BBC Trust

Cancel your TV Licence Today

The first rule in British public life is to always reward failure and the BBC proves it is no exception to this rule.

Whether it is the banks, police or the BBC, all a public institution has to do to survive any scandal is for its incompetent top brass to endure a public flogging in front of a toothless, hapless House of Commons Select Committee, questioned by equally incompetent MPs. But that is as far as the ‘scrutiny’ will ever go. Incompetent managers of public institutions go through the motions of a public inquiry, safe in the knowledge that they will soon be rewarded with a combination of further promotion, guaranteed pension and benefits and the continuance of their failing public organisation. Nothing will ever come of these pointless displays of faux official scrutiny. The BBC is living proof of that.

So it comes as no surprise at all that the BBC, which routinely engages in colossal waste, pro-EU globalist-warmest agenda, coverups of paedophiles, fabrication of news propaganda and with an inherent London-centric, metropolitan liberal-bourgeoisie bias has finally got its charter renewed. What adds serious insult to injury is this was all done by a supposedly Tory government.

Worse than a renewal, the TV Licence has been:

(i) Increased in line with inflation
(ii) Extended to cover the BBC iPlayer (though the exact details we need to see)
(iii) unchanged from the punitive system of threats run by the privately owned Capita contractor
(iv) unreformed ignoring Magistrates calls for change whose courts will be continue to be clogged with TV Licensing cases for at least the next decade.

What is abundantly clear is this process is simply not democratic. Less than half the population support the TV Licence in its current form with the majority subsidising these people’s appetite for being lied to by the state broadcaster.

Instead of taking a unique opportunity to cut the BBC loose on the free market, where, after shedding approximately 2/3 of its mostly bureaucratic and useless workforce, it may actually have stood a chance of being commercially viable. The so-called Tory government has in fact opted for the BBC to suffer death by 1000 cuts. With the scale of technological change now in play, the BBC will not survive even a few years without some kind of enforced funding which will continue to directly affect the poorest the hardest.

What should our response be?

In the face of tyranny, the individual must make a stand. Making ‘watching Live TV and the BBC iPlayer’ a ‘criminal offence’ is not proper law. All it does is protect the private interests of an elite few. Such a ‘law’ has no credibility.

The government seems determined, in the face of reason, to continue to perpetuate this unjust law to protect this corrupt organisation.

Our response should be one of continued refusal to fund the BBC consisting of:

(i) Cancelling any TV Licence and direct debits you have.
(ii) Don’t watch the iPlayer or live TV.
(iii) Having no further contact with the BBC’s TV Licensing in any form whatsoever.

Our so-called elected representatives do not represent the majority. Only by refusing to fund this BBC dinosaur can we have any hope of seeing an end to this tyranny.


Cancel Your TV Licence Today

There has never been a better time to cancel your BBC TV Licence. But time may be running out for you to make a lawful protest against the tyranny of the BBC TV Licence fee tax…
Jeremy Clarkson: Freedom to Fracas?

With every new scandal, twist and turn of the state broadcaster comes further evidence that this organisation is corrupt, wasteful and does not serve the interests of those who pay for it. The most recent controversy was the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson after a bizarrely described ‘fracas’ between himself and an assistant producer. Over ONE MILLION people signed the @GuidoFawkes #BringBackClarkson petition to reinstate Clarkson.

For the record I did not sign this petition. I simply do not see a role for a state propaganda machine in 2015 or beyond. Certainly I do not support that you should hand over your hard earned money on threat of prison for state permission to watch mainstream entertainment on a dying technological medium.

One thing is absolutely clear from the Clarkson sacking fiasco: the viewer is way down the pecking order as far as the BBC top brass is concerned. Top Gear was immediately pulled from the schedules on news of the ‘fracas’. This was well before any formal finding was made against Clarkson which shows the contempt the BBC Top Brass had for the fans.

I of course recognise that the BBC Top Gear show with Clarkson as the lead host was immensely popular with its fans. I read many responses on twitter that questioned ‘Why am I paying a licence fee if Top Gear is taken off the air’. Unfortunately, the TV Licence does not operate as a subscription service much as BBC would like you to think it does. Even if the BBC did not exist unless the TV Licence legislation was repealed, you would still have to pay the TV Licence fee to watch or record ANY live TV. As such, the TV Licence operates as a TAX. As a tax, the TV Licence is not a payment for any BBC service.

Quite simply, the TV Licence has survived at least half a century beyond its use-by date. There is no technological reason for it to exist today and it is merely an accident of history that it remains. So if you want to make the best protest you can against the BBC, the only way to do it is to STOP FUNDING THEM. You can do this legally and it takes only minutes to sort out.

