A Grieving widow has been hit with a £180 fine after her dead husband was summoned to court.
Maureen Davies was stunned to be told her husband had been hit with the fine for failing to appear in court – despite the fact he died five months ago….
Following a six-week stay in hospital, the 47-year-old returned home to find that Swansea magistrates had fined husband Leonard, even though he had passed away in May.
Mrs Davies had been married to husband Leonard for almost 28 years, but he became ill after a freak fall.
The accident left him with brain damage, and although he had spent the past two years recovering, the 50-year-old died in May this year following complications caused after he fell out of bed.
Shortly before his death, the family home had been visited by television licensing staff who had quizzed Mr Davies about the licence. Because of his condition he was unable to give them the details they wanted.
But Mrs Davies called them back the following day to claim that their TV licence was in her name, which she paid weekly to make sure it was up-to-date.
Just a couple of days after the death of husband, she received another letter in his name demanding payment and threatening prosecution.
“I called them and said I had already told them once that I pay for the licence, and that my husband had just passed away,” said Mrs Davies.
However, in June another letter arrived demanding payment,
The strain of the loss of her husband led her to have a nervous breakdown, and she was taken into hospital for care.
The bit that takes the biscuit though is this, near the end:
A television licensing spokesman apologised about the incident, but said that Mrs Davies still was unlicensed and urged her to make payments urgently.
Whatever the status of Mrs. Davies’ tellytax account, what business do the BBC’s goons have discussing it with a newspaper? Haven’t they heard of the Data Protection Act, or is anythimg that threatens individuals and intimidates everyone okay with the BBC?
Awful. The full force of the BBC law being applied to a depressed widow. Still, it’ll keep those Beeboid hearts warm on their picket lines…
Visit Letters from BBC Television Licensing to see a wide range of the BBC’s intimidatory letters. See also Jonathan Miller’s campaign against the tellytax. The website could do with an update, but their BBC Resistance Forum is usually quite lively.
Just for good measure, here’s a video, originally from Jonathan Miller’s site, of a BBC tellytax enforcement goon assaulting a disabled man, Ron Sinclair, on September 1st, 2004. Ron’s crime? He filmed the goon after he went next door to ‘interview’ Ron’s neighbour.
David Clark, a BBC goon, assaults Ron Sinclair on his own doorstep.
See here for more details. Curiously, neither of these tales have been reported on BBC Views Online.
P.S. Have you seen those irritating ‘talking sofa’ adverts that the BBC broadcast along with all the other BBC adverts? The irony of an empty sofa in front of an unwatched television threatening people with fines for non-payment sums up the BBC nicely: pay us whether you watch the BBC or not.
P.P.S. At night the BBC often repeats programmes from peak time with signing for the deaf, and, yep, you guessed it: they have a ‘talking sofa’ ad with sign-language just to make sure the deaf are fully intimidated too.
Thank you to Biased BBC reader dai bando for the newspaper link.
Someone should ask the tax collectors IF they have been instructed to avoid collecting/demanding money in immigrant areas/muslim areas? and IF so why? I still have contacts at the BBC and what they are telling me is truly shocking! Its Racism in reverse to only target the native population with their bullyboy goons while the immigrant population get off scot free.
PS Dear moderator,
You will have your own contacts at the Beeb that can verify the above?
“A television licensing spokesman apologised about the incident, but said that Mrs Davies still was unlicensed and urged her to make payments urgently”
Damn. That’s cold. I could say that the BBC just has its head in the clouds…but its obvious from this quote where its priorities really lie.
In every respect it’s a protection racket. You pay the bullies their regular fee whether you choose to use their services or not. Otherwise you’ll be in trouble, and vengeance will be extracted.
The only difference with the usual protection racket is that this particular company has been smart enough to get the state onside. But then that sort of protection racket was the norm in Eastern Europe.
Why am I not surprised by the thuggish attitudes of the BBC tax enforcement agents.
A few years ago when we moved into our home one of the first things we did was purchase a TV licence from the Post office. Move on a few months and a knock on the door. I answered and there was this man who with the authority invested in him by the BBC demanded to see our TV licence as his records stipulated we didn’t have one.
