It seems the BBC will go to any lengths to nick you for non-payment of the license fee….even to go so far as to ‘create’ the evidence against you:
Man wins TV licence battle
2:00pm Sunday 12th August 2012
‘Michael Shakespeare, from Grays, made sure all his equipment at home could not receive a live TV signal and watched catch up TV through the internet, which you do not need a TV licence for.
Mr Shakespeare wrote to the authority to inform it what he had done, inviting it to send someone round to check it out.
An inspector was sent round to check the equipment and Mr Shakespeare filmed it.
TV Licensing obtained a copy of Mr Shakespeare’s video, which was uploaded on to YouTube, and said it showed a frozen image on a TV screen of The One Show, proving Mr Shakespeare was receiving live TV.
But Mr Shakespeare said the image was not present in his original video.
In a landmark case at Basildon Crown Court, the judge found Mr Shakespeare had no case to answer, as TV Licensing could not prove the validity of the video. Their own inspector also said in court he had not seen the frozen image when he visited.’
Isn’t perjury a crime?
It’s more serious than that. Attempting to pervert the course of justice, more like. Usually, for those trusted to enforce the law, a conviction would usually result in a custodial sentence.
I think that this gentleman needs to bring a complaint. If he is telling the truth, the doctoring of this image should be quite easy to prove.
It is a licence, not a license (we are in the UK after all)
The BBC and TV Licensing are separate bodies (and deliberately legally set up to be so)
Bash the BBC on the occasions it deserves it, but the BBC involvement seems limited to what some did or did not do with a still from one of its shows
OMG!!!!!
Spelling mistake 😮
Has the rest of the flock been alerted?
This… is unacceptable!!!!
But hang on a brief moment… is the latest hole-digging precedent in process of being attempted…. that those who benefit financially from the actions of those they hire to act on their behalf, should be immune from questions being asked or powers being held to account?
Because of one, semantic, degree of separation?
If so, from Today to Newsnight the BBC is going to struggle a tad when it comes to any it wheels on to explain matters involving similar relations in future.
They pay then they are ultimately to blame !
The bbc & tvl are two cheeks of the same arse
Rubbish!
tv licencing is nothing but a trademark (owned by the bbc) which they choose to hide behind .
This article was from the Thurrock Gazzette
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/9867463.Man_wins_TV_licence_battle/
And no national newspaper has picked it up. Shame because the BBC hiring private investigators to fake evidence to convict an innocent member of the public is a great story. A story that should have been told at the Levinson enquiry.
And no national newspaper has picked it up. They will shortly!
think this was posted … before but relevant
the BBC hiring private investigators to fake evidence to convict an innocent member of the public is a great story.
If proven to be the case, and as mentioned above not hard surely to do, I say not just great, but one about which questions need to be asked, and answered by a over-powerful corporate monopoly that needs holding to account.
In my experiences with BBC CECUTT I certainly have experienced nothing as serious as this, but there have been ‘story evolutions’ between what I have complained about and what they have chosen to ‘investigate’.
Here they appear to have taken the power of the edit suite to a new level, in adding footage.
That… is a new, and even more worrying abuse of power, given they are, to all intents and purposes, unaccountable.
Possibly even above the law of the land, as surely this case warrants demanding access to the footage to see who did what (to validate claims), and who’s to bet that this would be rejected on some spurious FoI exemption like usual?
And folk are getting excited about claims that Assange was/is being stitched up, when it seems a public sector quango has basically attempted to frame (literally) a licence fee martyr to teach him a lesson, and had it backfire.
Nowhere near as serious, but I still await the Trust’s explanation for BBC Complaints using staff and time to attempt to connect complaints to them with critiques about them elsewhere, and issuing a banning order based on presumption of guilt with next to zero evidence or opportunity to discuss.
Is the BBC getting just a little bit out of control?
“An inspector was sent round to check the equipment and Mr Shakespeare filmed it.”
You should also point out that Mr Shakespeare did tell them he’d be filming it so he had that in case they tried anything, who’d have expected them to go this low though!
By contracting out licence fee collection and enforcement, the BBC has distanced itself from the reality of taxing millions of people and threatening them with jail if they don’t pay.
They escape the consequences too easily.
Distancing themselves…. Hmm just watched a program on the BBC… after about 20 minutes I realised that it was not about the BBC it was about the Mafia… how they put ‘buffers’ in place to distance themselves from the ‘hits’…. and ‘contract out’ to thugs and bullies to do their ‘dirty work’.
I am a long-time user of both this site and
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
I would urge B-BBC users to check out the monstrous abuses of authority and dishonest tactics carried out by Capita TV Licence “enforcement officers”* on behalf of the BBC.
Those on here who are already unhappy with the beeb’s biases may be unaware of the disgraceful methods used Capita (on the beeb’s behalf) in harassing people (such as myself) who have no legal requirement to have a TV licence, yet who receive constant accusatory and dishonets letters from TVL .
Mike Shakespeare was stitched-up by TVL simply for his opposition the the TV licence and making it publicly known.
