Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

TV Licensing Targets Vulnerable Welsh Polish Family

This case is truly appalling. It shows TV Licensing exactly for what it is - an opportunist, money-grabbing shyster without an ounce of compassion.

Mr Andrzej and Mrs Tekla (these are their first names, not family names) live on the outskirts of Newport, South Wales with their two children. Mr Andrzej is a hardworking electrician, who brings home a modest £400 a week to care for his family. Mrs Tekla, who speaks virtually no English, stays at home to look after the couple's grown up son Mateusz, 23, who is bed bound with cerebral palsy.

Towards the end of April 2017 TV Licensing paid a visit to the unlicensed property. Mrs Tekla answered a knock at the door to find a TV Licensing goon stood on the doorstep.

The family TV set: Used as a CCTV monitor.

It should have been very apparent to the goon that Mrs Tekla spoke very little English, but he continued to fire questions at her anyway. He managed to establish that the family had a TV set, which it does, but failed to record the fact that it is only used as a CCTV monitor to keep an eye on Mateusz upstairs. With his clearly bigoted view that TV + no licence = evader, the goon completed the TVL178 Record of Interview in a manner that incriminated Mrs Tekla.

She received a Single Justice Procedure Notice in the post, but given the circumstances returned a not guilty plea. The trial is now set for 25th October 2017 at Gwent & South Wales Magistrates' Court in Newport. It must be stressed that Mrs Tekla has needed considerable help to deal with the court paperwork, given her poor knowledge of English.

TV Licensing can't pretend there is any public interest in pursuing this prosecution: Mrs Tekla, who maintains her innocence, speaks barely any English; she didn't understand the goon's questions; she cares for her vulnerable, disabled son.

We have given enough information for TV Licensing to identify the case in question and would urge it to do the right thing and withdraw these charges now.

If you've found this article useful please support us by using our link the next time you shop at Amazon. You can also support us by liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Monday, 16 October 2017

TV Licensing Picks the Wrong Harassment Target



Not for the first time, TV Licensing has made a monumental error of judgement.

About a week ago, in the Essex town of Grays, a pair of TV Licensing vultures were riding the thermals on the hunt for an unemployed, prosthetic leg wearing, single mother to gorge upon. Sadly for them the next door they came across was actually that of TV Licensing nemesis Michael Shakespeare.

Michael Shakespeare, for those who don't already know, has a very interesting back history with TV Licensing. He does not legally require a TV licence and he does not suffer the fools at TV Licensing gladly. It would be entirely fair to say that Michael made an enemy of TV Licensing, which sank into the gutter in an effort to "get its man". You can read the full story, warts and all, in our earlier article.


The latest TV Licensing visitors to Michael's home identified themselves as Kyle and Graham. Video footage shows that Kyle, the more verbose of the pair, has a pre-existing injury to the bridge of his nose. Kyle stated that the purpose of the visit was to confirm a No Licence Needed declaration on the property, which is bizarre because no such declaration had been made.

Kyle also claimed that he didn't know anything about Michael's history with TV Licensing and that he didn't know Ian Doyle. He didn't seem to know that much really, which is strange given his apparent status as an Area Manager.

Graham just stood there passively observing the conversation between Kyle and Michael.

Michael calmly explained that TV Licensing had previously been inside the property to confirm that no licence was needed. Kyle said that the previous, non-existent claim had expired because it was made more than two years ago.

The whole interaction, with both sides tentatively stepping around each other, was bizarre in the extreme.

We'll be keeping a very close eye on how this one develops. The second TV Licensing tries any of its underhand funny business, we'll be the first to broadcast the fact.

If you've found this article useful please support us by using our link the next time you shop at Amazon. You can also support us by liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Saturday, 14 October 2017

TV Licensing Catches Young People: Desperate Churnalism


Anyone with a keen interest in TV Licensing may have noticed a recent deluge of local newspaper articles about the number of young people caught evading the TV licence fee in their particular local area.

There are examples here, here and here.

TV Licensing's imaginative PR harlots (read about their handiwork here) have provided these statistics to the publications concerned. There is no way of verifying them and in all likelihood, in common with a lot of TV Licensing claims, they probably aren't very accurate.

TV Licensing knows fine well that the publications concerned will never question its word, because as the BBC's revenue generation arm anything it says must be treated as sacrosanct. Of course, back in the real world, lies tumble naturally from TV Licensing's forked tongue.

Anyhow, the reason we're writing this article is to bring to readers' minds a very important distinction: even if TV Licensing's claims of X hundred young people being caught evading the TV licence fee are true, doubtful as that may be, that does not equate to X hundred number of young people being convicted of TV licence evasion.


TV Licensing has a very questionable method of compiling evasion statistics. Instead of counting the number of people actually convicted of TV licence evasion, it actually counts the number of people that give a prosecution interview under caution (otherwise known as a "Code 8" in TV Licensing jargon). A significant proportion of Code 8 cases never make it as far as court and actually less than half of them result in a conviction.

Of course TV Licensing would never paint that complete picture, because doing so would seriously undermine its key message - get a TV licence or else. It plays into TV Licensing's hands for people to misunderstand the difference between being "caught" and being "convicted", so it never volunteers clarification or explanation its statistics.

If you've found this article useful please support us by using our link the next time you shop at Amazon. You can also support us by liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.