Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing 5

We at TV Licensing Watch are truly grateful to D Westwood. Whoever you are D Westwood thank you very much indeed. We hope you do not object to our using your annotation for an educational purpose. The educational purpose of proving yet again why people should never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and why it is an exercise in futility to ever do so. The following annotation posted by D Westwood in response to other annotations is an education in itself. It comes from a freedom of information non-response by the BBC on a related matter and is the starting point for this blogpost. Perhaps, when you have done as we have and read through carefully and given equally careful thought to the content and full implications and meaning of D Westwood’s annotation you will realise why it is we at TV Licensing Watch have been labouring the point about always exercising the right to remain silent. We have to admit we were somewhat slow in realising fully the implications of Capita BBC TV Licensing’s clarification “response” contained in D Westwood’s annotation. We would like you to do as we did and pay particular attention to the latter part of Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “response”. While you do so, please bear in mind that what you are reading is written for and on behalf of the BBC by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and represents Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “understanding” of their obligations, remit and brief under the TV Licensing™ Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services as well as their “understanding” of the will of Parliament under the relevant legislation.

“D Westwood left an annotation (26 September 2013)

On 21 Jun 2013, at 15:08, "TVL - Customer-Relations" wrote:

Dear Blah,

Thank you for your email of 14 June 2013, which has been passed to me for reply and has been recorded under your reference blah blah. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I am very sorry that we have not been able to resolve your enquiry to your satisfaction, and hopefully I can clarify the exact position now. I must also apologise for the fact that the advice you were given in our email of 13 June was incorrect, and I have now referred this error to the advisor’s manager for feedback and training.

You asked the following question:

“Is there any legal/lawful objection to a cash-strapped household taking a 1 year “TV Licence Fee Holiday” by simply switching off their fully functional TV and ensuring that, without exception, it remains switched off for a 12 month period, thereby spending the entire year never using it to watch or record live programming as it is broadcast?”

The answer in response is:

There is no objection to a household taking this decision. Legally, the ownership of a television receiver does not require a TV Licence. Therefore if you choose not to switch your television receiver on for twelve months, you do not need a TV Licence during that period. Under the Communications Act 2003, a TV Licence is only required to watch or record live television programmes.
I trust that this has provided a clear answer to your question.
I would also like to take this opportunity to explain why we always ADVISE people in these circumstances to disconnect the aerial and remove the TV set from a power source as a precautionary, NOT A MANDATORY, measure.

I appreciate that you requested that we do not mention TV Licensing Officers in our response. HOWEVER, in order to give as full an explanation as possible, I would like to clarify that the reason we give this advice is because IF a TV Licensing Officer WAS to visit an address and WAS permitted to enter, AND the officer WAS to see a television receiver connected to an aerial and a power source, he or she would have reason to SUSPECT the unlicensed use of a television receiver. This COULD be observed without attempting to turn on the television set. IN TURN, this COULD POTENTIALLY lead to a Court case where the Court MIGHT reasonably (?!) believe that a TV receiver set up ready for use, was SUFFICIENT evidence of licence evasion.

However, as you have quite rightly said, the option remains for a person to deny entry to a Licensing Officer.... Clearly, in this instance, a Licensing Officer would not be able to see the television receiver connected to an aerial and a power source.
I trust that this has provided the clarity that you required, and I would like to apologise again for any frustration caused due to the misleading information that you were given following your initial enquiry. Yours sincerely Etc
^^ That letter is on the TV Licence Resistance forums. I have CAPITALISED some of the words for my own amusement.
Hope it helps :)”

Once again, thank you very much indeed D Westwood. D Westwood’s own highlighting has been preserved so as to convey as best we can D Westwood’s own personal observation and message. It is not for us to tell you what to think or not think but it seems to us at TV Licensing Watch that in its entirety Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “response” is a classic of what could be described as the Mixed Message genre. A classic piece of what Watchkeeper describes as BBC “bluster, intimidation and misinformation” cynicism. Arguably, it is bureaucratic enforcement doublespeak issued on for and on behalf of the BBC by Capita BBC TV Licensing™. In their “response” to D Westwood they have both set out firstly the situations and ways in which a person may lawfully be “unlicensed” in compliance with the Communications Act and according to the will of Parliament and then secondly the means by which being lawfully “unlicensed” may be subverted by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door visiting party filth for and on behalf of the BBC and subsequently be presented as “unlawful” to a Court by the presentation not of actual evidence but on the basis of mere suspicion followed by unsubstantiated allegations to a Court that watching/recording live television programme services unlicensed “could happen”. In other words Capita BBC TV Licensing™ seem to be saying that lawfully “unlicensed” people who are unwise enough to follow Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “advice” and the will of Parliament who then compound their error by having dealings with Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door visiting party scum can be summonsed and prosecuted for a “tv licence evasion crime” that they have neither intentionally commissioned nor intentionally committed. Please view videos on the web for examples of what we are blogging about.


It seems to us that Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “response” to D Westwood suggests there is yet another powerful motive to never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ in addition to the ones already mentioned here and at other anti-tv licence fee sites. With characteristically cynical disregard for the contradictions in what they have actually written, Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “response” spells out the “lawfully unlicensed yet allegedly unlawful” conundrum at the core of BBC enforcement activities. It is but one of a catalogue of conundrums and nonsenses which exist but have never ever been properly challenged because when they are prosecuted by Capita BBC TV Licensing™, people do not fight they just give up thereby making it a piece of very profitable cake for the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ to carry on with business as usual. A Communications Act enforcement scenario so bizarre that it could have come directly from Joseph Heller’s absurdist novel “Catch#22” if you like, the practical real world application of bureaucratic enforcement rules and practises as cynical exercises for purposes of mere financial gain, uncapped commission and revenue raising which is what BBC enforcement activities have seemingly now become.

