The familiar envelope lay upon the door mat face up, having just been delivered by the postman, TV Licencing logo, catching my eye. I thought, 'here we go again'. (See TV Licencing case, archive, November 11). The letter is addressed to "The Legal Occupier". Its a title of sorts I suppose, but I prefer to use my own name. The letter is headed threateningly "OFFICIAL WARNING - THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENCED". I am sorry, but I do not take kindly to an organisation that assumes it has the power to issue me with an official warning. Especially, as I have done nothing wrong to receive such an official warning. I am not a naughty schoolboy in front of a headmaster at school. I am past all of that. The letter states, "You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division to visit your home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is still no TV Licence at this address and as yet we have received no response to previous communications from you". They can send the whole division for all I care. I will send them packing without even letting them inside the house, let alone interview and caution me. I have made my position clear, "there is still no TV Licence at this address" because I don't want one nor need one, if they don't like it tough shit. It is a false statement to claim "we have received no response to previous communications from you". If my going to court upon receiving a summons and defeating the prosecution is not classed as communication ie sending a strong message, then I don't know what is!
"Your statement will be taken in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and is the first step in our action to prosecute if we find evidence that you watch or record television without a valid licence". My statement will not be taken, because I will not be making one. The last time it was not in compliance with PACE, because there was no evidence to find. I could not believe that I was prosecuted in the absence of evidence. Even more absurd was the magistrates finding that I was technically guilty. On appeal to the Crown Court, my appeal against conviction was allowed. It might be a good idea if some of the TV Licence fee went on improving the communication breakdown within Crapita!
I deem these letters to not only be junk mail, but also to be offensively threatening in nature. If Crapita continues to send these letters, I just might begin my own legal proceedings against the company.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
3 comments:
Don't TV licences sound archaic in this day and age? There should be another system introduced, or they should be abolished.
Ellee: They definately are archaic, from a time when the BBc was the sole provider of broadcasting in this country. When you can buy a TV for the same price as a TV Licence, it would appear to be past its sell by date. I think it should be abolished.
I agree. Thanks for your recent comments on my site, btw.
Post a Comment