I said no problem. Closed the door and went upstairs to find it. On my return I found the man in the hallway having let himself in. Grabbing him by the neck I threw him outside and told him if he ever entered my house again uninvited I would break his bloody legs. I thrust the TV licence in his face. To which he replied “You have the wrong TV licence” my retort was sort it out with the Post Office as that was where we purchased it. Not for a moment did he question my physical action against him, but rather he questioned the TV licence. He knew he had done wrong yet he still tried to salvage the situation by quoting a technicality. Unfortunately for him I was having none of it and refused to be cowed by him. These people are nothing more than goons who are used to bullying people on a day to day basis. And we refer to the BBC as ‘Aunty’ more like the God Father.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to close-caption the programs than put up sign-language interpreters?
Not that the BBC care about cost, as long as they get their poll tax revenue.
Is it true that you need a TV licence even if you have a PC, and no television?
If so, what if you don’t have a PC but own a palmtop Blackberry?
The BBC are conning us surely, if this is the case?
“Is it true that you need a TV licence even if you have a PC, and no television?”
No.
I’ve seen that video before, but nothing surprises me. One set of license inspectors lied to me to gain access to a relative’s flat. In fact they told me my relative had given them permission to have access to the property. I continued to refuse them access and would not give them my name. Of course they had to give in. They really become dejected when they have read your rights to you, but don’t get anywhere at all 🙂
I might know why Bernard was asking that. When I got a tv licence letter it said you need to pay the licence fee if you had a broadband connection. I’m not sure I kept the letter, but I remember getting really angry. Of course we had already been paying the licence fee…
Seems that most of us have a tale to tell about the Telly Tax Police.
Our household has a TV license in my surname, however, my partner (different surname) made the fatal error of buying a freeview box, to be used as a gift. Of course when you buy such things nowadays the retailer is obliged to document chapter and verse all sorts of personal information – being an honest sort my partner was 100% truthful. The consequences of her truthfulness is that we have so far recieved three letters threatening legal action if she fails to purchase a TV license. But I suspect that any such legal action will be preceded by a home visit, to which I am looking forward to very much.
I hope Andrew will excuse my taking the liberty of re-posting this from the open thread. Seems more relevant here:-
We at the BBC Pioneers website would like to expand.
In order to keep up with modern media trends, we need a Director of Culture, a Director of Vision, a Director of Diversity and maybe even some production staff as well.
Obviously these sort of people don’t come cheap and we need a new business model to fund this exciting new expansion.
In line with current thinking, we intend to outsource the execution of the plan but unfortunately Capita Plc really have too much on their plate to help out right now.
We have therefore, in a spirit of Pan-European collaboration, widened our search throughout our EU neighbours and received a promising proposition from the Crapitano Bros of Corleone in sunny Sicily.
Their proposal is closely modelled on that of our major UK competitor, but has the advantage of minimising the bureaucracy and paperwork associated with their system.
Basically, the Crapitano proposal consists of recruiting a team of operatives who will creep up to your house at night and peer through your curtains.
I has proved remarkably easy to recruit these enthusiastic and highly motivated individuals who are more than happy to carry out their duties in return for a modest share of the proceeds because of the intense personal satisfaction they derive from their work. The only equipment they require apparently is an official ID card, a digital camera and a box of tissues each.
If Crapitanos’ operatives find you using your PC, they will ask you for ten pounds in cash. If you refuse, they will chuck a brick through your window and return one week later for another collection attempt. A carefully structured incentive plan will then be implemented including keying your car, abusing your family and setting fire to the premises with the sum to collected to be doubled on the occasion of each visit.
It is important to note that the ten pounds is payable, whether or not you have ever viewed our website. This ensures that our plan to become the dominant force in UK multimedia entertainment can proceed without undue delay and we can offer you the wide range of information and entertainment we consider suitable for you.
Eventually we plan be become a world force in multimedia, TV, radio, publishing, education, real estate and possibly also (in collaboration with Crapitano) lap dancing clubs, betting shops and massage parlours.
