Show Trials (2)

Under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract, the standard operating procedure for, Capita Business Services, is to send increasingly intimidating letters produced by, Proximity London, to unlicensed addresses. If that does not work commission paid salespersons are sent to unlicensed addresses. If they are fortunate enough to encounter householders unaware of the right not to cooperate with TV Licensing ™ interviews "under caution in accordance with PaCE" will take place.

Regrettably, most people are unaware of the reality of the situation and will admit the salesperson into their home, believing he/she is "an officer" of some statutory body and in a position of authority. If the person admits to watching live TV on unlicensed premises then this is recorded on a form which is produced in court as "evidence" of the crime. The whole procedure is riddled with untruths. For example, the salesperson will introduce himself as being from "TV Licensing™". TV Licensing™ is a trademarked trading name only so no such organisation exists. Even if householders agree to become licensed there and then, it is no guarantee that prosecutions brought by Capita Business Services prosecution sausage machine will not be brought.

Seemingly, this by itself seems to be insufficient for the BBC and Capita Business Services. In order to ensure “success” for Capita Business Services in the magistrates courts, under the TV Licensing™ contract magistrates are subject to “TV Licensing™ Court Training Sessions”. Magistrates who are members of the Magistrates Association each receive a copy of a glossy magazine called "InBrief". As can be seen, these TV Licensing™ Court Training Sessions are heavily promoted in “InBrief”.

This is how, His Worship, blogged about this:

“Earlier this year on 9th April I discussed the organisation which is responsible for funding the BBC; TV Licensing. This organisation is also responsible for prosecuting those who watch TV in contravention of the law by not having a licence. This body has the full trappings of a prosecuting authority with its own fines department, courts listing department and of course its own prosecutors. It also has its own publication department which sends to interested parties three or four times a year "In Brief" with information of interest.

This newsletter is sent out to all magistrates who are members of the Magistrates` Association. I have copied the current edition`s four pages at the end of this post. Roughly 10% of JPs choose not to join the Association. I would presume the Association receives a fee for this although I stand to be corrected on this assumption.

TV Licensing is but one of many prosecuting bodies which use the magistrates` courts system to enforce their regulations. For those unaware, using a TV without a license is a criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence, eg, to be a ticket tout or to ill treat an animal or to contravene planning regulations. The organisations responsible for bringing prosecutions on those matters do not send regular information to magistrates.

I question why TV Licensing does so. Is it to inform magistrates who adjudicate on such cases or to subtly influence them in general? If the latter I can assure them that they have failed totally. Indeed most of my colleagues on my bench would happily see TV license evasion be de-criminalised and tried as a civil matter.
Whilst the BBC is a nationalised business the requirement that using the service without a license is a criminal offence is arbitrary. It is time for change.”

Please make a careful note how even the magistracy are being manipulated by BBC propaganda under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. Defendants are entitled to fair hearings in every court in the land, allegedly, but not as far as the BBC and Capita Business Services seem to be concerned. His Worship addresses that point most eloquently:

"ADDENDUM 17th June
p4 [last] of TV Licensing publication is published below. I would add that members of my bench have never been invited to "train" re TV Licensing. I cannot comment for others but I would suggest that it would certainly disturb JPs` position as impartial judges of fact and as such magistrates would use the proverbial barge pole to that organisation if direct contact were even hinted at.
Here's an image of part of the last page of "In Brief":"

TV Licensing™ Court Training Sessions were the subject of a Freedom of Information request and a heavily redacted copy of the presentation materials was forthcoming. Like “InBrief” there seems to be a surfeit of disinformation. The possibility seems to exist that by presenting to the petty judiciary a systematic portrayal of BBC and Capita Business Services infallibility in TV Licensing™ Court Training Sessions that defendants are denied their inalienable rights to fair hearings in court and are very likely to be denied justice. As pointed out very clearly by His Worship in “ADDENDUM 17th June” all this is done solely in the vested interests of the BBC and not in the best interests of justice. The whole thing is an absolute disgrace. If, His Worship, could see the conflicts of justice arising from TV Licensing™ Court Training Sessions, why couldn't 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.