafalgar Square at around 12.30 pm).

Other venues may be added to this list later on, so stay tuned for news about protests at BBC offices in your neighbourhood.

By the power of the interweb thingy you can now recce these venues using Google Street View.

Don't forget your megaphones, Thermos flasks and digital cameras!

TV Licensing Nuisance Phone Calls

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:44:00 +0000

Regular readers of this blog will know by now that TV Licensing pretty much assume that anyone without a TV licence is an evader. Their infinitesimally small brains can't cope with the idea that some people do not use a television receiver and therefore do not need a licence.

I've talked at some length about their harassing mailshots which, coincidentally, have previously been proven to contain fabricated statistics. Another 'detection' method they use is the unsolicited telephone call to unlicensed properties.

It basically works something like this:

[Telephone rings and Joe Public answers]

Joe Public: "Hello."
TVL: "Hello. Is that Mr Joe Public?" (TVL person listens carefully for Corrie music in the background)
Joe: "Who's calling please?"
TVL: Either: "It's TV Licensing. I'm just calling to enquire why you don't have a TV licence."; Or: "It's Dixons and I'm phoning with some fabulous news. You've won a Freeview box in our raffle (which you don't remember entering). Do you watch a lot of TV?"
Joe: "I don't have a television."

[Joe puts down phone]

As you've probably gleaned from our mini-transcript TVL people aren't always honest about their identity when they phone you. Being the devious low lives that they are they sometimes try and lure you into an admission that you watch TV without a licence.

Please be sure to turn down the volume if the phone rings, you're watching TV and you haven't got a licence!

Related posts:
TV Licensing Correspondence

Return to Sender

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:52:00 +0000

Another amusing video about TV Licensing's annoying postal habits has appeared at YouTube.

I've mentioned this strategy before in my earlier Stop Harassing Us! post. A quick reminder of TV Licensing's Freepost address:

TV Licensing
Freepost BS6689
Bristol
BS1 3YJ

Remember that the heavier your package the more it costs them in terms of postage and inconvenience.

Important note: People have asked us about the legality of returning special extras to TV Licensing (I shan't go into too much detail because they read this blog too). It is an offence to send anything by post that could be classed as obscene or dangerous. We couldn't condone such actions, so if you do choose to bulk up your envelopes please do so with an inert material.

Amphibious TV Licensing Commandos?

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:47:00 +0000

Hot off the press from our friends at the Mobar Gazette:

Dear Cretinous Apes of TV Licensing,

I write in response to your recent duet of attempts at correspondence to this address.

Ref: 358972ALLYOURMONEYISBELONGTOUS2473901

First of all, let me say that I adore the good cop/bad cop approach you seem to have taken to this next round of sparring. A simple lack of communication between departments, or a far more subtle shout out to any number of cop dramas on the box?

Based on your previous form, I'd lean to the former, as I get the impression that subtlety is a quality that is as likely to be found in your headquarters as it would be in a production meeting for The Jerry Springer Show.

Anyway, there I was, enjoying the glut of spare time one is afforded when one doesn't own a television. I got to thinking that checking the post might be a good laugh, and boy, I was not disappointed.

The first letter I opened up was from Paul Stanfield, Customer Service Manager at TV Licensing. Paul shall hereafter be referred to as Good Cop, for he had the good sense not to startle me with aggressive colours and misappropriated capital letters.

Good Cop opened by thanking me (in bold, but I let it slide) for telling you that I don't need a TV Licence. He then pulled off a rather smooth segue into the startling claim that over a third of people who tell you that they don't need a TV Licence do, in fact, need one. The horror.

Then, a rather curious statement. "By visiting these addresses, we hope to identify licence evaders and ensure that those who, like you, legitimately need no contact from TV Licensing are not troubled unnecessarily in the future."

To me, this seems to be an admission that you have already troubled me unnecessarily and believe me to be someone who legitimately needs no contact from TV Licensing, but that you still intend to trouble me unnecessarily in the future. Let's not get bogged down in semantics though.

Exit Good Cop. Enter John Robinson of the Solent Enforcement Team, who shall hereafter be referred to as Bad Cop, or Mr Capital Letters 2009.