There are several strategies that the legally licence free community recommend. Firstly I advocate you to stay within the law at all times. There is as yet no reason for anyone to break the law to protest against the BBC licence fee. All that is involved is some minor inconvenience of only watching catch-up tv services after they have been broadcast on TV.

There are the three simple rules to ensure you stay within the law and that the BBC’s TV Licensing arm cannot bring a successful action against you in court:
Rule 1. Detune your TVs and disconnect any aerials or satellite feeds and cut or tape up the ends. (This is to satisfy the requirement that TV Receivers must not be installed)
Rule 2. DO NOT watch or record ANY LIVE TV on ANY device for ANY reason. (You may watch Catch-Up TV services after they have been shown on TV)
Rule 3. At all times NEVER ADMIT to any TV Licensing representative that you have watched or recorded ANY LIVE TV on ANY device for ANY reason. Also NEVER ADMIT TO WATCHING ANY INTERNET STREAMING BROADCAST as it is also shown on TV. This can be SKY NEWS or AL-JAZZERRA originally beamed from Doha. Note this is not restricted to just BBC as some mistakenly believe. Only ever say you watch DVD’s/Netflix etc and Catch-Up TV only.

Mindful of the above rules your next steps are:
1. You must, absolutely must, CANCEL any TV licence you have. TV Licensing (aka Capita) assume (wrongly) you still need one if you don’t inform them you are cancelling your TV Licence. You can do this by email to (Note they take a long time to respond: up to a week. Recent reports are as many as 1000 people a day are cancelling TV Licences. Be patient and do not pre-empt additional unnecessary communication with the Capita contractor).
2. Cancel any direct debits you have to TV Licensing.
3. Optionally you can declare a “No Licence Needed”. Ideally you should have no further contact with any TV Licensing representative (Capita). The link to the “No Licence Needed” declaration is here.

There are some further pointers to observe to ensure you stay safe from prosecution:
1. TV Licensing have no right of access to your property whatsoever except by a search warrant.
2. There is no legal obligation for you to have contact with them or provide them with any information except under a search warrant to provide ‘reasonable assistance’ to enable them to do their test of any TV receiving equipment found.
3. Most importantly: Get yourself informed. A thoughtful, reasoned stand against the BBC does take a bit of effort. Take the time to understand TV Licensing law. Here are some excellent blogs run by well informed people I throughly recommend:

TV Licensing Blog
TV Licensing Resistance
TV Licensing Watch

The sad truth is TV Licensing is run as a high-pressure commission-based sales operation. It is a dirty business. Invariably, TV Licensing only convict on evidence you provide by way of an admission. Unless the TV is visibly on in the front room, there is no reason for you to provide them with any evidence against yourself whatsoever. Oh, the ‘TV detector’ is a crock: It has NEVER been used as evidence for any court conviction of watching live TV. It is only used to gather ‘evidence’ for a search warrant and even that is done on the shakiest of scientific basis.

A word of warning. In looking around the Internet you may come across “Freeman of The Land” (FMOTL) type arguments. They all boil down to essentially a concept of individual choice, contract, consent and a misunderstanding of common law. While I have sympathy with such purist thinking, FMOTL arguments only make for impressive YouTube videos. They absolutely DO NOT WORK at your local friendly Magistrates Courts or indeed in any court up to and including the Supreme Court. Parliament made law is accepted by all courts in the UK. Sorry about that.

I said at the outset that time for you to make a lawful protest against the BBC was running out. Indeed it is. The influential Department of Culture Media and Sport Select Commitee’s preferred future funding model for the BBC is to introduce a flat household poll tax to be added to everyone’s council tax regardless of whether they watch any BBC service or TV or radio at all. If this was introduced, there would be virtually NO escape from paying this charge. The enormity of this proposal is truly staggering given the litany of scandal that has come out about the BBC. But for right now the choice is still yours. Take back your choice and your money. There has never been a better time to cancel your TV Licence. Do it today!

Originally written for the @backbencher 25th March 2015 – Revised 17th May 2015


Editorial Guidelines on Islam’s Mohammed vanish from BBC website

Forbidden BBC Image: ‘100 lashes for violating BBC Editorial Guidelines’

BBC Editorial Guidelines (written in typical BBC PC-speak) forbidding the publication of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed mysteriously vanished from their website sometime after Thursday 8th Jan 2015. The BBC Press office gave the cryptic explanation ‘the guidance is old, out of date’ and ‘is currently being revised’.

