Moral Values? What Are They?

This blogpost is about what happens in the UK when two lots of scumbag career sociopaths with moral values lower than animals act for and on behalf of another lot of scumbag career sociopaths with moral values lower than paedophiles and predatory sex criminals when they have the effrontery and impudence, as they clearly have here, to attempt an abuse of process on an ordinary UK household.

The two lots of scumbag career sociopaths with moral values lower than animals are Capita Business Services BBC TV Licensing™ and Police in that both resorted to dissembling, distortion and deception. Three things that animals do not resort to. The remaining lot of scumbag career sociopaths with moral values lower than paedophiles and predatory sex criminals are the BBC. They were aware of sex crimes on BBC premises and failed to report them, by doing so they tacitly approved those sex crimes, so they are worse than the perpetrators of those sex crimes. The subject of this blogpost is the attempted execution of a search warrant obtained by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ for and on behalf of the BBC under the terms of the Service Provision Agreement between Capita Business Services and the BBC and what Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and Police actually did during the attempted execution of the aforementioned search warrant.
The main people involved are Police Sergeant 70553, Ian Doyle of Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and two householders referred to here as HH1 and HH2. As you will see and hear, the video opens with:




PS70553 “Hello, we’re here with colleagues from the TV. They just need to check your property to see if you’ve got a TV ‘cos you haven’t paid for tv licence . . . “ (Point: Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and Police are completely separate private and public entities so are not “colleagues” of Police)
HH1 “Do you have a warrant? . . . (Doyle hands warrant to PS70553)
PS70553 “We have a warrant . . . “ (Point: It is not “we have a warrant” the warrant was requested by and issued to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ it is their warrant not a Police warrant. PS70553 shouldn’t even be in possession of it never mind trying to execute it on behalf of Capita BBC TV Licensing™) . . “we just need to check if you’ve got a tv. If you haven’t it’s fine.” (Point: “we” again. Tv licensing is not a Police matter it is a matter for Capita BBC TV Licensing™ only)
HH1 “ . . it’s not criminal. Has there been a report of a crime Constable?” (Point: HH1 is making PS70553 aware that it is not a Police matter)
PS70553 “There’s a warrant here sworn out in from of a judge that grants us power to enter and search your house.” (Point: The warrant only grants that to Capita BBC TV Licensing™)
HH1 “What’s the evidence of this?”
PS70553 “Everything you need to know is in the warrant.”
HH1 “Do we know who signed it and stuff?”
PS70553 “A justice of the Peace.”
HH1 “So, if you come in here and you find that there’s no tv, who do we contact and make a complaint to?”
PS70553 “That’ll be TV Licensing™”
Doyle “That’ll be BBC TV Licensing™”
HH1 “So they’re a private company so why do they come round harassing people?”
HH2 “If I’ve got a television. I could have a hundred televisions in here, I don’t need a tv licence to have a hundred televisions. It’s only if I’m watching live tv.” (Point: Factually correct)
Doyle and PS70553 “Yeah, that’s right.”
HH2 “And have you got any evidence that I’m watching live tv?” (Point: Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have no concrete proof)
Doyle “We have evidence that there’s been live tv.” (Point: They have not)
HH1 “No there’s not! . . . If we don’t let you in what happens?”