Solent Enforcement Team? I thought for a moment that there had been a typo. I'm not sure if there is also an Insolent Enforcement Team within your organisation, but if there is, might I suggest transferring Bad Cop to it immediately. His vitriolic tirade of thinly veiled threats would be right at home there.

After a trip to the dictionary, however, I discovered that the Solent is in fact the channel between the Isle of Wight and mainland England. Oh, great, I thought. That's the last thing I need. A crack team of amphibious TV Licensing commandos swimming their way to my door in the dead of the night, pausing only to fine various crustaceans stupid enough to think that TV Licences are only required for land dwelling creatures.

What a letter. 36pt font, capitalised, resplendent in red ink as fiery as the rage in Bad Cop's guts. Perfection could only have been attained if he had signed in the blood of the last poor misguided sod that dared to cross the Solent Enforcement Team.

Then came the threats, helpfully punctuated by way of dot points. Officers may call at your home at any time during the day, night, or weekend. They are authorised to use sophisticated detector equipment on unlicensed households. Every day they catch around 1000 evaders – YOU COULD BE NEXT.

It was heartening to discover that licensing fees are not being diverted to ridiculous things such as the upkeep of the BBC, but are instead funding roaming death squads of highly trained commandos and an almost constant stream of menacing letters that if nothing else are sure to keep ink cartridge manufacturers in business during the recession.

So let me take this opportunity to once again cordially invite you to our humble abode, still unbelievably devoid of a television. I won’t propose a time, as I get the impression the element of surprise is something that members of your species would find rather arousing.

Should the front door be too pedestrian an entry option, might I suggest rappelling down a rope from the TV Licensing helicopter and launching yourselves headfirst through the living room window, thus increasing the chance of catching us watching our non-existent television.

I should also mention we run a pretty tight ship here, so if your storm troopers could remove their boots or flippers before breaching the perimeter it would be much appreciated.

Please, make it soon. It's not that I don't enjoy constructing responses to your idiotic attempts at bullying me into paying for something I don’t require, as I’ve found our dialogue to be most entertaining. I simply long to see the physical manifestation of all these chest puffing abuses of the Caps Lock key.

You've got my number, and you obviously know where I live. So put down your keyboard, and if it’ll make you feel better, kick our door down and we can all have a nice cuppa and talk this silly business over.

Your pal,

Eoinín

© Mobar Gazette 2009

Subscribe to TV Licensing

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:49:00 +0000

I've added an RSS feed button and email subscription option for anyone wishing to receive our articles as soon as they're published.

Please subscribe if you like what we write and want to hear more.

Thanks for your continued support.

Oh, the Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:59:00 +0000

I've just been watching the BBC's Watchdog programme (broadcast 2 Feb 09) on the iPlayer.

The team were investigating malicious debt recovery companies - companies that bombard innocent individuals with harassing correspondence when they don't actually owe any money at all.

So that's a bit like TV Licensing then.

Paul Heiney's report started off: "Last week we reported how hundreds of you had received threatening letters from a company called Lowell Group, demanding money for debts that weren't explained and sometimes didn't exist."

So that's a bit like TV Licensing then.

Beccy Bowden-Wilks of the National Debtline chipped into the report: "They're (the dodgy companies) are breaching the OFT guidelines by saying that the burden of proof is on the debtor to prove that they're not the person that they're looking for. That isn't the case. The burden of proof is on the lender."

So these dodgy companies, unable to produce any evidence at all of some one's guilt, place the onus on them to prove their innocence.

That's classic TV Licensing behaviour too.

Heiney concludes the report by saying: "And before they (the dodgy companies) issue their threats perhaps they ought to just get their facts straight."

Again, advice that TV Licensing would do well to heed.

Funnily enough I don't suppose Watchdog will be investigating how the BBC's own debt recovery agents wrongly target and harass innocent non-TV viewers.

It would be interesting to put them to the test!

Daily Telegraph on Disappearing FOI Responses

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:59:00 +0000

Daily Telegraph journalist Alex Singleton blogged today about our observation that the BBC had erased 90% of TV Licence-related Freedom of Information Act responses from its website.

You may remember that we broke this story in December 2008. We passed our observations to Alex for further investigation and he's obviously looked into the issue. He's written a great piece, but unfortunately forgot to mention us!

When asked about the vanishing documents the BBC press office said they had updated the archives to make them more navigable to Joe Public.