In the wake of the horrendous and vicious attack by Islamic terrorists against the French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, the BBC’s ludicrous Thursday QuestionTime predictably devoted a segment on the implications of the massacre on free-speech.

In the above clip from Thursday’s 8th Jan 2015 QuestionTime, David Dimbleby reads from the BBC’s Editorial guidelines on “Political, Religious and Topical Sensitivities”:-

  • “Due care and consideration must be made regarding the use of religious symbols in images which may cause offence. The Prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form” (emphasis added)

The immediate response to this being read out on QuestionTime, prompted panel member Julia Hartley-Brewer, to comment:-

I think that’s absolutely outrageous”.

Indeed it is.

The very fact that the BBC had this long standing written ‘guideline’ should be extremely worrying to all who value freedom and free-speech. The BBC is guilty of the most appalling campaign of multi-culturalism, censorship and political correctness against the British people ever witnessed.

Like a guilty person who realises evidence may convict them of their crime, the full text of these editorial guidelines may now only be found here on GoogleCache, since the original was swiftly deleted sometime after 8 Jan 2015 20:13:39 GMT (as per GoogleCache’s date-time stamp). *ed UPDATE, see below

Now you see it…
Screen Shot 2015-01-10 at 16.14.32

Now you don’t. Ooops…
Screen Shot 2015-01-10 at 15.39.14

The BBC’s great nemesis is now the Internet, and for one very good reason: The Internet never forgets.

The whole sorry affair was later blogged by @GuidoFawkes which resulted in this swift response from the hapless (read: hopeless) BBC Press Office:

To which @MediaGuido responded:

Are we seriously expected to believe that the host of BBC QuestionTime was unaware of ‘out of date’ BBC Editorial Guidelines when he read out the text as it stood on 8 Jan 2015?

Are we seriously expected to believe that BBC editors would go against the written guidelines of their BBC employer by exercising their own individual judgement?

Are we seriously expected to believe that the BBC has now seen the light and undergone some kind of Damascene conversion in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre that they were wrong to inflict multiculturalism, censoring free-speech and political correctness on the British people?

Is it any co-incidence that the web-page with these guidelines mysteriously vanished after QuestionTime was aired sometime on or after 8 Jan 2015?

The prompt deletion of these politically correct editorial guidelines serves to remind us that this is more than just a smoking gun. It is the hard evidence that is needed to convict the BBC of the most appalling crime against free-speech imaginable: censorship.

It took a relatively little known French newspaper to remind us of the true cost of free-speech, something which the forcibly funded BBC and it’s income of £3.7 Billion a year from the British public fails to grasp.

The gravity of this human tragedy resulting from the exercise of free-speech is admirably summed up in this Old Holborn tweet:

Rest assured, the BBC will be back with its leftist, politically correct and multicultural social engineering agenda tomorrow. I continue to stand by my @BanTheBBC twitter handle. A leopard doesn’t change its spots…

Neither will the BBC.

*UPDATE 16 Jan 2015:
In recent days, BBC has been busy updating their ‘out of date’ Editorial Guidelines. When deciding whether to show the Mohommed image, permission must now be sought from a senior BBC editor. According to the guidelines, this editor is required to ‘normally consult’ (read: comply and apply) ‘Editorial Policy’. In other words, it’s business as usual in the BBC Stasi department of the politically correct….

As I said above, a leopard doesn’t change its spots…


Diane Abbott MP received over £110,000 from the BBC in appearance fees since April 2007

Pricey: Diane Abbott MP immortalised in a portrait costing taxpayers £11,750

The source of the amount paid to Diane Abbott by the BBC is to be found in the official Register of MP’s Interests. This register spans back from April 2007 when the register was implemented. The individual lists are compiled by Parliamentary session and are not straightforward to navigate. The lists are ‘as at’ and so must be de-duplicated to avoid double counting.

A painstaking reconstruction of the individual payments made to Ms Abbott by the BBC has been done. The total headline figure is in excess of £110,000.

The entire list of disclosures of payments made to Diane Abbott by the BBC may be found here.

Diane Abbott has already courted controversy over these payments to her by the BBC. In 2012 the BBC Trust ruled that Ms Abbott was overpaid for her appearances on BBC “This Week”.

In the BBC’s own guidelines, they clearly state that an MP should not normally be paid for appearances where they could express political views. See section “Payment to MPs” 10.4.7 here. Diane Abbott is a politician and an elected Labour MP. The vast amount of her BBC payments come from her appearances on BBC’s “This Week” hosted by Andrew Neil. This show is described by the BBC itself as “A political review of the week presented by Andrew Neil”.

How can it possibly be the case that an elected Labour MP can appear as a BBC co-presenter on a political programme and be impartial?