Quite how all the “facts” presented in Capita BBC TV Licensing’s “response” to D Westwood would be and could be adequately, accurately and truthfully recorded on the infamous TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form and then presented to a Court in prosecution we at TV Licensing Watch are not entirely clear about. Then, we do not have to be do we? Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have already figured out how to do that; to their own and the BBC’s financial advantage of course. Doubtless BBC tv licence funded TV Licensing™ Court Training sessions also play their part in indoctrinating the Courts to ensure that people get convicted on the basis of mere allegations alone. By the way, did you know that the BBC in their capacity as TV Licensing Authority in the UK the BBC is the only prosecuting body in the UK to carry out such Court Training sessions? If the warped enforcement priorities, methodologies and ideologies presented in the clarification “response” to D Westwood are true, and we have no reason to suppose they are not, and Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “response” is not an explicit written admission of a culture and policy of framing householders who meet the “lawfully unlicensed” criteria set out by Parliament and then stitching them up to prosecute them then it seems to us that circumstantially, at least, it veers perilously close to an admission of such a culture and policy. The BBC are the television licensing authority in the UK and repeatedly and publicly claim that they have overall responsibility for all matters relating to the BBC tv licence and its enforcement so perhaps someone at the BBC, Pipa Doubtfire, Head of Revenue Management, BBC TV Licensing™, for example, would care to step forward and take responsibility for the Capita BBC TV Licensing™ apparent policy promise to stitch-up people potential contained within the clarification “response” sent to D Westwood. We doubt it. We suspect the BBC will apply the “dignified silence of dignified scorn” rule to us as they do to other anti-tv licence sites. So be it. However, people from the BBC and their odious hangers on, like criminals returning to the scene of their most recent crime, will come here and will no doubt read this and have some sort of vicarious thrill.

However, we wonder just how many people have followed Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s “advice” and comply with the “lawfully unlicensed” criteria set out by Parliament have then either been bullied and cornered into buying mis-sold BBC tv licences at the door or have stood their ground when visited by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and then been prosecuted and convicted for alleged tv licence “evasion” by the stitch-up policy seemingly set out in the clarification "response" D Westwood received. The whole rotten BBC broadcast receiving licence and its equally rotten Capita BBC TV Licensing™ enforcement scam is an absolute discredited disgrace. Rogue, not fit for purpose processes operated by the BBC and Capita two rogue, not fit for purpose organisations.

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.

Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing 4

This blogpost is once again devoted entirely to the TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form that people unwittingly sign without thinking of the consequences of signing such self-incriminating documents. Both Watchkeeper and Crimebodge have recently been active on the self-incrimination aspects of the issue and since self-incrimination is one, perhaps the most fundamental issue, so we make no apology for raising it yet again. “It only works because you let it” as Watchkeeper so eloquently titled his blogpost.

The BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ tv licence revenue raising enforcement scam entirely concocted by the BBC is based upon a detection impossibility. The BBC tv licence does not, as the “tv licence” misnomer implies, licence so-called “tv receiving equipment”. What the BBC tv licence actually “licenses” are the dual activities of watching and/or recording live television programme services scheduled and available in the UK. It does not take much thought to realise that the dual activities of watching and/or recording live tv programmes services at the time of the aforementioned activities leave no detectable evidence that can be presented as evidence in court. The BBC and Capita TV Licensing™ know this and in an attempt to counter the lack of credible “detection” evidence the BBC cover their arses and enforcement embarrassment with various well-known urban mythologies of “detection” and “detector vans” presented, in the defiance of evidence and logic, as fact in the various mainstream media, most notably the local press. The point to note about “detection” is that it is inadmissible as prosecution evidence in court and is in essence a waste of time, effort and money which is why it is BBC propagandised urban mythology not practical reality.

The more observant of you may think that the activity of recording live tv programme services is hard evidence that live tv programme services are being recorded by people who are not licensed to do so. Actually, it is not. The unlicensed people concerned may have arrangements with licensed people to record those live tv programme services on their behalf. Brief thought on the matter reveals that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove with evidence presented to a court that such unlicensed people participate in the aforementioned unlicensed recording activity. So how do the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ circumvent the evidential conundrum that lack of credible “detection” evidence involves.

Circumvention comes by the devising and use of the TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form. Without self-incrimination by the prospective defendant via the TVL178 Record of Interview form no actual evidence exists of the unlicensed activities of watching and/or recording live tv programme services. The TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form is the primary tool of revenue raising enforcement exploited by the BBC and its Capita BBC TV Licensing™ filth.

As you may recall from previous blogposts and other bloggers, there are two ways of raising revenue by this means. The first, is door to door tv licence sales by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ scum with the (not so) implied threat of prosecution. The second, is to in essence double the revenue raised from door to door tv licence sales by coupling it with actual prosecutions several months later. Both are rewarded with uncapped commission payments to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and its door to door revenue raising filth. People do not have to be academically qualified finance professionals to realise that the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ prefer the latter more profitable option which additionally yields media exposure bonus by boastful template press release articles placed in the print media by local PR agencies about how apparently successful enforcement seems to be.

So, what can lawfully licence free people who do not watch or record live tv programme services, do not want to fund the BBC and do not want to get involved with the disgusting revenue raising enforcement scam concocted by the BBC and put into operation by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ actually do to effectively counter the demands, threats, harassment, intimidation, bullying, nuisances and menaces. Zero contact has its proponents and its opponents. In the context of this series of blogposts, however, the central theme is ensuring that blank TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination forms remain forever blank. That means exercising the right to remain silent by whatever means are available. Unopened doors are very effective in that regard. Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door scum hate unopened doors as their opportunities to exploit householders also remain equally unopened. Really it should be the strategy of choice in order to eliminate face to face encounters with nasty, mouthy, aggressive Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door filth such as the Capita BBC TV Licensing™ fuckwit clown in the video playing enforcement hardman and trying to ruin someone else's life.



It is hard not to laugh, we know but, believe it or not, gobshites like him are acting for and on behalf of the BBC and a pretty good incentive never to open a door to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door filth. However, if doors are opened to them, the most effective thing to do is to make sure they are closed again as quickly as possible, remain completely silent, exercise the right to remain silent, divulge absolutely no information whatsoever and make a covert video recording of the entire thing thereby minimising any open opportunities Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have to exploit.

For further information and about the right to remain silent and adverse inference please click here.

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.

