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.

TV Licensing™ Enforcement: Whose Job Is It?

Perhaps one of the nastiest aspects of the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services concerns the application for and conduct of searches of dwellings and other premises for licensable receiving equipment. Information is laid on oath to a magistrate of probability that “evidence” exists that live broadcast television programming is being viewed unlicensed by the BBC. Despite there being many sources of screen flicker other than live broadcast television being viewed on a television set, the magistrate concerned usually falls hook, line and sinker for the application. Entry is granted by a warrant of entry and search signed by the magistrate. Aside of the many published occasions when such forced entry has turned up no evidence of broadcast receiving licence “evasion” whatsoever. Apart from the inherent injustice of the whole disreputable process it is the role of police in attendance which is the central subject of this blogpost.

A Freedom of Information request lodged with, Cheshire Constabulary, is the starting point. TV Licensing Watch, apologise for the length of the blogpost but our view is that in terms of individual civil liberties and human rights and police powers, it is a matter of profound importance. The central question is, under the terms of the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services whose job is it to enforce the BBC TV Licence? The BBC and its contracted BBC TV Licensing™ contractors or various police forces and constabularies in the UK?

If the Freedom of Information response provided by Cheshire Constabulary is to be taken at face value then as far as Cheshire Constabulary are concerned it is part of their job to enforce the BBC’s broadcast receiving licence regime. Well, as a matter of fact, Cheshire Constabulary, it is not the job of any police force or constabulary to enforce the BBC’s broadcast receiving licence. It is solely the enforcement responsibility of the BBC and its BBC TV Licensing™ contractors. The only role police and constabularies have in TV Licensing™ enforcement is to ensure that no breach of the peace occurs during the execution of warrants of entry and search against employees of Capita Business Services under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract.

Nor, Cheshire Constabulary is it the job of the police and constabularies to apply the BBC’s terms of reference to Freedom of Information requests lodged with police and constabularies. In this instance, Cheshire Constabulary, were requested for information held by, Cheshire Constabulary, not information held by the BBC. Therefore, the disclosure rules that apply are those of Cheshire Constabulary not those of the BBC. Freedom of Information legislation is absolutely clear on the point.

If the BBC have problems about disclosure of the information requested in this Freedom of Information request lodged then it is a problem for the BBC and nobody else. Not Cheshire Constabulary. It may be of interest to readers of this blogpost that Cheshire Constabulary visited this blogsite recently.

