Hello there I am a vulnerable customer who has to pay for separate tv license &I hate paying for it now& they don't care about vulnerable people they only care about themselves just so they get their money that they get their money in the own pockets that they only thing that they care about I think that they are bullyies from Rachel
This should be published in every newspaper in Britain on the front page.The BBC is an absolute despicable organisation . They don't treat anyone with empathy or compassion when it comes to collecting the licence fee despite saying they do so.The way they treat the elderly and vulnerable on the doorstep should be outlawed.
The problem here isn't TV licensing. It is the council that entered a guilty plea on behalf of someone else (which I didn't even know was possible) when they admit it was their responsibility and their mistake.
It's not the BBC. They were instructed by the government to use Capita: a private organisation there to make as much profit for shareholders as possible.
In general 'Downs Syndrome' is usually visible. Therefore, this case should never have been brought. This lady had no control over the payments to anyone and should never have been charged with anything. Typical behaviour from Capita. Not such a good reflection on the courts either. THis MUST stop. How it can be a CRIMINAL offence to not pay for a TV Licence is beyond most people's comprehension. The first Government to abolish this, and the TV Tax as well, will get my vote!
The BBC is a tool of government, if they were to scrap the licence fee it would be akin to them chopping off one of their own limbs, in other words it's never gonna happen. The government want the BBC to ram their propaganda down the throats of as many people as possible.
I agree entirely. The TV licence inspector should have apologised and walked away. As CJ says, it IS a dirty, horrible system but, there again, Capita are a dirty, horrible company who employ dirty, horrible people to intimidate people on their own doorsteps. Any "contrition" expressed by Capita is simply as a result of being banged to rights as one of the most despicable commercial organisations operating in the UK.
Also i'm assuming the council were responsible for handling her finances, defended her in court and let her take the blame instead of themselves. Maybe capita can bung councils some money and they can forget to pay the bills of some more of their dependants. Everyone's a winner apart from the vulnerable of course.
Isn’t it the whole government/council/BBC buddy system they have going? They are losing lots of money, so are trying everything to get some back. They don’t give a toss about us plebs. I don’t know who is worse, them or the Indian scam centres who keep calling folk!
Yes, but be sure to put the ire where it is appropriate. This is the action of Capita, a private company there to make as much profit for shareholders as possible, and the BBC were instructed by the government to use this private company.
@@nickryan3417 Stop trying to defend the BBC. They’re a corrupt, greedy organisation which knows they can do whatever they want and get away with. I don’t hear any protest from them about the behaviour of Capita. Their silence is just as much guilt as Capita’s behaviour is.
@@doyle8711 Do you honestly think that they are allowed to complain about them? I suspect many don't know, or don't care. The BBC is an odd place to work at (I haven't worked there myself but know quite a few people who have).
I agree 100%, but if it is abolished it will simply be put onto the general tax burden so there will be less accountability and nobody will ever know what the BBC cost. The BBC has to become a subscription only service. That is unlikely to ever happen.
The TV licence is supposed to be abolished in 2027, but plans are to add it to the already extortionate amount I pay in council tax, even though I DO NOT have a TV! To say I am pissed off is an understatement, welcome to rip off Britain! The BBC should be a subscription only service like Sky, if you don't watch it, you don't have to pay for it.
In 14 months of cancelling my license, I've just had my 8th letter saying they've authorised an ENFORCEMENT visit. I wonder what they think they're going to enforce? Hope I'm in when they call round!
If they are responsible, then it should be them that are in court. I'm sure the victim here has an assigned "responsible adult". They too should be held to account. The whole thing sounds like a massive disability discrimination case.
The council entered a guilty plea on her behalf. I don't know how that is even possible. How can you plead guilty plea on someone else's behalf? They admitted that they were responsible for her finances and that it was their mistake.
This woman has no control of her finances, which means Greenwich Council had power of attorney over her affairs. They failed to ensure the licence fee was paid so they are culpable, not her. The case should have been thrown out against her and the Council prosecuted for failing to pay the fee. That they compounded their fiducial negligence by then entering a "guilty" plea ON HER BEHALF, when it was their negligence that caused the issue in the first place is wholly immorral and negligent. They are supposed to represent HER best interests. The council should now be sued for negligence. The compensation for reputational damage and distress to the person in their care should run into the tens of thousands of Pounds easily.
