TV unplugged, and taken away. That was in 2001. There hasn't been one in the house since. I haven't missed it (or the person that took it...). Departed with my blessing. Turned down numerous offers of old ones, from kind people mistakenly thinking that, "Deep down, he really wants one." I don't. In disbelief they now inform me I can watch some programmes on the Internet. "No, YOU can watch them on the Internet. I waste too much time as it is, without that. It doesn't interest me." They never look convinced. I know, it's not as though my social life is so hectic that I don't have time to watch it. That's like my TV, non-existent. The radio's more than good enough for me. Usually whilst doing something else, such as typing this.

The only sightings I've had of the 'goglebox' since then, have been at my folks' house (news), and in that hotel room in Rosyth, a couple of months ago (news and a couple of films). Numerous programs, series, sports events, disasters, political and other figures, have passed by in those twelve years that I have never seen, nor ever will. Life has carried on. Just don't expect me to be any use in your team at the pub quiz... not that I frequent such establishments either. Such is the strange life of the recluse.

WARNING!
Long rant follows!
Move elsewhere before it's too late!
Don't say I didn't warn you...

Made a mistake today - opened the mail without looking. Perhaps those glasses should be worn more often. Missed the obvious letter to, "The Legal Occupier". Did propose counting how many letters the TV Licensing folk sent me this year, but soon forgot. Suspect it's seven or eight. As hinted upon receipt of the second one, this year's ploy was to add them to the to-be-burnt pile.

Last year I sent them all back un-opened with, "No TV" written on them... to which they'd just send another. Initially I'd gone to register using their new on-line system, but upon discovering how much personal information they wanted, and claimed had to be given, "No way!"

Today's letter was the first one opened this year. They're carefully crafted. At least, that's probably how they'd describe them. Intimidating, misleading, sneaky, underhand, and a several other less savoury terms are what I'd use. Specifically to catch the eye, which it did, in a larger bold font than the rest of the text, and positioned right in the centre of the page, it read, "What to expect in court." Yup, that certainly grabs the attention, and increases the likelyhood that recipients will read the whole thing:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.

Please read the information below carefully and keep for your records. You will be allowed to take it into court with you.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Armstrong
Dundee Enforcement Manager

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ref: xxxxxxxxxx


What to expect in court.

If you are asked to appear in court, this is what you can expect to happen:

. You can appoint a lawyer to represent you, or you may represent yourself.

. Evidence collected during an enforcement visit to your property is used by the court to decide on the penalty for TV Licence evasion.

. The court has the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000, plus legal costs. The decision is legally binding.

. If your property needs a TV Licence, you will still need to buy one.


How to avoid a court summons.
It is illegal to watch programmes as they are being shown on TV without a TV Licence – no matter what device you use. The only way to stop this investigation from going any further is to do one of the following:

. Buy a TV Licence at tvlicensing.co.uk/pay or by calling 0300 790 6097. A colour licence costs £145.50.

. Let us know you don't need one at tvlicensing.co.uk/no TV or by calling 0300 790 6097. We may visit to confirm this.


Legal eagles will see through this right away. The likes of myself and others receiving this will more likely be shocked – shocked into taking some sort of action, after latching on to specific scary phrases which intentionally distract you from others, and reality.

Fear not, I ain't guilty, M'lud. There's a little word used that means nothing much on its own, and it's easy to overlook, but its use is all important - IF.

I did some Internet research, and soon found that I was correct in my assumptions. The main source being a Freedom of Information request to the BBC - Legal requirements and rights regarding TV licensing enforcement. So a big thank you to Mr Hughes. The Beeb's final respnse being here. I had to laugh at their assertion that, "the tone of the letters progressively becomes stronger to encourage a reply." And wonder where intimidation comes on the 'encouragement' scale. I'm also still wondering about the legality of them using this level of abuse - as abusive is how it appears to me. Those people that mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance didn't stoop anywhere near this low. Does some old person without a TV fearfully buy a Licence after one of these? I wouldn't be surprised...

I'm not going to reply, or take any other action, despite the temptation. That would be 'rising for the bait'. And anyway, in that final response the Beeb did say I'm, "not legally required to respond."



(Congratulations on your perseverance for reach this far, and apologies for stealing so much of time from your life. I did warn you...)