A BBC spokesman said: "We regularly remove older responses in order to keep the publication scheme relevant, up-to-date, and easy to navigate. The publication scheme was updated at the end of 2008, in accordance with Information Commissioner Office guidance, and a number of older requests covering a wide range of issues were removed."

So it appears the timing of the BBC's mass deletion - in the same month the Corporation faced extremely uncomfortable scrutiny over the Ross/Brand/Sachs incident - was completely coincidental.

Yeah, right - we're not as green as we're cabbage looking!

A Letter to TV Licensing

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:06:00 +0000

During one of my regular TV Licensing trawls of cyberspace I came across this gem of a letter published in the Mobar Gazette. Thanks to the author for allowing me to share it with you.

Dear TV Licensing,

I write in response to your recent letter regarding the alleged absence of a TV Licence at this address.

Ref: 32074551GIVEUSTHEF&£!INGMONEYLEBOWSKI548919

I am not going to sugar coat this. I feel that anyone who has made a name for themselves in the TV Licensing game has probably seen more than I would ever want to see. The very fact that Licensing gets a capital L in your line of work says to me you mean serious business.

Serious business and rampant capitalisation aside, I have two pieces of information that may just shock the Pants off you. Yes, I do capitalise Pants, because I believe Pants to be as serious as Licences and Licensing. I digress. Tighten your belt and prepare thyself for my revelations.

First and foremost, I must inform you with mischievous glee that I do not possess a TV Licence, nor do I plan to purchase one in the future.

I consider them to be an unnecessary and overpriced expense, and quite frankly, an insult to other household electrical equipment that isn’t deemed important enough to command a licence, let alone an exorbitant fee.

Let’s be honest, the television isn’t much more than a colourful noise box when put next to the humble toaster. Does the toaster demand a licence and a fee? Of course not. It is the tool of the everyman, a simple, reliable device that will keep on belting out slice after slice of delicious toast long after your precious television has burned out halfway through another “hilarious” repeated episode of Friends.

The toaster hasn’t had to sex itself up every five minutes either, with whorish gimmicks like plasma, flat screen, digital, LCD et al. I’m not just some toaster fanatic, I think most household appliances have it over the television. Fridges keep food fresh. Lamps illuminate rooms. The television keeps Rosie O’Donnell employed.

As a champion for television, you may think my comparisons and claims are somewhat fatuous and remain unconvinced. If that is the case, then fasten your Pants and quiver in anticipation of my second bit of world-destroying news.

I do not own a television.

Not one. Oh, sure, there have been times when I’ve wondered if I’m kidding myself that I can live without 24-hour news channels giving live updates around the clock on absolutely nothing with their exciting graphics, informative scrolling text, and avant garde seating positions for delivering the aforementioned absolutely nothing. I can only imagine how far they’ve evolved - they’re probably on unicycles with lit sparklers shoved in their nostrils by this stage.

I did buy a computer monitor capable of receiving TV signals last year. My intention was to play DVDs through my laptop into the monitor, thus gaining a marginally improved picture and clearer sound. However, in a damning example of the declining standards of audiovisual equipment, it died almost instantly. Cliff, a store manager at Currys, was more than happy to refund me the full amount. Lovely bloke, Cliff.

And I suppose that’s where this trouble with you began. Perhaps Currys ratted me out to you, or perhaps your TV Licence slush fund is so overburdened with ill-gotten cash that you can afford space age technology that can pinpoint exactly when and where a television deal is going down. I’d lean towards the latter explanation, because I don’t believe for a second that Cliff would screw a brother like that.

So you sent me a letter, filled with arm-waving incredulous outrage that I could have committed the brazen act of purchasing a television without the accompanying licence. It would seem your spy satellites cannot detect when a television is returned to a vendor. No matter, I thought, I can spare a phone call to set this lot right.

The gal that was the unfortunate recipient of my wild claims of non-television ownership said that was fine, after stammering uncontrollably for a few moments. Perhaps she didn’t know what she was saying because this kind of thing doesn’t happen very often round these parts, or perhaps she was distracted by the fact that her Pants had been blown off by the shock of my announcement.

Evidently, it would seem that it is not fine. One only need cast an eye over your most recent correspondence with its threats of my details being passed on to your Enforcement Division (ooh, more capital letters!) to deduce that things are anything but fine.