@@mikoto7693sounds like the magistrate wasn't given that info as part of the written 'evidence' it was a closed doors process so she wasn't represented.
@@Thurgosh_OG Honest question... *Why* were the council there entering the plea, shouldn't this have set off some alarm bells in the Magistrates heads?
Why on Earth did the council put in a guilty plea for the lady when they are in charge of her finances? Absolutely disgraceful. As for the Judges, why the hell are they allowing these convictions? I'm sure it's just because the courts are so busy they just rubber stamp them with little or no oversight.
I've raised the same question in a separate comment. I also briefly said my own position as some of my affairs are overseen due to disabilities and I got into trouble with late payment of council tax. Social services advised me to accept the court process, with the problems that would cause for my credit rating, and paying the court costs. I didn't. because actually the council, imo, weren't acting legally. My brain confusion is such that I turned up at the court a week too early...came back (had to use their stair lift to get into the court) on the correct day. Before we went in the court staff tried to help and got myself and the council appointee to talk about it. When the appointee knew that I knew they'd messed up they fell over themselves to stop the court action and couldn't be helpful enough. Result: no court costs, no mark against myself, a fair outcome for both sides. As I left court staff were coming out and saying, "Well done".
from my experience with local councils they will always go for the cheapest option. They probably saw that it would cost more in fees to do the right thing so let her take the blame instead.
If they make it a tax it'd be applied whether you've got or not... the "licence fee" is ONLY payable if you watch or record LIVE TV... though a smart move is to take the plugs off all the aerials to be sure they can't evidence tamper if you do make the error of letting them into your home.
The simple fact is, transmitting a free to access signal through our air space WITHOUT our consent, then demanding payment for that signal is outrageous and should be illegal, especially in 2024 where all other premium media services can only be viewed via subscription and therefore will have to be connected or disconnected by the that media company as required. It is NOT a licence fee, it is a compulsory government charge on every household. No other company would legally get away with making a signal accessible without consent and then start harrassing us on the doorstep and by post for payment. One can liken this to posting an item through a persons letterbox they didn't ask for, then a few days later accusing them of theft and demanding payment for it. Crazy! It's obvious the courts are blindly working on behalf of the government to extort from the public.
Jon, could you pass this on to the black belt barrister, as I didn't think someone who is mentally incapable could be prosecuted. This conviction should belong to the local council and therefore the councilors or persons in charge. Maybe he could get this quashed for her and the correct person convicted?
Well said! ... I am sure that Jon's done that himself in any case and or Daniel (black belt barrister) has probably got wind of this on his ' in tray...' it wouldn't hurt to reference the video to Daniel in any case... He could act on pro bono? ( no fee? ) to represent this lady with Downs.
The council worker that is in charge of the ladies finances is the one that should get a criminal record for mismanaging them. The lady should have her record expunged immediately.
i mean, someone at the council thought it was a good idea to appoint that person to be in charge of that persons finances, shouldnt they be responsible instead? what about the person who appointed the person who appointed the person to be in charge of finances? what about the person whos idea it was for the council to be responsible in the first place? thats right, what i am saying is that it would be absolutely fucking ridiculous to blame the individual responsible for this womans finances. absolutely moronic
@@MrMoralHighground Kinda funny that you say she's responsible, but not accountable. That's actually pretty moronic. Shouldn't be held criminally responsible however. No-one should, except perhaps Capita in this case. Some kind of reprimand from her employer would seem appropriate for not actually doing her job. Y'know, the sort of thing that happens in employment when you don't do you job. A disciplinary hearing, possibly a demotion or dismissal.