Giles Dilnot and the BBC: Beware of "little people"

It was never our intention at TV Licensing Watch to write about anything other than BBC TV Licensing™ and the activities and abuses perpetrated by contractors operating under the trademark umbrella of the BBC concocted TV Licensing™. However, something happened this week which has given us much to think about and is the reason for this somewhat off-mission blogpost.

That something happened on TV Licensing Watch’s Twitter account. It was an exchange of Tweets between TV Licensing Watch and BBC journalist Giles Dilnot. Since we know many ex-BBC we were able to accurately predict the approach and arguments that Giles Dilnot would deploy against TV Licensing Watch. So it proved. As the exchange of Tweets continued and, shall we say, “developed”, it quickly became apparent to us very early on in the exchange that it was very likely to become interesting.

The starting point was a Tweet from Giles Dilnot’s @reporterboy Twitter account which we happened upon. The Tweet concerned had the claim that the BBC is “independent”. We had the temerity to challenge the claim. We are “little people” and we had the temerity to challenge BBC journalist, the “great” Giles Dilnot. The ensuing Twitter exchange proved as illuminating for us as it may have done for him. TV Licensing Watch are of the opinion that the BBC is not independent. The reason is the Royal Charter granted to the BBC by Government and Crown. It seems obvious to us and to any sensible person that the granting of anything by Government and Crown is an act of political patronage and that such political patronage is reliant upon total compliance with the terms and conditions dictated by Government and Crown. After all, if you were Government and Crown wouldn't you expect something in return from the entity to which political patronage has been granted and conferred?Therefore, the entity to which a Royal Charter is granted is politically dependent and is consequently not independent, cannot be independent and can never be independent for as long as such political patronage exists. That is obvious to any sensible person but seemingly not to Giles Dilnot who, it seemed to us, propagated and propagandised an illusory notion of BBC ”independence” through a Twitter account of his. It also seems pretty self-evident to us that the revenue raising mechanism that funds the BBC, the BBC television licence fee, a television access tax levied by the BBC solely for the BBC is itself an act of political patronage granted and conferred by Government and Crown. The BBC is hardly likely to act in any non-compliant way that would endanger the political patronage from which it derives so much benefit. So it seems to us that any notion the BBC is “independent” is nonsensical as it would be to any sensible person.

Perhaps what proved most illuminating for us at TV Licensing Watch and no doubt other critics of the BBC who witnessed the exchange of Tweets was the manner in which Giles Dilnot dealt with someone whom he believed to be a “little person”. The “little person” who had the temerity to challenge Giles Dilnot was “wrong” had to be crushed no matter what. The fixation, obsession even, that Giles Dilnot seemed to have about whether or not critics of the BBC have inside experience and knowledge of the BBC and whether or not those critics of the BBC are journalists. Having carefully reviewed our entire Twitter exchange with Giles Dilnot we were obliged to come to the conclusion that if critics of the BBC are not BBC or ex-BBC and additionally they are not journalists then seemingly those critics can have and never have any knowledge or understanding of internal BBC processes or journalism and the art of reportage. Taking Giles Dilnot’s line of argument to a logical conclusion it seems that according to him, people outside the BBC know nothing, can discover nothing and are incapable of making judgments for themselves from the massive quantity of information beyond the direct control of the BBC. Information by the way which is now publicly available on many diverse media sources. However, if they are not BBC, ex-BBC, journalists or informed of something by BBC journalists acting as journalist gatekeepers through the BBC’s editorial processes then they can know nothing. Of course, we at TV Licensing Watch could not agree with and can never agree with such implied assertions regardless of who asserts them. We pointed out that journalism is not necessary and that journalist gatekeepers like him and BBC journalism are really no longer needed. Unfortunately, Giles Dilnot did not take the hint and continued to press us, harass us even, to admit that we are not BBC, ex-BBC or journalists. The issue was Giles Dilnot’s claim about “BBC independence” whether we at TV Licensing Watch are journalists or not is irrelevant diversion from the issue in point.

Over many years we at TV Licensing Watch have had extensive dealings with accredited journalists in our professions and more recently as bloggers and Twitter. Our experiences and dealings with journalists has been somewhat mixed to say the least. We are aware those of journalists who dealt with us have been. However, of one thing we are pretty certain, as a journalist, Giles Dilnot comes across as one of the most arrogant, conceited and patronising we have had to deal with so far. Doubtless there may be journalists with those “attributes” in more abundance than Giles Dilnot but we have yet to deal with them and hope we will never have to. He came across to us as a BBC supremacist so utterly convinced of the journalistic supremacy and infallibility of the BBC and its editorial processes that in dealing with him we are reminded of Pride and Prejudice, in particular, Elizabeth Bennett’s rejection of Fitzwilliam Darcy’s first proposal of marriage. To paraphrase Jane Austen and apply it to you BBC journalist Giles Dilnot, “ . . . as you Tweeted your character unfolded to us . . . your arrogance, your conceit and your patronising disdain for the abilities and capabilities of people outside the BBC. In fact, we had not known of you for very long, Giles Dilnot, when we decided you were the very last person in the world we could ever be prevailed upon to respect as a journalist.” Unlike Pride and Prejudice there will be no reconciliation and no happy union. Predictable, but never mind, planet Earth still revolves and still orbits the Sun.

Apparently, the BBC has 8,000 BBC TV licence funded journalists. We sincerely hope that the other 7,999 are not arrogant, conceited, patronising disdainful BBC supremacists like Giles Dilnot. If they are, may we point out that the BBC and BBC journalists have nothing to brag about when the BBC’s own journalism is repeatedly shown up in academic study, the mainstream and social media to be very suspect, deeply flawed, factually inaccurate, agenda diversionary, agenda omissive, socially divisive, politically loaded and biased, so much so, that it makes it the object of much public scrutiny and scorn as a consequence. That being the case we will take no lectures about non-existent BBC independence giving rise to excellence in journalism from Giles Dilnot nor anyone else at the BBC. Especially when the journalism concerned is funded by television licensing regime enforced in the courts.