Your Licence Fee Suppressing Any Opposition.
* Commission-based salesmen.
If anyone has doubts about the incompetence of Crapita, just visit Private eye, ad nauseam!!!!!
It’s well documented there. Ask hislop!
After I posted my blog last night, I fully expect the Hounds from Hell (Capita, aka Gestapo) to form an orderly queue at my door with a Warrant. I, also, will film them and post the footage. It will be the publicity which will eventually change politicians minds.
@ “Their own inspector also said in court he had not seen the frozen image when he visited”…..So in other words BBC goons have invented evidence over the space of five Months in the format of a frozen image, and then past it on as “conclusive proof” to the relevant authorities…
Isn’t it great what you can do, when you’ve got a bottomless pit of tax payers monies, and can never be made to answer for your immoral actions…..No doubt Stalin would be proud of the BBC and the “unique way that they’re funded” through fair means or foul.
Bloody superb!! Well done Mr Shakespeare!
How on earth will you live without ever indoctrinating Al-Beeb? ..lol
Fantastic stuff!! The more smart Mr Shakespeare’s the better!
Even if the image existed, who’s to say it wasn’t a recording of the one show obtained from someone else or off iPlayer?
Please google how to avoid paying your tv tax. look under withdrawing right of consent and then stop paying.
withdrawing right of consent just puts you at the top of the BBC’s radar
Capita used to donate large sums of money to the Labour Party. Result – they got the BBC collection contract.
Then there’s Livingstone – he was only accepted back into the Party after he’d given Crapita the contract for his new congestion charge.
They ran the scheme so badly that Ken had to top up their commission with GLA taxpayers’ money.
Capita stinks.
I can’t find the news item, but I am sure I read very recently, that the contract with Capita has been re-negociated from £120M to £70M.
Now I am unaware of any major changes, so why the big drop in the contract value? Or was it just another way of Labour funding itself by the back door. i.e. Overinflated contract to Capita and then, surprise surprise, large donations to Labour.
Or was it just another way of Labour funding itself by the back door
Fair questions to ask in holding powers to account, as are (legitimately) being asked of others… Gove on School fields, MoT on trainline decisions.
Now, will the BBC be as keen to pursue such links when the spotlight is on them as they are when it is on others, especially those they don’t like?
If not, might they end up being seen as just a wee bit partial, if not something even less savoury?
Or is this just part and parcel of the whole ‘unique’ umbrella?
Errr…….’google’ £564 MILLION… thats the contract for Crapita to ‘enforce’ the TV-Tax, but this is spread over, ( I think), 6 years…… they dont want to lose this ‘baby’ which is why they persecute people like me.
I look forward to the head of Crapita being
hauledinvited on the Today programme to explain this and told that surely his company is unfit to work on behalf of a public body and should lose its contract.Followed by a concerted campaign to remove its pension rights and knighthood and any other public contracts it may hold.
£142.52 cheaper than a licence fee, and lasts far longer than a year. (add 90p for chrome plated version)
http://www.screwfix.com/p/door-viewer-brass/14979
I am the litigant in this case. Even though I may seem that the ‘evidence’ was fabricated and indeed Crapitas ‘expert witness’ admitted under cross-examination the possibility that it could have been ‘tampered with’ I would be reluctant to bring a case, why ? Well you see, just like the Mafia I beleve that the BBC has placed ‘buffers’ in order to protect them. The difficulty is to decide WHO ‘fabricated’ this ‘evidence’, (allegedly).. the questions arise here.. was it BBC ?, Capita (buffer 1), the uploader (buffer 2), the downloader (buffer 3)… or ( as suggested by BBC PR trolls on the Digital Spy website)….. ME the ACCUSED…
You decide.. and when you are SURE, then I will bring a case.
I don’t blame you in the slightest. Although I believe there are ways to tell if a file has been altered, and presumably you hold the original? Although of course you may have given them a tampered file just to discredit them 🙄
Have you considered hiding in the Ecuador embassy?
No need to hide anywhere. I have been through the legal wringer and the case against me was thrown out. Improtant point to remember.. This way not MY ‘evidence’.. it was presented by the prosecution who based their WHOLE case on it.. I personally would have excercised more caution in bringing this case to trial. It would have been far simpler for them to have used a ‘detector van’ and prosecuted, (or not) based on that more reliable evidence.
Sorry for the typo’s…. rushing…
Just like to add…
Bloody Well Done!!
Just to add… The detector van comments were me taking the piss… if the fabled ‘Detetion equipment’ REALLY worked they would never have to send goons round to harass innocent people… Message to BBC… Your detector Van Myth has just bit you in the arse.
This way not MY ‘evidence’.. it was presented by the prosecution
More power to you.
I am sadly reminded of an exchange with my MP at the height of some exchanges regarding presumption of ‘guilt’ on the BBC’s part, complemented by judge, jury and executioner status.
I suggested that if there was no sensible complaint or Ombudsman recourse as with any normal utility customer service failing, I could only withhold payment, reasoning that they at least would need to initiate court proceedings and be on the back foot. Goliath vs. David. Flippant and vexatious claimant vs. abused defendant.