@@Pooknottin i am not saying anyone is responsible, i am continuing the same logic as the original poster with the same logic, but going further down the chain because why wouldnt you? and i agree its 100% moronic, thats the point i was trying to make obvious! its moronic to blame this person individual at the council because to do so, you are assuming first of all that this person is properly and fully trained, you are assuming that they are regularly checked up on to ensure their quality of work is as it should be, you are assuming that either no one double checks their work or if they did then they missed it too but are somehow not responsible, the point is there are a whole load of assumptions you have to make to blame this person which is COMPLETELY FUCKING MORONIC you are saying this one person didnt do their job, how can you possibly know that without making assumptions? what about this persons manager ffs? you assuming this individual answers to nobody? for real? anyway, thanks for realising that my point was (deliberately) moronic but apologies you didnt realise it was intended that way, to emphasise the stupidity of the OPs logic
The money was probably siphoned off, bit by bit, by the "responsible" official. We read about many frauds conducted with the money that they control by power of attorney.
As does the person that went to her house and disregarded her obvious disability. As far as the judge is concerned he/she should be disbarred. People with disabilities have enough to deal with never mind unwanted, uneducated people going to her home.
When I was in direct sales we were told not to pitch potential 'customers' who lacked capacity. These included blindness, deafness, dementia etc. since it violated Trading Standards rules. These TV Licensing goons need to stop intimidating the vulnerable.
My autistic son lives on his own and I spoke to the licensing people about him. He certainly doesn't need a license, he never watches live TV, no iPlayer etc. Speaking to the customer support we agreed that he still ought to buy a license as they would probably manipulate the conversation to make him appear guilty. These really are despicable human beings.
@@tvguy61 Agreed, but we felt that if he got the knock on the door, he's polite and would always try and engage in conversation and even the BBC person agreed that they could probably manipulate/confuse him into a situation where they perceived guilt.
@@symbiote1982pk Hi, he has one. You need an autistic child to know what they're like. He uses it on video for a while then forgets and goes back to the normal settings. Even then, he'd still open the door and would never hide. Either way, why should he? Why should be fear opening his own front door? I agree with you 100% but none of this should be necessary.
@@simonbroddle754I understand the situation, but the BBC person probably said that to scare you into paying. Difficult, but if it wasn’t cause of how they treat people, it’s maybe not worth the chance in case they do appear.
DISGUSTING ! I hope she has someone that can question this and persue these scumbags in court including the clowns from Greenwich Council, who SHOULD have asked for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account . No, some goof from the (Anti)Social Services department and/or carer is responsible so they have just made her carry the can ..Poor Woman !
All those involved with the prosecution of that poor lady need to be taken to task, including the magistrate. They should all pay her compensation from their own pockets. Excelent rant. 👍
mate, seriously, if the best you have to offer is regurgitating the same old comments over a decade after "your" (LOL) examples then you should probably just keep quiet if you cant move on. look through the comments, there are not many people left so lacking in originality. EVERYONE knows about those events, of course, but most are able to not clutch at such straws for more than a decade so thumbs up to you too but at this stage its more than a little cringe
She was never interview under caution, that is just lies from Capita. Their staff have exactly the same rights to interview someone under caution as anybody else on the street
@@georgebarnes8163 Not entirely correct. PACE also applies to DWP Fraud Investigators, UK Border Force and a number of other government bodies who have law enforcement functions. Btw, I am a retired policeman (Uniform and CID).
Not any more, the police and criminal evidence act applies to police, no other government agency or private corporation can question anyone using PACE as a get out of jail card as besides PACE is not worth the paper it is written on and often abused by police.@@bluebottle1617
I’m so glad you are speaking out about this it makes me sick to hear they are behaving like this they are disgustingly low they should be taken to court for harassment
They should not legally have the right to speak to this lady without an appropriate adult present. I would sue them I was also shocked they can take you to the SJP court with no written section 9 statements. Absolutely ludicrous that these matters go before a court of law! Just goes to show what state the judicial system is in grabbing money from vulnerable people and justifying the sentence by saying she pled guilty!
Yes, so was I - in fact the magistrate should have rejected the "guilty" plea based on the fact that the person accused did not have the capacity to manage her own funds or make appropriate decisions.
To be slightly fair to them the courts, like all other public services, have been deliberately and maliciously underfunded by the conservative government and then instructed to run rubber-stamp courts to deal with the backlogs of such cases.
They should be fired and charged for working under the colour of law and not the law. I would give any judge that did this 5 years in prison if I had any power!