The central theme of our recent blogposts has been and remains exercising the right to remain silent when Capita TV Licensing™ door to door filth visit on behalf of the BBC. Arguably there is now yet another powerful motive for exercising the right to remain silent when faced with people seeking information on behalf of the BBC. If BBC researchers and journalists expect information, interviews and on street vox pops from people we hope the people they approach will from now on exercise the right to remain silent and let their silence be the signal that they disapprove of the BBC. Remember how BBC journalism and its journalists are funded by BBC television licence revenue. Remember also that the BBC television licence is evidence of a politicised BBC which is not as independent as people at the BBC such as Giles Dilnot like to pretend but a BBC dependent on political patronage from both Government and Crown.

It was apparent to us from very early on that we at TV Licensing Watch and Giles Dilnot were never going to agree about anything on Twitter, or anywhere else for that matter, so Giles Dilnot’s decision to block TV Licensing Watch from his Twitter account for allegedly being “rude” was as welcome to us as it was inevitable and expected. Suffice to say that Giles Dilnot’s assertion that the “BBC is independent” meme caused so much mirth to us “little people” here that we had to conclude that anyone with such a capacity for making people laugh should not be working at the BBC as a journalist at all but should be working in a circus as a clown trying to make people laugh. Arrogant, conceited, patronising but still a clown. Then it dawned on us that BBC journalism has become pretty much a joke anyway. The fact that BBC journalism and BBC journalists such as Giles Dilnot are funded by a BBC television licence fee enforced through the courts by Capita TV Licensing™ which in 2012 alone resulted in 155,135 successful prosecutions of 181,880 people who did not exercise their right to remain silent quickly stopped all mirth.

After blocking TV Licensing Watch, Giles Dilnot did go on to Tweet to his Followers that he “did not know what he (we at TV Licensing Watch) thinks . . . “ and “ . . . a hatred of us”. So it seems that all that BBC journalistic training about being able to assess and report on the alternative viewpoints of others was wasted on him. He is wrong about the hatred, by the way, but defend his right to express that opinion. His use of “us” when referring to the BBC betrayed rather more than he realised. It seems that as far as Giles Dilnot is concerned, the BBC is not the problem everyone else is, especially if he has reason to believe he is dealing with “little people”. This seems to be the case even though the BBC expect, demand even, that those who are the problem, the “little people”, continue to fund the BBC without question. We believe we sensed what can only really be described as an overweening sense of entitlement from Giles Dilnot. First we had to kiss his arse because he is a journalist and second we had to kiss his arse because he is at the BBC. That somehow, the “little people” of the UK owe him and the BBC a guaranteed living. It probably emanates from the “endless cash machine” (Lord Patten of Barnes, BBC Trust Chairman) revenue stream of the BBC television licence revenue which funds the fundamental cocooned remoteness and social detachment “them” and “us” attitude betrayed by Giles Dilnot which seems so prevalent in the BBC. It reminded us of the description, “a submarine without a periscope”, applied to Gamelin’s headquarters at Vincennes during Nazi Germany’s 1940 conquest of France in ITV’s The World at War. Judging from Giles Dilnot's behaviour, attitude and conduct “a submarine without a periscope” seems equally to apply to the BBC.

So, Giles Dilnot and the BBC, beware of “little people”.

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.

Crimebodge: The BBC - A Charity Appeal

It is not often that we at TV Licensing Watch have the opportunity to publish a link to a blogpost about the lighter side of the very murky BBC TV Licence and its crass enforcement by Capita BBC TV Licensing™. However, “BBC Charity Appeal – Save Them From Having to get Proper Jobs” blogpost published by Talbot Munce at Crimebodge UK Plod Watch earlier this year is just too good an opportunity to miss.

Make no mistake though, beneath his scathing and acerbic humour, Talbot Munce, always has a serious point to make and makes it very well indeed. In this case his scathing and acerbic humour is directed at the BBC, its "management" and about the very existence of the BBC tv licence. Especially bearing in mind the recent revelations about the BBC in relation to managerial incompetence, excessive remunerations, excessive executive golden goodbyes, excessive payoffs for failure, serial project mismanagement, programme fakery scandals, telephone phone-in fakery scandals, biased reporting scandals, repeatedly misleading Parliament, child sex scandals . . . . . . . . to name just the few that have been widely publicised.

We regard Crimebodge an excellent Blog of Note. If you were previously unaware of Crimebodge may we suggest that you add Crimebodge to your bookmarks.

Enjoy.

Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing 3

In the first “Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing” the central theme was that people should never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ because whatever people said to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door scum would be misrepresented in court and later misused as “evidence” of a “crime” when no such evidence actually exists. Being discussed here is a form document in which the deliberate misrepresentation in court by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ of what people interviewed under caution say in order to generate additional revenues for both themselves and the BBC. In this blogpost the means of recording in writing, the TVL178 Record of Interview form, actually a means of self-incrimination form, is examined. Since it is likely that more than 400,000 TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination forms were completed resulting in 181,880 prosecutions and 155,135 convictions in 2012. Therefore, it is little wonder that much mention of the TVL178 has been made in our blogposts and by TV Licensing Blogspot, Watchkeeper and TV Licence Resistance but this is the first time we have devoted an entire blogpost to this blank document.

TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination form is the primary means of “proving” the guilt of people prosecuted by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ for alleged tv licence evasion. A blank copy of a TVL178 was published in our previous blogpost, “Never, ever Talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ 2” and it is again reproduced here. When completed by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door scum and signed by people TVL178s are sent off to be processed in the Capita TV Licensing™ prosecution sausage machine at India Mill, Darwen where it is summarised into a prosecution statement which is produced in court along with the original TVL178. The completion of TVL178 is actually a key performance indicator (KPI) based upon numerical quantity in the Service Provision Agreement (TV Licensing™ contract) between Capita Business Services and the BBC. Our blogpost “Making Crime Pay” raised this and the Profit Share aspects of the Service Provision Agreement. Capita Business Services are paid by the number of TVL178s completed.