Despite the admonition of the hapless BBC Trust that Ms Abbott was ‘overpaid’, rather than being stopped, her fee was reduced from £839 per episode to £700. The current £700 BBC fee payment for ‘3 hours’ nevertheless appears to be continuing.

Were it not for the register of MPs interests, we may never have known the true scale of these payments made by the BBC. The Freedom of Information Act has a general exemption that permits the BBC not to disclose information if it relates to ‘journalism, art or literature’.

An MP is already being paid by the taxpayer to represent their constituency. For Diane Abbott to be receiving additional taxpayers money via the BBC and a cumulative sum total of six figures is truly obscene.


Botched BBC Search Warrant Decends Into Legal Farce


More and more we are witnessing individuals standing up to the power of the BBC, an organisation which sadly remains backed by the full force of despicable state criminal prosecution powers to protect its income stream.

This week, a householder was subjected to a bizarre search warrant of his home by two BBC TV Licensing Capita employees accompanied by two police officers. The entire incident was (wisely) videoed by the householder.

The full background story and transcript are featured on the TV Licensing Blog pages here:

The full video taken by the householder may be viewed here:


The video clearly shows that at the time of the inspection, the householder’s TV was neither plugged into power or an antenna socket. Obviously this on its own would render the TV incapable of receiving any live TV signal. Even if  the TV was tuned (and there was no evidence on the video to suggest that it was) without either power or antenna feed connected, the TV would not be installed and therefore could not be used to receive live TV broadcasts.

It is a simple matter of evidential fact (the video) that this householder’s TV could not be said to be ‘installed’ within the meaning of section 363 of the Communications Act 2003.

Unable to secure evidence of a TV receiver installed or used at the point the search warrant was executed, that should have been the end of the matter.

However, at video timecode 4:25, a very disturbing development occurs. The BBC TV Licensing Capita employee, understood to be a Mr. Phillip Carvill, plugged the TV into a power and aerial source. He has taken what can only be described as the first steps to installing the TV to receive a live broadcast.  It is very obvious viewing the video that it was the BBC TV Licensing Capita employee, and not the householder, that plugged the TV into the power and aerial signal source. In particular, by plugging in the TV aerial, the BBC TV Licensing Capita employee is taking steps which would render the perfectly lawful state of the equipment (unable to receive a live broadcast) at the time of the start of the search warrant to potentially become unlawful under section 363 of the Communications Act 2003.

It cannot be part of any reasonable test of TV receiving equipment, that the BBC or its contracted agents (Capita) are permitted to alter the receiving configuration of a householder’s TV such that it could receive a live broadcast when previously it could not. To so alter the receiving configuration would amount to the fabrication of evidence as found at the scene. Fabrication of evidence during the course of an investigation is a criminal offence at common law which is known as attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It is obvious that a TV radio receiver will not receive a live broadcast without being plugged in to an aerial. As a matter of evidence, the only way an offence occurs under section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 is if television receiving equipment is installed or used to receive live broadcasts. This was plainly not the case here as the evidence of the householder’s video clearly demonstrates.

Unable to secure evidence of the householder watching live TV (and bizarrely seemingly unable to test a modern TV which they were employed to do)  the BBC Capita employees turn to claiming a trumped up ‘obstruction’ charge against the householder. This is perhaps the most disturbing development in this video.

Firstly, the BBC TV Licensing Capita employees are the ones responsible for doing the test of TV receiving equipment, not the householder. A householder’s only duty is to give reasonable assistance to permit those executing the warrant to ‘carry out their examination or test’. It is plainly not reasonable to assist BBC TV Licensing Capita employees to render the lawful state of a householder’s equipment unlawful so as to be in contravention of section 363 of the Communications Act 2003. That the BBC TV Licensing Capita employees appeared to claim a lack of technical expertise to carry out their ‘test’ is totally absurd. This is a matter of training for BBC TV Licensing Capita staff and not a matter for the householder.

Secondly, the matter of there being an ‘obstruction of the warrant’ by not confirming or answering questions at interview is without any procedural or legal foundation. An interview under caution is given under PACE with a proscribed warning that starts “You do not have to say anything….”. The legal right in English law to remain silent is a long standing principle. It therefore cannot be said to be ‘obstruction of the warrant’ to refuse to answer questions in connection with an interview under caution. To suggest otherwise is utterly preposterous and just plain legally wrong.

It is obvious for all to see that the TV Licensing enforcement decends into legal farce once a householder has sufficent knowledge about their rights and decides to stand up to the BBC TV Licensing Capita bullies. It remains to be seen if BBC aka TV Licensing Capita will have the temerity to put an obstruction charge before magistrates with all of the attendant procedural and evidential questions that have been rasied by this despicable and disturbing video.