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as set out below:
Could you please confirm how many times your officers attended search warrants in accordance of S366(2) Communications act 2003 granted to Capita Business Services Ltd (trading as "TV Licensing")for the past 5 years?
In accordance with section 1(1) (a) of the Act our response is provided below; I have now considered your request and in particular where the public interest considerations lie in respect of disclosure or not of the information.
I have decided that the information should be exempted by virtue of Section
31 (1) (a) (b) (d) and (g) and (2) (a) Law Enforcement. This type of information has been requested previously both from ourselves, other forces and the BBC itself. It is our view that disclosure would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders and the administration of justice. In addition disclosure would prejudice the BBC in the exercise of its functions for the purposes of ascertaining if any person has failed to comply with the law.
Harm
It is a criminal offence to install or use television receiving equipment to receive television programmes without a valid licence. TV Licensing investigates and prosecutes unlicensed use of television receiving equipment. It uses search warrants to assist in this activity. TV Licensing’s policy on search warrants has been made public in the past. Search warrants are applied for in cases where the evidence means that it is extremely likely that a television is in use. Search warrant applications are considered scrupulously before they go forward to the court and they are treated very much as a last resort. As a matter of law a search warrant cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for the application. The Police will be asked to attend the execution of a Search Warrant to observe, to assist if required and to prevent a breach of the peace.
Additional convincing arguments from the BBC in relation to campaign groups via a number of blogs and forums on the internet, who are dedicated to people who are dissatisfied with having to pay the licence fee and seek to avoid any detection from non payment of the licence fee. These sites are used by members to share information on TV licensing and how to evade payment. The Information Tribunal considered this evidence, and the fact that any information in relation to TV licensing becomes subject to intense scrutiny by these groups. Evidence was supplied to the Tribunal and their conclusion said that:
“Once widely disseminated, we consider the information would be used to assess the likelihood of detection and enforcement of non-payment of licence fees. This is not just based on reasonable supposition. We have seen that there are already examples of websites providing advice and tactics on how to evade the licence fee. These include assertions about the right to search and indicate an interest in searches. The exhibits even illustrated how information disclosed to the public by the BBC including through the FOIA process has been used to assess the risk of detection. It is highly likely that some would look to use this evidence to attempt to assess whether detection of non-payment were likely. We think that having assessed the risk, this would cause either more evasion, or at least a detrimental effect on the BBC’s strategy for enforcement..."
We have undertaken another review into the websites/forums available, and find that the blogs/forums/websites are indeed active and easily accessible. We therefore consider that the evidence supplied by the BBC, and upheld by the Tribunal, is convincing. It is the presence of the campaign groups and their sheer tenacity in actively evading detection that adds value to the need for the Police to uphold the S31 approach.
For example, the Police are well aware of campaign groups which demonstrate a range of subversive and overt tactics. When reviewing any requests for information on these subject areas, the Police would never wish to divulge anything that would be of use to these campaigns that would enable them to avoid detection.
S 31 Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure
Any disclosure would demonstrate the accountability and transparency of police operations and interaction with the TV licensing authority. In turn it would show that public funds are being appropriately applied and that value of money is being obtained.
Factors favouring non disclosure
There are a number of processes already in place which govern and oversee the TV licensing process For example, search warrants are only issued by independent third parties (the Magistrate, in accordance with strict legal requirements, would not issue a warrant unless there was sufficient evidence and public interest.) Therefore the public interest in knowing that TV Licensing is using its powers proportionately is satisfied.
It is publically known that the Police are asked to assist in executing search warrants. Therefore revealing the number of times Police have attended would disclose the levels of enforcement by the BBC throughout the UK. This information can be used by people who wish to avoid paying the television licence fee. This is of particular relevance as there are a number of active campaigns who wish to undermine the licence fee process. Any disclosure would also undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement between the BBC and police forces.
Balance
Although it is considered that there is a large public interest in any TV licensing information, which is demonstrated by the number of forums/websites/debates, this conversely also provides the evidence for withholding the information requested. Any information disclosed by the Police could assist a person/campaign in attempting to evade detection – this in turn could prejudice the BBC’s enforcement strategy. The strongest public interest is in the BBC being able to enforce the television licensing system cost effectively and in not disclosing information which could impede the deterrent effect.
The Police are aware that the debate for disclosure of any information for TV licence has been upheld by the Information Commissioner and at Tribunal. In particular, the evidence for the active campaign groups for non payment is convincing. We are satisfied in terms of section 2(2) of the Act that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures. (See attached file: FOI Appeals Procedures. Final version.doc)
Regards
John Gannon
Information Compliance
Professional Standards Department
Tel: 01606 364176

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.

Making Crime Pay

In an earlier blogpost, TV Licensing Watch, posed what seemed then to be a rhetorical question about what the BBC had to gain from the vast scale of “enforcement” activities undertaken for and on its behalf by Capita Business Services and other contractors and sub-contractors under the Service Provision Agreement.

In the unholy alliances that are the BBC TV Licensing™ contract, set out in the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services there seems to be a very interesting anomaly. As part of the Service Provision Agreement there is a “Profit Share” arrangement between the BBC and BBC TV Licensing™ contractors. That seems to be tacit admission that as far as the BBC and Capita Business Services are concerned, “crime” can be made to generate additional profit. In short, “crime” can be made to pay. So seemingly, without so-called “tv licence evasion” the opportunities to generate additional profit for the BBC would not exist.
It seems to us at, TV Licensing Watch, the “Profit Share” arrangements in the Service Provision Agreement present a very interesting inconsistency. On the one hand, the BBC spend several hundred millions of pounds over the term of the Service Provision Agreement with Capita Business Services and other contractors under the TV Licensing™ contract further to eradicating “tv licence evasion” yet on the other hand without “tv licence evasion” an additional profitable revenue stream would not exist.

This seeming inconsistency arises on page 155 of the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services and again in Schedule 5. The relevant texts of which are presented here. As will be seen, the “Profit Share” threshold is set at 23%. Seemingly, it is not only in the vested financial interests of Capita Business Services and other contractors and sub-contractors to discover and report “tv licence evasion” but also in the BBC’s vested financial interests.

In most other fields of “enforcement” the direct rewarding of the detection, reporting and prosecution of crime on what can seemingly only be described as a “piece rate” basis is not permitted. This is because of rules relating to conflict of interest. Lest the enforcers concerned are incentivised to lodge frivolous and vexatious reports and bring about equally frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.

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.

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.