Doyle “We do have rights and powers of entry, we do not exercise them, Sir.” (Point: They do not exercise them because they have no concrete proof of live broadcast receiving licence evasion. They dare not take the risk. If Capita BBC TV Licensing™ were to break in and enter and they found no television or no capability to receive live tv broadcasts:1 They would have lied while under oath to a Justice of the Peace to get the search warrant; 2 The damage to the property would exceed the £145.50 value of a BBC broadcast receiving licence and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ would be liable for damages and costs; 3 The resulting bad publicity would cause the BBC severe reputational damage)
HH1 “. . . . so, will you break in? Break and enter?”
PS70553 “We have a power to enter under the warrant, OK. They can’t 100% guarantee that the signals received from the van were from this house . . .” (Point: Admission that Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have no concrete proof)
HH1 “. . . this isn’t a criminal matter” (Point: HH1 again tells PS70553 that tv licensing enforcement is not a Police matter)
PS70553 “The law’s very clear. If you have a tv you need a tv licence.” (Point: Untrue. PS70553 has already been told that tv ownership does not require a tv licence and also that it is not a criminal matter that concerns Police)
HH1 “This is a civil matter between the occupiers of this house and the BBC. . . “ (Point: Factually correct)
PS70553 “But not paying for a tv licence is a criminal offence.” (Point: Not a criminal offence that requires Police enforcement so it is not a Police matter)
HH1 “ . . . . Fact is, you don’t have any evidence whether we’ve got a tv in here or not. If you come in.”
HH2 “. . and you’ve got to have foundation evidence. Where’s your foundation evidence?”
HH1 “ . . and you’ve just said it’s not 100%”
Doyle “ . . .there’s been numerous letters to you asking you . . . “ (Point: Irrelevant, nobody is under any obligation to respond to Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s letters)
HH2 “ . . . and I’ve responded to all of them letters.”
HH1 “. . . . and you as a Sergeant should be fully aware of this” (His duties to police criminal law under his oath)
PS70553 “All we are here for is to prevent a breach of the peace.” (Point: That is the only reason Police are in attendance. They are not there to speak, act, assist or be used as a “battering ram” to gain entry for and on behalf of Capita BBC TV Licensing™; which is seemingly what has happened up to now)
HH1 “You should be keeping the peace. You shouldn’t be helping them and be neutral.”
HH2 “You’re on his side. . . way you’re coming across, you’re on his side.”
HH1 “Someone who didn’t know their rights would be intimidated by all youse guys turning up, knocking on doors say you must let them in. OK. So we know we don’t have to let you in. It’s our choice whether we want to let you in. Yeah?” (Point: In the search warrants issued to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ that TV Licensing Watch are aware of, people have been intimidated into letting them in due to Police deception and claims by Police that it is a Police warrant. Doors have been opened and the occupants violently pushed aside (assaulted) by Police acting for and on behalf of Capita BBC TV Licensing™. A gross violation of occupants’ rights, civil liberties and breach of procedure)
Doyle “Do you watch television, Sir, for live programmes?” (Point: Attempt to incriminate the householders. If Doyle had concrete proof he would not need to ask that question. Nobody is obliged to respond anyway)
HH1 “Do I watch tv?”
Doyle “Do you watch tv?” . . .
Doyle “ Do you watch tv within the property for live programmes?”
HH1”Do we have to answer your questions?” (Point: They do not)
Doyle “Just asking on a personal basis.” (Point: No he was not. It was a blatant attempt to get someone to incriminate themselves in the presence of other witnesses (Police). Doyle is not allowed to ask questions “on a personal basis” he is there on Capita BBC TV Licensing™ business)
HH1 “Do I have an obligation to answer anything?”