We will be starting our collection programme in London NW12 and gradually expanding throughout the UK as resources ande recruitment allow. We won’t need expensive TV and press advertising since we feel that news of our unique incentive programme will quickly spread by word of mouth.
Our image building consultants have however come up with a logo and slogan which encapsulate our business mission:-
WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE – THIS IS WHAT WE DO
See the pix on our homepage
I do not own a TV and do not have a licence. As such I am subject to regular attention from the BBC goon squad all of whom seem to think they are James Bond.
As I am 6’2″ and 12o kilos and a solicitor so they get little change from me but they keep on coming.
Current BBC goon squad opinion is that if you watch LIVE tv over a broadband conection you need a TV licence but not if you do not watch LIVE tv.
But please note this is only the BBC goon squads opinion it has not been tested in court and they are reportedly not keen to do so.
You will notice the ITV website flashes up that it is delayed compared to the live broadcast. This may be for technical reasons but also may be to avoid problems for its viewer from the legalised mafioso.
Did you know that there is no such thing as TV detector van?
The BBC disseminate this myth readily and freely because of course they want you to believe it’s true.
They create prop vans claiming to be able to pin-point a TV regardless of all the electromagnetic junk houses pump out.
None of it’s true. Even those that work at the BBC believe them to exist.
They make press releases of the latest bit of sci-fi technology the detector vans supposedly use.
Exaggerated bilge.
There has never been a case in court where the findings of a TV detector van has been submitted as evidence.
It’s all just one gigantic mythical electronic bogey man to scare the masses into coughing up.
Reg Hammer | 21.10.07 – 3:03 pm
there is no such thing as TV detector van?
Nonsense.
There has never been a case in court where the findings of a TV detector van has been submitted as evidence.
True. There’s never been a case where it has been necessary. However, detector van evidence has been used many times to obtain a warrant to enter premises. Once the warrant is executed and the TV set found – then its proven existence, rather than the detector van evidence, is what is produced in court.
claiming to be able to pin-point a TV regardless of all the electromagnetic junk houses pump out.
Each bit of junk is like a signature.
For instance a TV’s local oscillator will leak transmissions at Mh37.5above the frequency of the channel being watched.
[i]”However, detector van evidence has been used many times to obtain a warrant to enter premises.”[/i]
Please supply specific examples of this, John Reith, including the names of the representatives of the court issuing the warrants. Thanks.
.
Why would Reith do that?
John, I have a TV in my holiday home. It has not been used for over two years, mainly because I visit the property mainly in summer and have no need for a TV as Sky Sports obviously shows no live premier league football during the close season. The TV is clearly visible throught the window from the pavement. The BBC’s revenue henchmen have not seen this TV working while it has been unlicensed, they haven’t picked up any oscillations from it, and yet they persist in sending me rude, threatening letters. I’d be ashamed to be asssociated with an organisation that uses such intimidation to get cash, especially as most of that cash goes to making unnecessary low-brow junk. John, you should be ashamed too.
John, as you seem to know so much about the people who run the detector vans, perhaps you could tell them that if they can see a TV and it is never working, and they don’t pick up any signals from all their sinister snooping equipment, then there is no need to send a stream of rude letters. Like the police, unless they have evidence of a crime they should assume that no crime has been committed – I don’t get letters from the local police station warning me of the penalties for various crimes and how naughty it is to commit them. Is too much to ask that the BBC and its despicable revenue dept behave in a similar manner? I suspect it is, given the arrogance of the corporation’s employees and their greed for cash.
John Reith:
You really live in la-la land don’t you John? I can only assume your response is born out of ignorance, lies or a slavvering obedience to your BBC paymasters.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a TV detector van. Let me just re-iterate that point. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TV DETECTOR VAN!