Maximise! Maximise!!

The Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services has some very interesting and novel concepts seemingly based upon the 5 year plan model of discredited Marxist totalitarian dictatorships of the past. Take for example, the concept of continual growth of BBC television licence revenue envisaged exemplified here from page 70 of the Service Provision Agreement:

“We understand the BBC’s imperative to increase net licence fee income. This will be our prime
objective. However we also recognise that you are seeking:
•A minimal risk transition to the new arrangements;
•An efficient operation in all respects with reduced administration and IT cost;
•Certainty of fee income;
•A culture and corporate style that encourages flexibility, openness and practicality; and
•A long-term partnership that not only encourages innovation, investment, integration and joint
working, but also seeks and delivers future benefits to both parties.”

“We understand”. “We” is Capita Business Services, seemingly. Apparently, what they understand is “the BBC’s imperative to increase net licence fee income.” What the BBC and Capita Business Services failed to understand and continue to fail to understand is how “the BBC’s imperative to increase net licence fee income” is to be achieved year upon year for the entire term of the Service Provision Agreement without infringing on the inalienable liberties of people who are lawfully licence free. While mention is made of “future benefits to both parties” no mention is made of the present and future disbenefits to those who are not party to the Service Provision Agreement. Namely, those who are lawfully licence free and therefore have no wish, desire or intention of funding the BBC or participating in the BBC TV Licensing™ regime cooked up between the BBC and Capita Business Services. The notion of assumed consent contained within the Service Provision Agreement is as breathtaking in the expression of corporate arrogance and conceit as it is breathtaking in it's scale. However, not content with that on page 73 of the Service Provision Agreement is this:

“3. Our Vision
At one level our vision for the TV Licensing service is a simple one: to significantly increase net licence fee income while always supporting the BBC brand. However achieving this demands a challenging set of objectives, new ways of working, new technologies and ‘sea-change’ in culture.
Our vision therefore incorporates the following key changes:
•The creation of a modern working environment that supports and encourages the evolution to a
culture of innovation ,‘can-do’, devolved responsibility and flexibility;
•Controlled transformation of the technology that supports the Contact Centre, Administration,
Marketing and Field Operations alike in order to provide a service that is efficient, effective and flexible to change. (The introduction of new key technology components to generate and assist
in business and administration change is considered fundamental to increasing revenue and
reducing cost);
•The use of personalised segmented contact strategies to a much greater extent than hitherto in
order to better target evader groups (particularly focusing on students, businesses and ethnic
groups).
•Far greater integration across all aspects of the service to enable joint, better informed
decisions to be made both strategically and from an operational day-to-day resourcing
perspective; and
•Development of a partnership culture that not only means that we work together on day-to-day
service problems and opportunities to maximise collection and efficiency, but also actively seeks
commercial ventures that will benefit both parties as the BBC’s commercial landscape develops.
The transformation and introduction of the supporting technology will clearly be a key element of this vision. However the transformation of the operational culture will provide an equally significant benefit.
In achieving this, we will ensure that the transferring staff are initially comfortable with the new arrangements and then look to develop both their skills and their ‘buy-in’ to the ‘new world’. Achieving this will be vital. The introduction of technology without this focus on the people will result in expensive re-working and an inability to achieve the high levels of performance to which we both aspire. We believe that we have an exceptional track record of delivering this blend of transformed culture combined with radical technology change supporting administration services of a similar character.”

The mutual corporate delirium between the BBC and Capita Business Services in raptures about “Our Vision” is abundantly evident. Once again there is the fixation with, obsession arguably, “to significantly increase net licence fee income”. Much mention is made of, “technologies”, “targeting”, “innovation”, “devolved responsibility”, “buy-in”, “new world”, but the most important absence of all from the whole Service Provision Agreement is any mention whatever of the consent, rights and liberties of the people most affected by it. Seemingly, just about everybody in the United Kingdom who does not “buy-in” or is part of their “new world”. The transfer of police-style "offender profiling" to "tv licence evader profiling" by the BBC and Capita Business Services in this part of the Service Provision Agreement is an affront to common sense. According to the Service Provision Agreement, those who are in business, full-time students or ethnic minorities are to be singled out, targeted, and discriminated against. Totalitarian dictators Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al may all be dead and gone but seemingly their repressive spirit is alive and prospering at the BBC and Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. Was mention made anywhere of the European Convention on Human Rights? It was, just. The ECHR and it's derivative laws are unspecified "applicable laws" apparently. Questions have to be raised about the inactivity of the various Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport while this Service Provision Agreement was in development and then put into operation.