People might be forgiven for believing that there is a fundamental requirement for whatever is written on TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination form by Capita TV Licensing™ door hammering scum has to be factually accurate. After all, on the basis of whatever has been written on TVL178 by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ is likely to result in successful conviction with the resulting financial consequences of fine, costs and victim surcharge non-payment of which can result with a term of imprisonment. However, upon rereading the relevant interpretation of the Service Provision Agreement any requirement for factual accuracy on TVL178 does not seem to exist. Perhaps the most appropriate approach when reading this portion of the Service Provision Agreement is to adopt what can only really be described as a systemic “warped enforcement ideology” brought about by the” payment by results” culture spelt out in the Service Provision Agreement and the “warped enforcement ideology” which Watchkeeper in his reference to the 1754 MacDaniel Scandal and Stephen MacDaniel, in his blogpost.

From Schedule 1 Interpretations, page 58 it reads:
“Prosecution Statement” means a record of interview which would provide sufficient evidence against the interviewee such as to give a realistic prospect of conviction of that person or entity for a relevant Licence related offence under the WTA 1949 anywhere in the Territory.

Note in particular the terms “a record of interview which would provide sufficient evidence against the interviewee” and “such as to give a realistic prospect of conviction of that person or entity . . .”. Of the two terms, the second term is arguably the primary objective and the first term the means by which the primary objective is achieved. No mention seems to be made of factual accuracy even though the word “evidence” is used it is not defined in terms of factual accuracy relating to actual circumstances pertaining in interviewees’ dwellings, what the interviewee actually stated and subsequently signed to. However, a great deal of care seems to be taken with interviewees’ personal details so that Capita TV Licensing™ can stitch up the right interviewees for future conviction. A real world example of “warped enforcement ideology” if ever there was one. Having revealed that TVL178 exist to “provide sufficient evidence” where no such “evidence” could possibly exist of the “crime” whereof the interviewee is subsequently prosecuted and convicted, we at TV Licensing Watch are reminded of Watchkeeper’s sage observation:

"It's a fact! It seems to me it's the only "crime" where the "criminal" provides the evidence for conviction and the prosecution has no idea whether an offence was committed at all, but they'll take the defendant's word for it."

However, the clincher for us at TV Licensing Watch is what is revealed by “such as to give a realistic prospect of conviction “. The actual purpose of TVL178 is not to make a written record of “evidence” even though no such “evidence” could possibly exist. It seems to us (and not only us) that the actual purpose of TVL178 is to guarantee that interviewees are convicted by courts regardless of the non-existence of evidence that supports those convictions. Demonstrably, TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination form is as Licence Free states “seriously flawed” as a means of recording and supplying evidence. In a word “rigged”. TVL178 is merely one of many outward symptoms that the whole rotten BBC TV Licensing™ “system” and its processes are rigged. Rigged by the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ to be in their favour on four levels at least. Firstly, rigged against interviewees who inevitably become the accused and the convicted on the basis of what Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have put on TVL178 Record of Interview regardless of factual accuracy. Secondly, by courts which do the convicting having received BBC created and sponsored TV Licensing™ Court Training sessions in which Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s collection of “evidence” is doubtless presented as unimpeachable. Thirdly, the completion of TVL178 on the basis of systemic financial reward by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ for financially rewarding both the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ leads to abuses of the system. Richard John Llewellyn and Oluwagbenga Oliniyan were both convicted for the completion and forging of interviewee signatures on blank TVL178 Record of Interview forms supplied to them by Capita BBC TV Licensing™. There have doubtless been other cases where other employees of Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in connection with misuse and abuses of TVL178 Record of Interview forms. The BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ become silent when the issue is raised. Since a significant part of the financial reward culture at Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and the Profit Share scheme the BBC have created for themselves is based upon the completion of target numbers of TVL178 and the convictions arising from their completion, their collective silence is arguably in their financial vested interests. Fourthly, the burden to prove guilt is effectively removed from Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and their BBC tv licence revenue funded paymaster to the defendant having to prove their innocence a reversal and subversion of the so-called “Golden Thread” that is supposed to run through English law, innocent until proven guilty.

Having raised the issue of TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination forms and the legitimacy problems in connection of the administration of justice arising from their completion by Capita TV Licensing™ what has it to do with the title of this blogpost. A giveaway clue is in the fact that TVL178 Record of Interview forms are blank and require handwritten completion. If interviewees exercise their right to remain silent throughout the entirety of a visit by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ then clearly none of the blank fields supplied for interviewees’ responses can be completed by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ if people never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™. Then interviewees can be certain as they can be that if TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination forms are completed without their knowledge then their fraudulent completion has absolutely nothing whatever to do with them and that consequently it should be none of those interviewees who will be appearing in the dock charged, convicted and sentenced for crime. Remember, TVL178 Record of Interview forms seem to have little to do with justice they are all about self incrimination of the interviewee by the interviewee to guarantee conviction and raise revenue for Capita BBC TV Licensing™ to profit share with the BBC. Consider exercising the right to remain silent as a precautionary measure; a crime prevention measure. No normal, well adjusted and well socialised person would want to become a crime statistic. If Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have actual proof that people are watching/recording live television programmes services unlicensed then let them bring prosecutions on that basis only they do not need TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination forms. If they cannot do that then the BBC should become a subscription service.

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.

Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing 2

August 23 was the first anniversary of the first TV Licensing Watch blogpost. Readers of the blog may have noticed that no blogpost has been published since March. The main reason is that the March blogpost generated so many hits it seemed a shame to bury it with another blogpost. However, fellow bloggers TV Licensing Blogspot and Watchkeeper have both been very active recently and have each in turn raised important issues which have inspired us at, TV Licensing Watch, to publish another instalment of “Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™”. So, here is, “Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ 2”.

In the year since we published our first blogpost, Capita BBC TV Licensing™, have changed the way they “operate” in minor ways which have not gone unnoticed by those of us who monitor such things. TV Licensing™ Visiting Procedures approved, published and issued by the BBC for creative interpretation by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ has been amended. For people who are interested, the amended version is available as a large file in PDF format here. However, to echo an observation made by the, Duke of Wellington, they “came at us in the same old way and we dealt with them in the same old way”.