There are however 2 dozen dummy Volkswagen Panel Vans vans driving around the various towns and cities of the UK parking up in supermarket car parks for show. All with a big, silly “TV Licensing” stickers down the side to put the fear of god into the unpaying masses. However, inside the van is absolutely nowt. Not a bean of working, secret-service style detecting equipment. Because all the BBC press releases proclaiming such technology are just pure fiction. Just do a patent search and see how much you come up with regarding detectors on behalf of Buckman Hardy who claim to manufacture detector equipment for BBC TV Licensing.
http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/index.html
“However, detector van evidence has been used many times to obtain a warrant to enter premises.”
Who feeds you this disinformation John? There has never been ANY case of detector van evidence being used to obtain a warrant. The reason being is simple. It cannot be used as evidence in court, and therefore cannot be used to obtain a warrant. Why can’t it be used as evidence in court? Well first off, the BBC maintain that the entire inner workings of a TV Detector van is top secret. They won’t even allow the calibration records of such equipment to be viewed. The first thing a defence solicitor would ask in court, would be the same thing he’d ask about a traffic speed camera:
“How do we know the camera (TV Detector van) is working properly. How does it work and when was it last calibrated?”
The BBC won’t produce such records. DB Broadcast
http://www.dbbroadcast.co.uk/
who claim to calibrate BBC detecting equipment won’t release any of the calibration records to ANYONE.
But even if they did, it wouldn’t matter, because unless all the inner workings of the Detector van are laid bare to the court it cannot be used as part of the prosecution.
“Each bit of junk is like a signature.
For instance a TV’s local oscillator will leak transmissions at Mh37.5above the frequency of the channel being watched.”
Erm…let me stop you there John. Unlike yourself I actually have a solid background in electronics. And I can tell you now that there a plethora of devices that oscillate above 37.5Mhz (Which is what I assume you meant by your mis-cut and pasted abbreviation) A Powermac being one of them. How about white noise? An untuned TV set can give out all frequencies above the local oscillator range. As for your ‘Each bit of junk is like a signature’ nonsense, I can only assume you’ve been getting your facts from a BBC Science correspondent.
How many cheap oscillators working above 37.5Mhz power totally separate devices in your average household? A tonne of them. Electromagnetic waves aren’t DNA John, you’re confusing TV Licensing fairy tales with fact. Oscillators spike and creep, and give off a variety of overtones. The cheaper the oscillator the more noise and overtones it gives off. Incidentally, plasma TV screens give off very little electromagnetic noise, and would render most supposed BBC detection equipment worthless.
But you would know all this being the definitive BBC library of knowledge that you are John.
Before you declare “Rubbish” at every posting that refutes your sicophantic loyalty to the Beeb, kindly do a bit of proper research. Just because you can use Google, doesn’t make you informed.
If you want any more info on dummy TV detector vans, nonsense Doctor Who style devices dreamed up by BBC PR lackies and passed off as technology and all the low down on TV Licensing, visit these forums:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3
Who knows John, even YOU might learn a thing or two about the company you claim to work for.
It just makes my day when a BBC LIAR is found out! This particular lie is a big one because it involves the whole population AND it involves demanding money with menaces AND it invloves a state institution knowingly lying to the population(TV advertisments)about a detector that does not exist! I assume the reason for the BBC adds is to put fear into the population so they pay the TV tax?
But IF the vans do not work then that goes against the BBC charter, ie the BBC will not knowingly lie, misrepresent the facts or hide the truth!
There are many examples of BBC dishonesty that are very hard to quantify let alone prove BUT this could be easily proved in court and I hope that someone will pursue this? The BBC have left the goal open with this lie and I hope that for once they are brought to account!
Wonderful to read the John Reith phoney is really a dumb art student trying to sound smart.
And Reg Hammer is right.
I fly radio-controlled model aircraft, and they use the old waveband that the BBC vacated, before they went UHF.
And for John Reith’s fictional case-book: Last year I was flying a replica Lancaster bomber when a ‘detector van’ drove by and a gaggle of ageing BBC types leapt out, waving bits of paper and shouting “TV licence! TV licence!”
I managed to stear the Nitro-methanol laden aircraft with pin-point accuracy…killing all five of them.
Well worth the re-build cost.