HH2 “Are you a public servant?”
Doyle “No”
HH2 “No. So you’re working for private gain. You’re trying to get money from us for a private company . . . but you’re working for a private company”
Doyle “No” (Point: He is working for a private company)
HH2 “Capita, Capita . . “
Doyle “I need to ascertain the situation, Sir”
HH2 “Capita . . “
HH1 “Under what authority are you here?”
Doyle “Under the Communications Act 2003” (There follows a lengthy Freeman of the Land dispute about the difference between Acts and Law)
Doyle “Do you watch tv within the property?” (Point: Even though he’s failed before Doyle tries the “surprise question” trick in another blatant and futile attempt to incriminate someone in the presence of other witnesses)
HH2 “I’m not obliged to answer no questions that you put to me because I haven’t broken any Law, yeah, and I have the right to remain silent. Which the Sergeant will agree.”
Doyle “I’m working under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.”
HH1 “So, we don’t have to answer your questions. It’s our right not to let you into the house under Human Rights Act. You know what happened in Nazi Germany, where it was just, er, human beings doing it to other human beings. So, we’ve got a situation in this world, this country now where, er, same sort of things’ happening. You’re coming and you’re, er, harassing people for what? A bit of money. Over nothing. But we’ve not hurt anyone. We’re not criminals. . . . Why you here harassing us?” (More lengthy argument)
HH1 “So, if you come in here, so if you come in here and found a tv if you come in here and found a tv; do you have any proof that we’ve been watching that tv? . . . You have to have absolute concrete evidence even if we had a tv in here.” (Point: The evidential flaw at the very heart of the whole BBC TV Licensing™ regime. So why have millions and millions of people been prosecuted?)
HH2 “It’s all circumstantial”
PS70553 “I don’t make the rules. . . “
HH1 “But you follow orders and that’s what happened in Nazi Germany. . . . It’s very dangerous when don’t use your mind and you just follow orders.”
PS70553 “I’m just doing my job at the end of the day.” (Point: He’s been exceeding his breach of the peace remit)
HH2 “Well, you’re not.”
HH1 “You’re not here as criminal, you’re here as civil.”
PS70553 “Which we do as well it part of our. . . “ (Point: Not when it comes to BBC TV Licensing™. Police are in attendance to prevent a breach of the peace only)
HH1 “Police don’t do civil.”
HH2 “You took an oath”
HH1 “You’re doing civil. It's there "criminal". And like you said you’re here to keep the . . . “
PS70553 “We do have certain powers under the warrant.” (Point: It isn’t a Police warrant)
HH2 “Hold on, hold on. Have you forgotten your oath? If you’ve forgotten your oath, I’ll read it to you.”
PS70553 “You don’t need to . . . “
HH1 “Cos it don’t mention anything to do with civil under your oath, yeah. . . “
Doyle: It seems to me that I can now say that he’s now obstructing and . . . . you may have to go through an arrest.” (Point: Doyle’s attempted incitement to make Police take an action which is beyond their authority. There has been no breach of the peace. Doyle has not been able to contrive such a breach of the peace. It is not a warrant issued to Police that’s being queried. The warrant was requested by and issued to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ on behalf of the BBC)
HH1 and HH2 “What are we obstructing?” (Point: Technically, they are not abstructing)
HH1 “Wasn’t it the BBC that stood up for Jimmy Savile when he molested all them kids and you’re working for the same corporation, Dad? How does that make you feel? Have you got grand kids and kids? Working for that same system that enslaves people. Makes their lives a misery.”
HH1 “Have you read the notices on the door?”
HH2 “Implied rights of access have been denied for the BBC.”
Doyle “Yes, I’ve seen it.”
HH2 “You’re still here so you’re trespassing.”

