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.