I could just call you and tell you what’s what, but I don’t think I should have to waste another phone call, nor risk de-Panting another phone operator. Furthermore, without being able to watch World’s Wildest Circumcisions any longer, my life lacks a certain something.

So send the boys from Law & Order: TV Licence Enforcement Division out our way. Tell them to kick the door down and raid our tellyless flat. We’ll be here, reading books, listening to music, having the chat, sipping tea and writing frivolous letters to ridiculous organisations that feel they can misappropriate capital letters and demand extortionate fees for a device that can’t even make toast.

Yours sincerely,

Eoinin McAlpine

© Mobar Gazette 2009

Number 10 Telly Tax Petition

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:56:00 +0000

Just found this surfing the blogosphere:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/no-tv-licence/

If you disagree with the way the BBC is unique funded by you, the TV licence payer, then please head over there and sign up!

TVL Database Chronically Unreliable

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:02:00 +0000

It's all in the database - or so they'd have you believe. In reality TV Licensing's computer records have proved far from reliable over recent weeks.

In November the Telegraph carried a story about Dr Nigel Knott, who had been persistently bombarded with TVL's intimidatory correspondence. Dr Knott, a dental surgeon, received no less than 90 of TVL's trademark 'threat-o-grams' claiming he didn't have a licence for his property.

The only snag was, being a respected pillar of the community, Dr Knott was correctly licensed all along. Despite Dr Knott's efforts to set the record straight TVL weren't having any of it. They eventually sent some knuckle draggers to hammer on the Knott family door and attempt to scare them into 'compliance'.

Dr Knott branded TVL "totally out of control", running a database "that's stuck in a feudal state" and is "concerned solely with assuming people are criminals". We couldn't disagree with a word of that.

In the end it transpired that good ole Lassie the database had cocked up, mistaking the Knott family residence for several properties instead of just one. That was TVL's justification for the excessive amount of hate mail they were sending. Unsurprisingly, their response completely glossed over the fact it's the content and not the volume of TVL letters that people find most objectionable.

Reading around the blogosphere is appears TVL has adopted a new tactic of public persecution - stealing from their bank accounts.

Martin Belam, a London-based internet consultant and writer, tells of how he dutifully paid for a TV licence on his return to the UK. It was only when he checked his bank statement that he realised TVL had taken twice what they were owed.

Of course TVL are making Mr Belam's refund less than straightforward. Despite acknowledging their error TVL expect him to complete a myriad of complicated paperwork to get his money back - money they were quite happy to lift from his account without batting an eyelid.

These are just two examples of how ineffective TVL's administrative processes are. If you know of any others please share them with us.

Together we can make 2009 the most uncomfortable year in the BBC and TV Licensing's history.

Vyv, Eat the Telly - Fishburn Hedges are Reading!

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:17:00 +0000

PR harlots Fishburn Hedges, purveyors of some of TV Licensing's biggest ever porkies, are feverishly reading this blog as they sit working out the next way of defending the indefensible.

I see they took a keen interest in my recent article about the BBC erasing 90% of TV licence related FOI requests from their website.

I wonder what story they're going to concoct to wriggle out of that one. Human error? They're all in the database (somewhere)?

Call me cynical.

My observations have been passed to Alex Singleton at the Daily Telegraph.

TVL: Prepare for more incoming fire.

BBC Try To Rewrite FOI History

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:12:00 +0000

The BBC has removed dozens of FOI Act disclosures relating to the TV licence from its website.

The move comes as the Corporation faces unprecedented media and public scrutiny over the way it conducts itself both on and off air.

The last month saw the Daily Telegraph mount a relentless attack on TV Licensing - attention the BBC could no doubt do without, which raises the real possibility that the BBC have censored their website as a result. Can the timing of their online cannibalism be coincidental?

Quite simply people are asking too many questions about TV Licensing. The BBC are afraid of providing too many answers because they know it will undermine the effectiveness of the entire licensing system (based on phantom detection methods and deceitful mailshots).

The below screenshots show the TV licence section of the BBC FOI web pages on 11th November 2008 (containing 164 disclosures) and 21st December 2008 (containing 16 disclosures). The slimmed down content is very evident.

11th November 2008: Now you see them.
(Download full size image here)

21st December 2008: Now you don't, as 90% of the entries vanish.