A guy without a television has successfully sued TV Licensing for costs incurred dealing with its threatening demands for payment. In a wonderful twist he even threatened to send in the bailiffs. Read all about it at the TV Licensing Blog.
Man sues TV Licensing and wins
Bookmark the permalink.
Delicious!
Sadly, it won’t make a scrap of difference until this happens on a regular basis.
I wonder how many warrants have to be issued before a company is prosecuted for persistent offending. Or is persistent offending in this area not a crime?
Precedent.
It’s why any such thing is default rejected, and if persisted fought with every, vast. licence fee-payer resource they have.
It will take time, but once there is a flow, it can only gather strength and become irresistible.
‘despite it eking out time and trying to sicken him into submission’
This sounds familiar with other aspects of BBC ‘service’.
Only this time, they are not the only one with templates to deploy.
This will be placed in a file. And read by everyone interested in ensuring the BBC does not and cannot stray.
I wonder if the establishment was/is well aware of this coming through, which may explain all the muttering about the licence fee methodology, if not what it stands for.
I remain concerned at senior legislators seeing loading it onto ISP costs or council tax as any kind of solution to not being state-forced to pay a poll tax for a service not used and/or valued, simply to keep Mark Byford in golden pension guarantees, Hugs in legal back-up and the entire editorial staff in compo buy-offs for their personal political vendettas.
May I?
“This will be placed in a file. And read by everyone interested in ensuring the BBC does not and cannot stray”
…or: stay
It was hardly fought with every licence fee funded resource they had, given the court entered a judgment against TV Licensing only because it failed to respond to the claim.
Which epitomises the arrogance of TV Licensing in my opinion.
Ah, in this instance I stand corrected to aspects of what was surmised in this case.
Rather than a proactive 28gate defence, they opted to bunker down and play dumb, mute or both, but one still suspects with considerable executive discussion and legal advice before doing so, yet the lone member of the public persisted and the court penalized the corporate monolith monopoly.
That puts them in so much better a moral, ethical and professional position? I’d still say not.
But thank you for the clarification on detail in this particular case.
“The course of action we pursue is necessary for the prevention of crime, which is itself necessary in a democratic society for public safety and protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
For public safety??? So we pay the Dhimmi tax to prevent crime and protect rights and freedoms………..you couldn’t make it up.
TheHighlandRebel
Not watching British Brainwashing Corporation is a Thought Crime.
How can else can they get they get us to accept our coming Dhimmi status, or not to pay for the AGW scam
The contract is with Civitas (not the BBC who awards the contract). Still if the BBC admits liability in this instance (and all the others) then it will eventually lead to MP’s to support the non-viewing public – the unfairness of demanding ‘money with menaces’ for a non-service that anywhere else in the (PBS media) world can obtain for free if they chose. It is the basis for a legal argument but I suspect any cracks will be immediately filled by a legion of BBC contracted Lawyers to keep the Liberal left flagship from sinking.
Capita.
Shaming.
I wonder if the BBC’s Winking Wicked Watchdog Witch will now run this story? The story about a huge corporation, bullying and abusing its powers is right up Watchdog’s street. They could of course go on to advise viewers (watching again on the iPlayer, obviously) of their rights!
But they won’t. It’s the hypocrisy that defines them and their fellow lefties.
Nah, they’re not interested. Already tried getting people to write to Watchdog. Letter downloaded hundreds of times, but still nothing on the programme!
fantastic story and 3 cheers to phil for taking on this bbc regime of bullys and thug enforcers who makes the lifes of decent people a misery whether they have a tv or not,its time to get with the 21st century bbc and go commercial and let the adverts fund you instead of you imposing this illegal poll tax with threats upon us of non payment.
‘despite it eking out time and trying to sicken him into submission’
A perfect description of chief empire apologist nicky cambell’s morning show on ‘5 barely alive’.
I like this chap, not least because he is a BBCphile who nonetheless sticks to his guns, and the facts, and unlike many does not shy away from what comes out that many would rather stayed in shadows.
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/capita-payment.html?
However, I do wonder if he really meant that last para to so wonderfully highlight just what the average member of the public is up against and can expect when trying to take on one of the worst public sector corporate bullies around: the BBC.