In the early part of the term of the Service Provision Agreement the objectives set would have been attainable and sustainable. However, it does not require a grand master of strategy to figure out and realise that as the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services progresses over the years that more and more extreme, intrusive and repressive techniques are required to maintain the much stated objective “to significantly increase net licence fee income” for and on behalf of the BBC on the continual basis cited to maintain the promised “increase” in “net licence fee income”. No better evidence of this development can be cited than this TV Licensing blogspot blogpost, "Hounded by TV Licensing Gestapo". With the passage of time comes the concomitant increase in “unattainability” and “unsustainability” of financial growth coupled with the concomitant decrease in “acceptability” and “consent” of wider society. In a word, tyranny.

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.

Harassment: A BBC Formula

"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."

The sage comment of fellow blogger, Watchkeeper, about prosecutions brought by, Capita Business Services, on behalf of, the BBC. Moreover, it’s true.

Here is a demonstration just how nasty, loathsome and calculated the whole “business” of the “operation” of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract by, Capita Business Services, for and on behalf of, the BBC, actually is. TV Licensing Watch, hope that by the end of this blogpost, ordinary, decent law abiding lawfully licence free people will realise that it is not only BBC television programmes that can be formulaic. So is the studied, calculated and deliberate harassment of the unlicensed who, have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to participate in the whole disgraceful rigmarole devised by the BBC. That applies most especially to the lawfully licence free who do not watch and record live broadcast television scheduled and available in the UK.

In the blogpost below, “Show Trials”, is an image of a TVL178, Record of Interview form also known as a “Prosecution Statement” in the jargon of the 2002 Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services. On pages 138 and 139 of that 2002 Service Provision Agreement are set out the target figures for the annual target number of Prosecution Statements that Capita Business Services are expected to achieve. Employees of Capita Business Services go to unlicensed addresses door to door with the express target of achieving in total 360,000 (or more) Prosecution Statements per annum. Achieving that BBC set target contributes to their “uncapped commission” payments (recruitment advertisement, "Gizza Job" blogpost below). Due to the nature of the perverse incentives offered by the “uncapped commission” payments to employees of Capita Business Services, it is little wonder that they seem first to go for the “usual suspects”. That is, people whom they have “caught” unlicensed before. The “low hanging fruit” as it were of television licence “enforcement”. A significant proportion of unlicensed people are serially prosecuted on an annual basis on behalf of the BBC by Capita Business Services. Approximately one third of prosecutions brought by Capita Business Services under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract are annual repeat prosecutions according to testimony to the DCMS Media Select Committee in 2002 by current BBC Group Finance Director, Zarin Patel.

Think about that figure. 360,000 is the population of a small city. That’s 1,000 potential prosecutions per day. In terms of judicial process alone by the petty judiciary a truly staggering figure. 360,000 potential criminal convictions per year for the heinous and dangerous “crime” of watching and recording live broadcast television programmes unlicensed; without the permission of the BBC. Nearly 20% of all prosecutions brought in magistrates courts are brought by Capita Business Services under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. In terms of fines, good solid business for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Treasury. In terms of costs, good solid business for Capita Business Services and their various hangers-on. In terms of locally placing template newspaper articles of comical hostility about “tv licence evaders” and “tv licence dodgers”, good solid business for PR agencies across the UK. Apart from lifelong hatred from those they prosecute, what does the BBC get from the whole vile and disgusting process? Since the whole disgusting TV Licensing™ spectacle has been going on for decades it is fair to say that the BBC do not seem to have given it much thought if any. Despite, if the BBC are to be believed, recruiting and retaining the “brightest and the best” managerial talent available, the whole nasty business continues.

However, on further reading that target figure of 360,000 Prosecution Statements is not an absolute figure. It is a variable figure determined by mathematical formula and is dependent on, as the following extract from page 138 shows:

“Prosecution Statements

Minimum Number of Prosecution Statements

From the Commencement of Services Date to the end of the first Financial Year the
Contractor shall obtain as a minimum the number of Prosecution Statements (“the
Minimum Number of Prosecution Statements”) that were obtained in the corresponding
period in the Financial Year ending 31 March 2001.