The primary source comes courtesy of, Watchkeeper, who, with characteristic diligence, did some research and number crunching which provided the inspiration for this blogpost. Unfortunately, not much has changed for well over 400,000 people in the past year. People who did not know their rights and in particular did not exercise their right to remain silent. They very unwisely granted Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door scum 400,000+ impromptu doorstep interviews under caution and ended up paying the price. For those unfortunate people, Capita BBC TV Licensing™ came at them in the same old way and dealt with them in the same old way. Consequently 400,000+ got milked of at least £145.50 for the “privilege” of granting those interviews. For the numerate among you, that’s £58,200,000 easy money which the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ may not have been entitled to in the first place had those 400,000+ people not made the fatal financial error by not talking to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ in the first place.

Not that the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ care in the slightest. The BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ tv licence scam is about one thing and one thing only. Generating tons of gravy train revenue at other people’s expense for the unholy BBC Capita alliance of evil. Your compliance was gratefully accepted and we at, TV Licensing Watch, are certain that both, the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™, are humbly and truly very grateful indeed . . . when they were not laughing at you all the way to the bank.

More troubling, of those 400,000+ people, 181,880 were summonsed and of those 181,880 people summonsed, 155,135 were found guilty and had to pay fines, costs and victim surcharges each or face imprisonment for non-payment. Of interest to us at, TV Licensing Watch, is the costs element levied by the petty judiciary at the behest of Capita BBC TV Licensing™ prosecutors on behalf of Capita BBC TV Licensing™ and, by the way, the BBC, who also benefit financially, thanks to murky clauses in the TV Licensing™ Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™. The minimum amount of costs demanded by Capita BBC TV Licensing™ prosecutors is set at £90 apiece. Note, that £90 apiece rate is the minimum demanded. So, from 155,135 “successful” prosecutions at £90 apiece, Capita BBC TV Licensing™ stand a minimum take of £13,962,150 levied on their behalf by the petty judiciary. Nice easy money. Remember, those found guilty have to pay up or end up in prison for non-payment so doubly easy money. Once again, we at, TV Licensing Watch are doubly certain that the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ are more than doubly, humbly and truly very grateful indeed for those people’s enforced compliance. Especially Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door scum who get paid uncapped commissions for both BBC tv licence sales and successful prosecutions. A real world application of The MacDaniel Principle so lucidly explained by, Watchkeeper. Also, let us not forget the 100% post-prosecution follow-up much boasted about by “TV Licensing spokespeople” whereby approximately 30% of those summonsed in the previous 12 months are repeat summonsed. It is very likely that of the 181,880 people summonsed, some 54,560 have been repeat summonsed and of the 155,135 found guilty, some 46,540 have been found guilty within the previous 12 months.

However, as far as we at TV Licensing Watch are concerned it’s all so unnecessary. Unnecessary multiplied by 400,000+ because all people have to do when they open their door to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ is apply the precautionary principle by exercising their right to remain silent. If people exercise their right to remain silent then Capita BBC TV Licensing™ have to produce the evidence that people watch and record live television programme services unlicensed. Then let’s see them do that: prosecute and produce the evidence without people incriminating themselves. Yet seemingly in 2012 Capita BBC TV Licensing™ door to door scum found 400,000+ people willing to frame themselves by the mere act of talking to them rather than invoke their ineluctable right to remain silent. We at TV Licensing Watch reckon that during 2012, Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s door to door scum could hardly believe their luck or their uncapped commission payments at such a torrent of compliant self-incriminatory docility. Seemingly all their Christmases had come at once during 2012.

For people who have never seen one before, above is a blank TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form. Like the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, we have a dream. We at, TV Licensing Watch, have a dream that from now on every single blank TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form should remain forever blank by virtue of people exercising their right to remain silent. There is no requirement to incriminate oneself or sign any TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form that serves to incriminate. Had 400,000+ people not made the mistake of talking to Capita BBC TV Licensing™ in the first place they would not have incriminated themselves, the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ would not have been able, in essence, to blackmail them into paying up under judicial and extra-judicial duress and generated the possible £72,162,150 for themselves that they did. Think about it. What would the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ done about it if everyone had exercised their right to remain silent? Whatever they tried to do about it would have to have been multiplied by 400,000+.

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.

Never, ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing

There’s a very simple reason that you should never ever talk to Capita BBC TV Licensing under any circumstances. Because the only thing they are interested in hearing is evidence. Evidence that, in all probability, will be used to prosecute you. Or, at the very least, to persecute you – usually in your own home.



It never fails to fascinate TV Licensing Watch how people react when they are visited at home, that they are somehow obliged to talk to Capita TV Licensing when visited by them at home. The BBC state that people are under no such obligation but of course door to door Capita TV Licensing operatives do not mention that. It is not in any of their interests to do so. There is no statute anywhere, not one single piece of legislation in existence that states that people have to speak to Capita TV Licensing when spoken to. But so many people do. People from all walks of life, the innocent and guilty alike, seem to enjoy nothing more than wittering and twittering on nineteen-to-the-dozen as if Capita TV Licensing had police powers. A benign army of sympathetic agony aunts, a big sponge filled lughole to confide in.

They are not. Capita TV Licensing are contracted by the BBC to do one of two things. Sell BBC broadcast receiving licences or prosecute people. Preferably the latter in terms of licence revenue maximisation and uncapped commission payments and if their lord and master the BBC decide you are worth branding with the prosecution iron.

The main point to note is, that not talking to Capita TV Licensing does not start the moment they have dragged your sorry arse from the comfortable armchair to interview you at the door. It starts from the very moment they send their first threatogram or threatocard to you.



It seems counter-intuitive. After all, when Capita TV Licensing arrive, they almost certainly have little idea what the true situation is in your home and need to establish the facts they want to record as quickly as possible. The facts being, who to flog a broadcast receiving licence to and who to stitch up with an interview under caution. Without gullible householders like you to assist them, singing like canaries, they might end up leaving empty handed. Something that Capita TV Licensing are just not willing to do. No, they like it nice and easy. They want something, anything, everything handed to them on a platter. It does not matter who the victim is or how truthful they are, Capita TV Licensing are only interested in what they perceive to be law. Regardless of how trivial or unfair that may seem to householders they choose to stitch up and prosecute. It is how Capita TV Licensing think they ought to think. If you do not think that is true, that is because you haven’t been on the receiving end of Capita TV Licensing door to door visiting parties’ slavering obedience to their sales and prosecution targets, uncapped commission payments and bank balances. Yet.