The sooner the BBC and its wholly owned sock-puppet “TV Licensing” and its diabolical enforcement (read: enfarcement) process are put out the UK public’s misery the better.



Top BBC Fat Cats purr on £50 Million a year…. at Licence fee payers’ expense


On 27 March 2014 The Guardian published a story that the top 412 BBC managers were paid an astonishing £50.8 Million pounds last year. The litany of expense claims also outlined in the article truly beggars belief. Yet another outrageous and unedifying example of BBC largesse is on display for all to see.

To add insult to serious injury, the BBC recently commissioned a ‘comedy’ series titled “W1A”, which is an apparent reference to the postcode of the new £1 BILLION pound BBC Broadcasting House in Central London. This absurdly ridiculous series attempted to make light of the BBC’s own truly horrendous waste and mismanagement. The joke, if there is one, is firmly on the licence fee payer who is threatened with criminal prosecution for not paying for the whole sorry affair.

The cause of the excess is easy to understand. The BBC is the recipient of £3.6 Billion a year in TV Licence tax revenue which it does not have to work for. Freed from the commercial constraints governing other broadcasters, the BBC wastes money simply because it can.

What is to be done? A year is a long time to wait for a government review and for a likely stitch up of the UK public who again will be lumped with another decade of BBC excess and revenue raising abuses.

What the BBC will never tell you is there is a perfectly legal alternative to stop paying the BBC its extortion money: Go Catch-up TV only. The link to the TV Licensing online “No Licence Needed” declaration is here. A TV Licence is only needed if your household watches or records live broadcast TV. All internet based catch-up and on-demand services that are not simultaneously being broadcast do not need a TV licence.

There has never been a more important time to go Catch-up TV Only in the UK than now. It is a completely moral decision not to continue funding the BBC. It is also the best way to register a protest and the fastest and surest way to hasten the demise of this wasteful, corrupt and biased organisation.


The Licence fee is on the path to decriminalisation, but what next?

On Tuesday 25th March, MPs voted to pass an amendment in the Deregulation Bill which would see the eventual decriminalising of the TV Licence fee. Although an encouraging development to those in the anti-TV Licence fee movement, the practical implications of a ‘civil offence’ raises many questions.

The timetable is now set for a year long review of the current despicable BBC funding arrangements. It should be noted that this amendment only gives Parliament the power to decriminalise the Licence fee after a 1 year review. It does not absolutely guarantee that it will. Certainly there is now huge political momentum behind decriminalisation of the TV Licence fee and a wide public expectation means almost certainly that Parliament will carry the amendment forward in law.

So assuming after over half a century the TV Licence is finally decriminalised to a ‘civil offence’ what next?

It should be stated at the outset that the only moral and sensible way forward is a full, free and fair choice restored to everyone over what they watch, when they watch and how. The era of ‘Aunty BBC and the man in Whitehall knows best’ is over. We are all adults and it is past high time that we should have someone else’s idea of ‘impartiality’ and ‘quality’ externally imposed on us.

If events follow the path of free and fair choice, the BBC will be funded by voluntary subscription competing for audiences with other broadcasters. You will be able to choose whether to subscribe to the BBC or not, without fear of prosecution, a criminal record or indeed even prison if you are unable to pay the fine.

The alternatives to free choice do not bear thinking about. Given the well publicised incidents of TV Licensing prosecution abuses, to give this private company the power to issue parking ticket-style ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ (PCN’s) which then require you to appear in court to prove your innocence will undeniably result in further abuses of the court process. Indeed a civil enforcement regime could result in a far more punitive system than the current regime. It has been cited that lessening the burden on the courts system is a motivator behind this amendment. If that is true then bringing in a civil enforcement regime will merely shift the problem of 180,000 criminal prosecutions a year to the civil courts. Instead of prison, poor people will again be victimised by the BBC for being poor and have the bailiffs on their doorsteps to take the fridge and telly away.

I outline the above horror scenario because it is not beyond those in power to ignore the obvious by thinking that merely making the change from ‘criminal’ to ‘civil’ will achieve anything.

Following this year long review, the only sensible and moral choice for lawmakers is to abolish an enforced TV Licence completely. If the BBC is to continue, it should be commercially viable and funded by a fully 100% voluntary subscription model.

After over half a century, UK householders will finally have the choice to subscribe to the BBC or not. The BBC will have to stand or fall on its own merits. Free choice for the individual should be restored. It really is that simple.