For each of the second and subsequent Financial Years, the Minimum Number of
Prosecution Statements shall be calculated using the following formula;
MNPS (n) = MNPS (n-1) x ER (n-1)
ER (n-2)
Where;
MNPS(n) is the Minimum Number of Prosecution Statements for a given year,
MNPS (n-1) is the Minimum Number of Prosecution Statements for the previous year,
ER (n-1) is the Evasion Rate for the previous Financial Year .
ER (n-2) is the Evasion Rate for the Financial Year two years previous.”

That is just how nasty, loathsome, deliberate and calculating the “business” of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract has actually become. The BBC seem to have created what amounts to a formula for harassment in order to generate tv licence revenue. Make absolutely no mistake it is without doubt a “business”. There is money to be made from these business “activities”. The BBC are the architects of it. The BBC approved it. The BBC Head of Revenue Management agreed it and signed it on behalf of the BBC and the BBC Trust. As if that were not enough on page 139 is this gem:

“In the event that the Minimum Number of Prosecution Statements is less than the
Target Number of Prosecution Statements, the Contractor shall endeavour to obtain the
Target Number of Prosecution Statements”

If that seems not to be open incitement for employees of Capita Business Services to create Prosecution statements for the sake of creating them what is?

After giving the matter even a little bit of thought, it dawns on people that the BBC’s whole television licensing regime under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract is little more than a numbers racket. Seemingly a very “nice” numbers racket too by all accounts. Devised by the BBC to maximise their television licence revenue. But does it?

What is of particular interest to us at, TV Licensing Watch, is that prosecuting people for the heinous and dangerous “crime” of watching and recording live broadcast television seems to be considered by the BBC a legitimate way of “making the BBC television licence acceptable”. A very strange and very interesting way of drumming up extra business and additional revenue for the BBC, to say the least. It has to be wondered in what sort of moral and ethical vacuum the BBC, DCMS and Parliament seem to exist. However, as to “making the BBC television licence acceptable”? Does the BBC, DCMS and Parliament, seriously believe that what is outlined above is “making the BBC tv licence acceptable”?

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.

Innovative or Intrusive?

Included is page 77 of the 2002 “Service Provision Agreement for the Management of the Enforcement, Collection and Administration of the Licence Fee” agreed between the British Broadcasting Corporation and Capita Business Services Ltd. We at TV Licensing Watch have described this implementation of this document as one of the most odious examples of database based enforcement in existence. Looking at the data mining exercises proposed in the extract below and giving them even a moments’ thought people will quite rightly wonder at exactly what is going on and why it is going on.

Why, for example, is it necessary to mine data completely unconnected with a private media business called the BBC to fund the BBC? All the data gathered above has been gathered for purposes other than funding the BBC. It should therefore only be used for the actual non-funding of the BBC purposes for which it was originally gathered. As the, “Service Provision Agreement”, points out, “This information is uniquely available to Capita.”. It should be open to question as to whether Capita Business Services should even be thinking of using the “information uniquely available to Capita” for implementation in connection with the” enforcement, collection and administration of the licence fee” never mind actually using it to do so. Also bear in mind that Capita Business Services also maintain databases and sources of information “uniquely available to Capita”. Legitimate questions arise about how is that being exploited?

It is a seemingly insignificant piece of evidence of a culture of database function creep that has become a feature of what has become known as the “Surveillance Society” or “Surveillance Britain”. As for the exploitation of “commercial data sources such as those provided by Experian”. Bearing in mind that Parliament has determined that the BBC tv licence cannot be subject to consumer credit agreement. The use and exploitation of “commercial data sources” is unspeakable. The main thing to be borne in mind about all this data mining is that it is to “enforce” the funding of the BBC, a media business through tv licence revenue. “enforce” means to force on people something they do not want. What has happened to freedom of choice in the UK, a nation that claims to have "the Mother of Parliaments", a so-called democracy?

If people do not want to fund the BBC then they should be allowed not to. If people want to fund the BBC they should be allowed to. The imposition of the current tv licence regime and the abuses of contractors under the cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract are unacceptable and should have no place in a society that purports to be free and democratic.
Under the sub-heading, “Data”, the more observant will have noticed references to “evaders” and “potential evaders” and their “identification”. Not everyone who is unlicensed is an “evader” or even a “potential evader”.