If you have never been prosecuted but have ever spoken to Capita TV Licensing, it is a fair bet in all probability it’s been for one of two things. To buy a BBC broadcast receiving licence and/or gifting evidence against yourself at the door (“Yes, I’m watching/recording live tv unlicensed it’s my spouse’s fault”). If neither of them led to your being prosecuted at the time, is something that you should congratulate yourself on. However, you need to start paying more attention to the realities of the United Kingdom we currently live in. Right now, Capita TV Licensing and the BBC are feeling at an all time low. Due to all the “right on” politics that have polluted their respective procedures and output, morale is on the floor and Capita TV Licensing door to door operatives are seething at having drawn what they believe to be the short straw. Typically they have no one to blame but themselves for their atrocious choice of job. Nor do they blame the simpering, whimpering jellyfish they call the upper management at the BBC and Capita. Not aloud anyway. They wouldn’t dare to. No. Instead they blame householders, people who are lawfully unlicensed and do not want to fund the BBC. Nasty, awkward, thankless, feckless, cowardly householders like you. Good for nothing sheeple not doing enough to force the government to scrap the BBC Royal Charter and the BBC tv licence. They cannot be seen to punish their higher chain of command so they will most certainly punish downwards. At us, ordinary, well adjusted, law abiding householders. So, if that means bullying lawfully licence free householders more; if that means dragging householders into court for being lawfully licence free, not wanting to fund the BBC, or just plain old talking back and videoing them, then that’s what they will do regardless of how vulnerable people are. The more vulnerable the better and easier it is for them.



Which is where what you say as a householder being spoken to by them comes in. Because with the ever increasing amount of legislation that is brought in against householders, it is increasingly easier to find yourself stitched up under an interview under caution. With Capita TV Licensing and the BBC being more petty and vindictive than before, they are less willing to apply any sense of fairness or common sense. And with the BBC and Capita TV Licensing only interested in lots of easy licence fee revenue, uncapped commission payments and prosecuting cases that are easy (That will be you by the way) then Capita TV Licensing door to door operatives are always on the lookout for something, anything that will justify keeping their jobs. That means stuff that makes them, Capita BBC TV Licensing and the BBC money at your expense; licence sales, confessions and prosecutions. Does not matter whether evidence is factually accurate or not. Who gives a shit? For them all crime is financially relative even when there’s been no crime.



The fact is, if Capita TV Licensing visit you at home, watching/recording live or not, innocent or guilty, do not talk to them except to tell them you are not obliged to talk to them. At best, ask them what evidence they have that you are breaking the law. You will almost certainly get a non-committal answer as they try to probe you with more questions so they can find an excuse to interview you under caution, stitch you up and prosecute you. Do not answer any of those questions. You have no reason to. You do not have any legal representative standing there to advise you, contrary to what Capita TV Licensing and the BBC and contrary to the absolute rubbish that is recited as a caution your silence can never be used against you.

TV Licensing Watch will guarantee what comes out of your open mouth will. Their version of it and magistrates courts will believe every single word of it . . . unquestioningly. BBC TV Licensing Court Training sessions held on behalf of the BBC at courts in the UK see to that.

Do not ever kid yourself that Capita TV Licensing are there to help you or see it from your point of view. Do not kid yourself that they will apply any common sense or fairness to your situation. Do not kid yourself that they will ever overlook any minor oversight of yours or take pity on you.

Capita TV Licensing are there to serve and protect only two things . . . Capita TV Licensing and BBC revenues.

So remember, never ever talk to Capita TV Licensing – now more than ever, whilst they are at their most petty and vindictive. Nobody who has ever been prosecuted with anything to do with the BBC and its broadcast receiving licence scam, fairly or unfairly, innocent or guilty has ever received a summons and stood in the dock and thought: “Oh dear, oh dear, if only I’d talked to Capita TV Licensing more.” when the TVL178 Record of Interview self-incrimination form is produced.

There’s ‘adverse inference’ of course, which is basically the courts way of getting you to confess ahead of time so they can get you sentenced far quicker and leave for an early lunch. The general rule with adverse inference is to cross that bridge when you come to it. There are plenty of reasons why somebody would legitimately choose not to talk to Capita TV Licensing. Seemingly from the available evidence, the ‘fear of incriminating oneself’ is clearly not one of them, unlike people in America. However, if you have said nothing, then it gives Capita TV Licensing a lot less to stitch you up with, so you would probably never be prosecuted anyway. So never mind, when was the last time you read or heard a news report where a magistrate or district judge stated in court:-
“Your defence has completely proven that you did not do what Capita TV Licensing say you did. However, because you knew your rights and you said nothing when Capita TV Licensing asked you, I’m fining you the maximum permitted fine for the alleged offence.”

Despite their existence on paper, there seems to be a diminishing number of rights being honoured these days. "You have the right to remain silent . . . " When offered that right, people may as well exercise it as not. After all, if Capita TV Licensing have evidence against a householder to bring a prosecution they do not need a householder to offer them the gift of confession by talking to them so that it can be produced in court against the householder.

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 form.

Capita BBC TV Licensing's Card & Run Scam

Please raise a hand those who have received one of these hand delivered “I called” cards recently. Please raise a hand those who thought it had been hand delivered by one of Capita BBC TV Licensing’s door hammering uncapped commission paid tv licence sales thugs. Please raise a hand those who thought they were bang to rights, panicked and purchased a tv licence. Introducing Capita BBC TV Licensing’s latest big idea under the cover of the BBC TV Licensing contract on behalf of the BBC to maximise BBC tv licence revenue. Capita BBC TV Licensing "phantom visits " by G4S employees. Thanks, no doubt, "to the unique way it is funded" this is being done for and on behalf of the world's favourite self-appointed independent and impartial state broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Also, no doubt, it is being done with the full knowledge and connivance of the BBC and, of course, with their seal of wholehearted approval. Although the BBC will try to wriggle out of any knowledge of this and deny direct involvement with this activity by claiming that G4S have been contracted by Capita Business Services to undertake it the BBC still have overall responsibility for all activities done under the BBC TV Licensing contract.