I was, and am not prepared to play silly games or involve my family in untruths, as you have likewise ethically opted to do.
However, my Parliamentary representative (a legislator to the highest office in the land, subject to approval by ballot every few years… unlike the immune and in perpetuity BBC) was aghast, telling me that if it came to legals, I’d lose.
They would have the money, the people, and the establishment behind them to the full.
No matter how unfair, even how strong a case one presents in fact, it would be one they, and others with irons in this fire, could not afford to see lost.
It would open a floodgate.
It’s something defenders of the indefensible hereabouts (and elsewhere) really don’t ‘get’.
I no more like or respect or trust the current crop in power than those who preceded them, and by (broken) words and hypocritical deeds those they oversee and deploy to serve their petty self-interests in turning a once great country into a basket case.
Here I take interest in and on the BBC as an agent of compromise to standards and institutions I hold dear, but I also am fighting elsewhere, where suitable, a bunch of other overpaid public sector box-ticking, PC, target-meeting, twofaced, lying-when-it suits, lessons learned, moving-on, put it behind us makeweights who are unfit to serve the vast majority whose taxes and fees are sucked to the point of bursting in keeping them in clover.
Often to the point of placing folk in harm’s way.
This is no game. It is serious.
And when the establishment rides roughshod over rights, and the spirit of the law is ignored as the letter gets abused, things are not looking rosy.
It seems you played a blinder, and in this case they blew a key element, and the law delivered.
I’m less sure that this will always be the outcome, especially on matters of what constitutes a fair reaction to levels of service deemed unsatisfactory.
Well done mate. I’ve told TVLA they have no right of access to our property, and they have acknowledged this. I’ve also told them that if they send a detector van, to tell whoever is staffing it, that they are nevertheless free to use our loo, and we’ll happily take them tea and biscuits.
Just to let them know the complete contempt I hold them in.
We don’t have a TV, and haven’t for some years. As a result, every couple of years, I have a round of correspondence with TVLA (Capita) regarding this.
What you DO need to know is that TVLA have NO right to enter your property (being a private company, and not formally an agent of ths state). Quote here from the letter received from them this morning …
“We,ve noted our records with your wish (appalling English, Ed.) to withdraw the common law right for TV Licensing Officer’s to approach your property…”
This can also be universally achieved with a sign outside your property reading
“No implied right of access”
Do any legal bods know whether this is relevant to Scotland?
Surely it would be possible to sue for libel based on the appalling accusation that you actually watched The One Show?
LOL… Yes I dont watch ‘The One Show’ even on ‘catchup’ let alone ‘live’. Maybe the BBC should be prosecuted in some way for BROADCASTING that rubbish in the first place.
That programme is terrible especially the presenters on it.
For example that airhead bimbo Alex Jones.
The other Alex Jones who is a legend in the alternative media is 100 times better than her even on his worst day.
According to someone claiming to be one of the solicitors working for TV Licensing
“We found the program that was broadcast on the BBC at that time, copied one frozen image out of it, and pasted it into the TV screen on Shakespeare’s video”
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,5093.msg32241.html
This “person” did have a lot of information about the case, so much that M.Shakey asked for it to be removed from public view until he got things in order (which we did)
Fom Sao Paulo’s link here is the actual video
As you can see the inspector doesn’t make any comment as the image ‘comes up’ on the screen….and at the end of the video states that he agrees no signal is being received.
The BBC have used our money to take someone to court who they know is innocent in first place!!
I suspect it is more a case of the BBC *knowing* he is guilty and being determined not to let him get away with it.
The socialist mindset is that they always know best – it will not even have occurred to them that he could be telling the truth. Who could survive without the BBC live … really!
PLENTY of us, steve. And they know it!
No-ones life would change a fig if they couldn’t receive the bBC anymore, except over time people would find themselves more rightly and clearly thinking for themselves about things, instead of stealthily being programmed by ridiculously leftist Al-Beeb.
I’d do fine with free ITV News, free Sky News, and free news from other sources. Al-Beeb isn’t in the least bit crucial.
All equipment could dead easily start being made with the option to receive the bBC or not – a properly democratic choice instead of just something akin to daylight bloody robbery!
Couple of points:
Shakey’s case is a great example of the BBC being humiliated in Court. It’s rare, but it happens, and it happens when someone like Shakey comes along who has the perseverance and legal insights to make it happen. Most people prosecuted by “TVL” are not as fortunate, and anyone interested in the BBC’s dirty secret would do well to pop along to the Court public gallery to observe the conveyor-belt justice being practised there.
There have been a couple of references to withdrawal of implied right of access. Those of us at the “coal face” do not recommend this tactic. At the moment, there are three options that we do suggest: No Contact (simple, and effective), Solicitors Appointment letter (replace WOIRA with an appointment at which “TVL” attend, and pay for your solicitor to accompany/advise you); or the Capita-only WOIRA (which is part of a broader campaign to make the BBC take responsibility for all of this mess).