Amongst the unlicensed is a significant proportion of the adult population of the United Kingdom who are law-abiding and have no wish or desire to fund the BBC. Or indeed, to watch and record live broadcast television. Who want to be left alone behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes to be able get on with their lives unmolested. Who also see no reason to go grovelling to the BBC and Capita Business Services to spell out what they do in the privacy of their own homes and self-report (which they are not obliged to do by the way). They also see no reason why they should have to explain anything to door hammering tv licence sales persons employed by Capita Business Services who, it seems, will try to trick and bully them into signing so-called “Prosecution Statements” (record of interview forms that provide sufficient evidence against the interviewee such as to give a realistic prospect of successful prosecution of that person) by deceits such as “it’s only to update their records” so that they can achieve the” Target Number of Prosecution Statements”. People only learn their error when they receive the summons and see the prosecution statement they unwisely signed. The more we at TV Licensing Watch seem to learn about the BBC tv licence the more unacceptable it seems to become.

Just how much does a permit from the BBC for people to watch and record live broadcast television actually cost? TV Licensing Watch cannot be alone to have formed the notion that, in terms of individual civil liberties and data privacy, too much by far.

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.

Personal service

We at TV Licensing Watch were somewhat puzzled by the tweets in the image above. They were posted by Mr James McCulloch on his Twitter account. As indicated by the image of his Twitter account below, Mr McCulloch seems to have some connection with TV Licensing™. For those who can't read the image above Mr McCulloch tweeted:

"STUDENTS!!!! Keep getting letters from tv licensing??? Get in touch and I'll sort it for good price. No risk of a £1000 fine. Personal MSG."

In response to TV Licensing blogspot tweet:

". . . I work for them an your spilling out bullshit solutions.#zzzzz"

Of particular interest is which parts of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract and his contract of employment authorise the personal service to students seemingly offered by Mr McCulloch?

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.

Ethically questionable

In our ever growing video archive at TV Licensing Watch, one of the most frequent deceitful refrains heard from employees of Capita Business Services who visit unlicensed addresses door to door under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract is: “if you have a tv you need a tv licence”.

“if you have a tv you need a tv licence” is a lie. The so-called “television licence” is in fact a “television broadcast receiving licence”. Possession of a “television broadcast receiving licence” permits the watching and or recording of live broadcast television programmes that are scheduled and available in the UK. In legislation, Parliament has made the distinction between television (audio-visual equipment) ownership and using television to watch and or record live broadcast television programmes that are scheduled and available in the UK.

Seemingly, under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract employees of Capita Business Services do not make the distinction that Parliament has made in the relevant legislation. Under the BBC TV Licensing™ contract, Capita Business Services have the injunction to “maximise BBC tv licence revenue”. Which is what they seem to do without scruple. Of course, by doing so, employees of Capita Business Services visiting unlicensed addresses door to door maximise the “uncapped commission” payments they receive for the sale of each BBC tv licence. Consequently, exchanges such as the following take place on a daily basis. The Capita Business Services employee pictured here is responsible for this classic piece of TV Licensing™ door to door deception.

TVL™ Salesperson : “If you haven’t got a tv you don’t need a tv licence”
Householder: “Even if I had a tv I wouldn’t have to purchase a licence”
TVL™ Salesperson: “You do though”

The householder is correct. The BBC themselves have confirmed repeatedly that mere ownership of a television (audio-visual equipment) does not require a television licence. So what is going on? In a word, “mis-selling” seemingly. With their “uncapped commission” payments, employees of Capita Business Services seem to have been given every financial incentive to mis-sell BBC tv licences regardless of the actual need of a householder to actually possess a BBC tv licence.

Mis-selling is defined as:

“The ethically questionable practice of a salesperson misrepresenting or misleading a potential customer about the characteristics of a product or service. In an effort to make a sale to a potential customer, a salesperson could leave out certain information or describe a product as something the potential customer urgently needs, even though sound judgment would indicate an opposite conclusion.”

We at TV Licensing Watch are of the view that selling BBC tv licences to households that have no legislative requirement to possess a tv licence seems as clear a case of mis-selling as any of the numerous mis-selling scandals that have come to prominence in the news media in recent years. Of course, as far as we can make out, as far as the BBC is concerned, mis-selling is something that others do and never happens on behalf of the BBC. Take for example this headline from the BBC News website on 11 September: “UK-based banks accused of massive mis-selling in Italy”. However, the point to note is that if BBC tv licences are being sold door to door on the stated and misleading basis that "if you have a tv you need a tv licence" then it seems to us at TV Licensing Watch that this is not only mis-selling but misrepresentation as well.

The apparent mis-selling of BBC tv licences on behalf of the BBC to households that have no legislative requirement to possess a BBC tv licence seems to be yet another consequence of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract and the way it is being “operated”. Ethically questionable? You decide.

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.