As with most things Capita BBC TV Licensing it is, as illustrious fellow blogger, Watchkeeper, would cannily term it, all bluster, intimidation and misinformation. If any people were panicked and purchased a BBC tv licence, Capita BBC TV Licensing’s bluster, intimidation and misinformation worked. As with most things Capita BBC TV Licensing things are not as they at first seem. On careful reading of the text, people unwise enough to take the nonsense printed thereon at face value might reasonably believe that one of Capita BBC TV Licensing's door hammering uncapped commission paid tv licence sales oiks had paid them a visit. In this instance, nothing could be further from the truth.


This blogpost comes courtesy of two TV Licence Resistance forum members. One of whom received the hand delivered “I called” card and the other who was present at a time when a hand delivered “I called” card was delivered and he decided to investigate further. Thanks to them both, TV Licensing Watch, is both thankful and appreciative.


In their own words here are extracts of what they saw.

MS "Today I was casually looking out of my window and being nosy when a black hatchback pulled up with G4S on the sides and bonnet; the bloke looked at some paperwork and then walked over to my front door. He hadn't brought his brain cell with him because he couldn't match the door number with that on his paperwork - door number is perfectly clear; he then wandered about for a few seconds before returning to my front door and placed a paper under my front door drip strip - he made no attempt to enter - he never knocked or rang the door bell.

Paper work he left just stated "I called" with the 'Officer' initials of "RS" and the date. Opening the paper it's headed "We called today to help you start watching TV legally" - similar to the "We said we'd call" leaflet I received in Dec 2010.

Goon is late 50s or early 60s - registration number KY62 YZM"


VR "Took some time out today to visit a colleague on long term sick leave. While I was there, one of the blue "I called" threatocards came through the letter box. There was no knock at the door. It turned out to be some G4S *rsehole with a handful of the f*cking things. . . .

Note the handheld pda: as each one was delivered he input it on the device. Despite claiming to estate staff that he was a utility meter reader to gain entry to the block, no utility meters were read."

and:

“G4S card and run terror campaign on behalf of crapita bbc tvltm.

. . . . . . .
They get G4S to deliver "I called" threatocards to try and con unlicensed people into thinking they've been "detected" and panic them into rash and hasty tv licence buying activity. Even though a crapita bbc tvltm goon hadn't done the visit.
. . . . . . .
As a matter of interest, the threatocard delivering G4S *rsehole didn't knock on a single door, didn't read a single utility meter. He just shoved a threatocard through the letter box, input on the handheld pda device, readied the next threatocard for the next letterbox, one after another after another. “Card and run” in door to door delivery jargon . He delivered a total of 14 threatocards in the time he was in my view. And of course gained easy entry to blocks of flats by deceitfully claiming he'd come to read the meter. Easy entry to blocks of flats with secure entryphone access isn't something crapita bbc tvltm filth can do or like having to deal with.”

Once again the depths to which Capita BBC TV Licensing will descend to try and maximise BBC tv licence revenue has been demonstrated by what really amounts to scam and deception. Surprise, surprise.



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.

Cynical, Incompetent and Negligent

The starting point of this blogpost is the seemingly truthful observation often made by us at TV Licensing Watch that “the BBC regard all those lawfully unlicensed as “evaders” and all those "correctly licensed"* as “potential evaders”. Here is yet another newspaper article which seems to prove the accuracy of that seemingly truthful observation. It is one of several newspaper articles that have come to our attention at TV Licensing Watch this past year or so. It relates a series of events that have become wearily familiar. The prosecution and conviction in a Magistrates Court of a “correctly licensed”* citizen.

It should not happen in civilised society where the Rule of Law allegedly prevails, but it does. Unfortunately, it seems that is the reality that prevails in the UK with the imposition of the BBC TV Licence on the population of the UK by Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. As with the attempted prosecution of an 81 year old woman entitled to a tax-payer funded free Over 75 TV Licence concession that we reported last year, this case once again demonstrates more than clearly the cavalier “rubber stamp” approach to prosecuting and convicting people adopted by the BBC and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ in their collective desperation to maximise BBC tv licence revenue and commission targets payable to Capita Business Services arising from the maximisation of BBC tv licence revenue. The BBC have repeatedly claimed in the various media that prosecution and conviction is a last resort when dealing with so-called “tv licence evaders”. Is that so?

So how has it come about that someone who is “correctly licensed”* and her payments up-to-date has been prosecuted and convicted of “tv licence evasion” when demonstrably she is not and never was a so-called “tv licence evader”? As with the 81 year old woman and Rikki Thursfield it seems that every safeguard designed to prevent the prosecution and conviction of the “correctly licensed”* set out in the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services has yet again been flouted. How difficult can it be for Capita BBC TV Licensing™ at India Mill, Darwen to check somebody’s licensed/unlicensed status during the preparation of a prosecution case? Especially when all the necessary information is supposed to be readily available in an accurate and up-to-date database. A well maintained and up-to-date database which both the BBC and Capita Business Services have agreed should exist in the Service Provision Agreement that both have signed.

TV Licensing Watch and fellow bloggers, TV Licensing Blogspot and Watchkeeper’s Log comment frequently about the persecution of people who are lawfully licence free. As C630 Blog puts it, when it comes to the persecution of the “correctly licensed” through the Magistrates Courts because of deficient database management that is an entirely different matter. Very serious doubts have to be raised in Westminster and Whitehall about the operation and conduct of the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services and the people raising those very serious doubts are none other than Magistrates themselves. It seems to TV Licensing Watch that Watchkeeper’s Log is absolutely correct. The BBC and Capita Business Services are rogue organisations not fit for purpose and that both the BBC and Capita Business Services are well and truly out of political control.

*”correctly licensed” a term of abuse devised and used by the BBC

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.