- absence of a valid BBC TV licence on record for an address
- possessing TV receiving equipment at an address
- existence of an appropriate person to interview at an address
- existence of a prosecution statement volunteered by an appropriate person interviewed at an address
Saturday, 4 March 2017
The title of our blog post is “A Mockery”. It is the first in a series of that title. It is a progress report. A summing up of 53 years opposition to the BBC TV licence fee and its enforcement. TV Licensing Watch will try to bring together many strands to make a strong thread to set out the BBC sanctioned structured mockery of civil liberties, investigatory powers and judicial process that the BBC TV licence fee and its enforcement has become. Once again, TV Licensing Watch, expresses its everlasting “gratitude” to Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s , Ian Doyle for some of the source material in this blog post.
Since its introduction in 1946, the BBC TV licence fee has from the very start had elements of absurdity. In the course of 70 plus years the absurdity has grown and grown and grown to such an extent that now absurdity is so magnified that BBC TV licence fee has become a structured mockery in which the BBC itself has become a complete and utter mockery.
Watchkeeper of Watchkeeper’s Log sagely noted: "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."
Which became this: “BBC TV licence evasion, a "crime" so absurd prosecutor and court can't prove it took place so they take a defendant's word for it” one of our best liked Tweets on our Twitter feed. During the covert Daily Mail video of the TV Licensing Field Sales Officer job interview, Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s, Ian Doyle, unwittingly confirmed it.
So from where does the absurdity, the mockery derive?
TV Licensing Watch will start with the absurdity of the alleged “crime” created by the introduction of the BBC TV licence fee in 1946. It is a “crime” without proof. It is a “crime” reliant upon following components:
The absence of a valid BBC TV licence on record for an address is not unlawful. Not having a BBC TV licence is not unlawful.
Possessing audio-visual/TV receiving equipment at an address without a valid BBC TV licence is not unlawful. This was thoroughly tested in “Rudd v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry” in which the word “use” as in “use of TV receiving equipment” was thoroughly tested in respect of the existence of unlicensed audio-visual/TV receiving equipment at an address. “use” of audio-visual/TV receiving equipment with “capability” to receive for non-licensable purposes in absence of a valid BBC TV licence recorded for an address is not unlawful. “Rudd v Secretary of State” makes clear that testing unlicensed audio-visual/TV receiving equipment with “capability” to receive in absence of a valid BBC TV licence recorded for an address and receiving live signal is not proof that the aforementioned unlicensed audio-visual/TV receiving equipment has been “used” and is in “use” to habitually receive live signal; therefore actual “use” has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If Ian Doyle’s involuntary “you’ve got a TV, so, you’ve got the capability” bragging is to be believed, such considerations do not seem be of any concern to Capita BBC TV Licensing™.
Eyeball prints on TV screens? The absurdity here is that because of “Rudd v Secretary of State the legislation underpinning the BBC TV licence has actually created a “crime” for which proof can never exist; it seems to be a “crime” established without "beyond reasonable doubt", a “crime” of suspicion alone. It is therefore a matter of confession alone. Absurd, it is a mockery.
Which is where, as Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s, Ian Doyle, confirmed, the existence of an appropriate person to trick, exploit and interview at an unlicensed address comes in handy. For without the existence of an appropriate person to interview at an unlicensed address there is no confession. So, it was very interesting to hear Capita BBC TV Licensing™’s, Ian Doyle brag about exploiting the “first 40 seconds” of conversation to garner an involuntary confession to write as down as “proof” on TVL178 Record of Interview form before formal PACE caution is actually administered. A TVL178 Record of Interview form upon which to create or fabricate a prosecution statement to present to court for a summons to be issued and presented as proof of habitual “use” which would otherwise be nonexistent. Absurd, it is a mockery.
However, the existence of a prosecution statement volunteered by an exploited appropriate person interviewed at an unlicensed address is not actual proof that unlicensed audio-visual/TV receiving equipment has been and is in “use” for licensable purposes. The existence of a prosecution statement merely proves that an appropriate person at an unlicensed addressed cooperated in the completion of a TVL178 Record of Interview form. However, because of “Rudd v Secretary of State” it still does not prove habitual “use” of unlicensed audio-visual/TV receiving equipment for licensable purposes at an address for which no valid BBC TV licence is on record. On these bases people are being prosecuted. Absurd, it is a mockery.
Are you still with TV Licensing Watch? It has got very circular has not it? Absurdly circular? A circle of mockery? TV Licensing Watch certainly believes so and so do a great many people, both within the anti-licence fee movement and without. TV Licensing Watch has often speculated that if Joseph Heller had been aware of it he would have included it in “Catch #22”.
What has been described and been confirmed by Capita BBC TV Licensing™s, Ian Doyle, is the ruthless exploitation of UK courts and judicial system for systemised and optimised processes of structured speculative prosecutions carried out for and on behalf of the BBC with serial Government and BBC connivance and collusion coupled with Capita BBC TV Licensing™'s insatiable profit motive. Serial Government and BBC connivance and collusion tarted up, covered up with infrequent phoney consultation exercises such as “Future of the BBC” inquiry, BBC Charter Renewal and Perry’s “Review into TV licence Enforcement” to bolster a constantly diminishing popular consensus in support of BBC TV licence fee.
“We’re greedy! We’ll drive you hard!” Ian Doyle, Capita BBC TV Licensing™ at the start of describing Capita’s financially incentivised BBC sanctioned BBC TV licence fee pyramid selling scam which underpins BBC TV licence fee enforcement.
When the absurdity is compounded, as it is now, with the profit motivated “commercial approach” with “financial incentives”, as it has been since 2002, with the awarding of a contract for the administration and enforcement of BBC TV licence fee to Capita Business Services, the BBC TV licence fee and its enforcement has indeed become absurd, a mockery. The consequence is that since the 1946 introduction of the BBC TV licence fee it is safe to deduce that millions of lives have been ruined and will continue to be ruined for as long as BBC TV licence fee exists. For every life ruined there is an equal number of anti-TV licence fee activists created.
Detection? TV Licensing Watch, made no mention of TV detection, TV detection capability and Capita BBC TV Licensing™ detector vans. No need to. Absurd, it is a mockery.
Image credit:Daily Mail
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 BBC 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 BBC 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.