That’s it with gaps here and there for complex and lengthy argument; and so it goes on for several minutes more. Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s attempt to once again habitually exploit Police as a “battering ram” certainty to gain entry unlawfully is at long last thwarted by UK householders who know their rights under the Law. About time too.

At the beginning of this post the “moral values” of the BBC, Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and Police were highlighted. However, it seems to us at TV Licensing Watch that the most amoral of the amoral in the whole disgusting BBC tv licence set-up are those in Whitehall and Westminster. Public servants in The Treasury, Department of Media, Culture and Sport, Home Office and Ministry of Justice who formulate and administer the disreputable policies that sustain the BBC tv licence as well as Members sitting in both Houses of Parliament who enact and maintain the BBC tv licence as an instrument of oppression.

Once again the value of domestic cctv surveillance and handheld video camera proves invaluable in gathering evidence of the serial abuses and misdemeanours perpetrated by employees of Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing contract. TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing to make an audio-visual record of those dealings in their entirety covertly or overtly with cctv and handheld video cameras.

TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has had the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing and have received a summons as a consequence to contact a licensed law practitioner if there is the slightest discrepancy between what actually happened and what was recorded on the TVL178 Prosecution Statement.

Nasty Employer, Nasty Employees, Nasty Employment

Just when we'd thought that Capita Business Services operation of the BBC TV Licensing contract couldn't be nastier, seemingly it does. Apparently the Capita Business Services employee concerned is no longer employed by them. Little wonder, judging from the images and video in the latest TV Licensing Blogspot blogpost of the following incident in Hartlepool in October 2012.

Fellow anti-TV Licensing blogger, TV Licensing Blogspot spot has published this blogpost relating a particularly nasty attempt to gain entry into a dwelling against the wishes of the lone female occupant caring for a child. Once again the value of domestic cctv and video surveillance proves invaluable in gathering evidence of the serial abuses and misdemeanours perpetrated by employees of Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing contract. TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing to make an audio-visual record with handheld video cameras of those dealings in their entirety.

Although the door has clearly been fully closed by the lone female occupant, Capita TV Licensing employee claimed his foot was trapped in the door. If that were really the case, his foot should not have even been there obstructing the door. Which he would have realised had he bothered to read and obey TV Licensing's own Visiting Procedures Manual. If he was prepared to lie about that, what else was he prepared to lie about in the course of his employment by Capita Business Services TV Licensing? In particular, in connection with the taking of TVL178 Prosecution Statements which are used in prosecutions brought in Magistrates Courts for broadcast receiving licence "evasion". If there is any justice, every TVL178 Prosecution Statement taken by this particular Capita Business Services TV Licensing miscreant should be examined and every resulting prosecution withdrawn retrospectively.

The Police decided not to take any further action in connection with this particularly unpleasant incident. The Police then wonder why they are so little respected and so readily despised. Regular readers of this blog will be aware of an earlier blog posted here relating to Cheshire Constabulary and their repeated mention in a Freedom of Information "response" of a so-called "partnership against crime" with the BBC and BBC TV Licensing field operations contractors such as Capita Business Services.

With "partners against crime" like the Jimmy Savile sex crimes scandal-hit BBC and intimidation and violence meted out by field operations employees of Capita Business Services TV Licensing, Cheshire Constabulary and other police forces and constabularies across the UK seem to have an uncanny predisposition and ability to pick wrong 'uns to go into "partnership" with. It seems to us at TV Licensing Watch that with "partners against crime" like the BBC and Capita Business Services TV Licensing, police forces and constabularies don't seem to need criminals and criminal gangs to police. Which of course raises doubts and questions about whether such "partnerships" between such disparate public and private entities should even exist. Such "partnerships" seem to us at TV Licensing Watch to inevitably lead to those who purportedly serve the public to targetting the public they purportedly serve in the name of "enforcement".

Capita Business Services TV Licensing is a private company and its employees are not oath sworn officers of the law.

They do not have police powers.
They do not have automatic powers of entry.
People are under absolutely no obligation to cooperate with them.

"TV Licensing Laid Bare", available as a free download from TV Licensing Blogspot, is perhaps the best reference work there is about the BBC and its TV Licensing scam. If you have not yet downloaded a copy we at TV Licensing Watch urge you to do so at the earliest opportunity.

The value of domestic cctv surveillance and handheld video camera can prove invaluable in gathering evidence of the serial abuses and misdemeanours perpetrated by employees of Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ to make an audio-visual record of those dealings in their entirety covertly or overtly with cctv and handheld video cameras.

For people who have not exercised their right to remain silent, TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has had the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ and have received a summons as a consequence to contact a licensed law practitioner if: there is the slightest discrepancy between the actual situation regarding viewing habits and/or what actually happened during the interview compared with what has been written on the TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination form.

"TVL got it wrong"

The starting point for this blogpost is a prosecution for alleged broadcast receiving licence evasion brought in Magistrates Court on 20 November 2012. This particular prosecution was but one among a large number of prosecutions brought in that Magistrates Court on that day for and on behalf of the BBC by Capita Business Services. The vast majority of cases were of women and the majority of those women were in receipt of various state benefits, including the prosecution highlighted here. The prosecution, or rather, attempted prosecution, was witnessed and noted by a prominent anti-TV Licensing™ activist and campaigner. If anything, this attempted prosecution highlights the sloppy, shoddy practices by employees of Capita Business Services in connection with the “operation” of BBC TV Licensing™ contract. As television licensing authority in the UK, the BBC like to claim that prosecuting for broadcast licence "evasion" is a last resort when other measures have failed. Presented here is an incident that gives the lie to that claim. At just about every level, every safeguard against bringing unwarranted prosecutions to Magistrates Court in the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services seem to have been disregarded.

The attempted prosecution was of a woman aged 81 years old. As many, if not all, readers will know, in the UK, people aged 75 years old and over are entitled to apply for a tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence. This is made clear in the Service Provision Agreement.

In common with other prosecutions, this attempted prosecution will have come about through a visit to an unlicensed dwelling by an employee of Capita Business Services. An interview under caution will, or may, have been conducted. A TVL178 Record of Interview form completed and signed by the person interviewed under caution, in this case an 81 year old woman. The TVL178 Record of Interview will then have been processed by the Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ prosecutions sausage machine who clearly did not bother to read the age or date of birth of the 81 year old interviewee. In due course the attempted prosecution was brought by a Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ prosecutor who likewise did not bother to read up on that particular prosecution and note the age or date of birth of the 81 year old defendant being prosecuted. However, the Magistrates did notice that the defendant was 81 years old and entitled to an Over 75 Licence and quite properly asked why the prosecution had been brought. Upon which the attempted prosecution was withdrawn by the Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ prosecutor giving the Bench some excuse that ". . . TVL got it wrong . . . ".

The question is, if the first thing the Magistrates noticed was that the age of the defendant was 81 years of age and the next thing they noticed was the entitlement to an Over 75 Licence concession: Why didn’t employees of and prosecutors for Capita Business Services notice that at any point in the processes of bringing that prosecution? Under the terms of the BBC TV Licensing™ Service Provision Agreement are stringent clauses relating to Compliance to BBC TV Licensing™ policies and Due Diligence by Capita Business Services.

During the visit to the unlicensed dwelling of that 81 year old woman the Capita Business Services employee should have realised immediately that the 81 year old resident was eligible for the tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence concession and made the necessary arrangements there and then. The necessary arrangements were not made even though a preliminary assessment for eligibilty to apply for the tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence should have been part of the visit process.

Further, during the early stages of processing the attempted prosecution by Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ the age of the prospective defendant should have immediately raised concerns that at 81 years old, the prospective defendant was entitled to apply for the tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence concession and the prosecution process stopped there and then. The prosecution process was not stopped.

The bringing of this attempted prosecution to Magistrates Court of an 81 year old, entitled to tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence concession, is really nothing short of an absolute bloody disgrace. Under the terms of the Service Provision Agreement, employees of Capita Business Services had opportunities to stop the whole shambolic and disgraceful process. Employees of Capita Business Services chose not to do so. The result was that a vulnerable 81 year old woman faced all the stresses and worries of being prosecuted for a broadcast receiving licence “evasion crime” which the Magistrates Court realised she should not have been in a position to be able to commit. A nasty judicial experience which may very well have ended her life. Who would have carried the blame and responsibility for it?

It seems to us at TV Licensing Watch that through and by their actions, Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ have as good as brought the BBC and the BBC’s role as UK TV Licensing™ Authority into disrepute.

The value of domestic cctv surveillance and handheld video camera can prove invaluable in gathering evidence of the serial abuses and misdemeanours perpetrated by employees of Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ to make an audio-visual record of those dealings in their entirety covertly or overtly with cctv and handheld video cameras.

For people who have not exercised their right to remain silent, TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has had the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ and have received a summons as a consequence to contact a licensed law practitioner if: there is the slightest discrepancy between the actual situation regarding viewing habits and/or what actually happened during the interview compared with what has been written on the TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination form.