The way to stop this nonsense. Is for communities especially on council Estates is to come together recognise vulnerable people in their community. And protect each other.
The council pleaded guilty on this ladies behalf to try and cover up their incompetence. the Second Gentleman I also had my direct debit refused 3 times before it eventually went through
Even the police are required to have a suitable person present to represent a ‘vulnerable’ person, before they are allowed to interview them under caution. I would suggest the evidence obtained was unlawful and therefore inadmissible. There is a strong possibility that the person may not have understood the caution and therefore anything after it is irrelevant to a prosecution. This needs to be pushed hard to the Culture Secretary, make her get involved.
Unfortunately, you would be wasting your time trying to get the Culture Secretary involved. She is my MP and is totally in favour of the BBC and the way they use Capita to collect the Licence fees. Like all Tories her and her husband are on the take and don't care about anyone except themselves. We are really hoping to get rid of her in the next GE (if we ever get one).
I agree with you. I was a policeman for nearly 10 years and the way in which TVL Goons operate is less than satisfactory. Your suggestion that pressure needs to be put on the Culture Secretary is a good idea.
@@bluebottle1617 Politicians do not like being corralled and put in a position where they have to do something, if this was presented to her in a way she could not ignore it we might get somewhere. Being held to account is very inconvenient for them, needs a decent local reporter to collar her in the street where she lives and film it.
The bigger issue is the council. The council employee should not have been representing the woman in court, due to a conflict of interest, as they were the ones responsible for the failed license payment. They entered a guilty plea on her behalf to avoid being the ones facing the prosecution.
They’ve run out of money so they have to prosecute everyone and the courts want to make an example of this poor individual so that it scares us to pay up
Well done Jon, since I returned to the UK from working abroad for quite a few years I initially had three visits from TVL and I followed your advice and said "No thank you, not needed"and closed my door. that was 4 years ago, and since then no more visits, they do however send periodic letters addressed as "The Legal Occupier" they don't even know my name...lol All letters now go in the bin unopened. Thank you for your advice and recommendations. On the subject If I ever decided to watch BBC / I Player or any Live Broadcast I would obtain a TV license of course. Again thanks for all that you do. Happy New Year.
Everyone involved - the court officials - the council officials - Capita - enforcement officer and BBC management should all be held to account and be taken to court to answer for what they have done, and then dismissed from their posts for gross incompetence. It is only when these faceless people have to pay for their actions will the public stand any chance of getting justice from the system - and, by the way, publish the names of all of these people !
Just unbelievable. What a nasty piece of work to prosecute her. Help her to set up a new direct debit sure. The judge should have thrown this case out.
Is this decision not going to be overturned? Surely I don’t live in such a country where our legal system does this to vulnerable people rather than the legal system chasing those praying on vulnerable people The system really need to be looked at…… our leaders should stop thinking of themselves, lining their own pockets and actually stop things like this happening
I'm so glad I cancelled my Direct Debit for a television licence. I looked at their online website but could'nt understand how to do it. The Bank was kind enough to stop it for me. I've paid it for over 50 years and no longer have any desire to watch the BBC. As a disabled retired pensioner I wish I had done this decades ago when I was fit and up for anything. A good tip I've picked up from this channel. "No thanks", and close the door. It took less than 7 days before I had a "letter" from them in the post. I'm enjoying your channel. All the best....
Why can't they accept the fact that since "UA-cam" some of us do not need BBC anymore, I actually find BBC very boring .....I get all my news on TalkTV and GB news...
They trade on ignorance. There is still a widespread belief that simply to be in possession of a TV set requires a TV licence. As CJ says, it IS a dirty, horrible system but, there again, Capita are a dirty, horrible company who employ dirty, horrible people to intimidate people on their own doorsteps. Any "contrition" expressed by Capita is simply as a result of being banged to rights as one of the most despicable commercial organisations operating in the UK.
i used to work for the nhs in adult learning disabilities, with many different teams giving care in the community to disabled adults such as this person. i would have to arrange the weekly safeguarding meetings and get all the relevant teams together to discuss the weeks cases, where situations like this should have been brought up and dealt with. how this has been managed by the supporting team is a disgrace and needs to be investigated further. many failures to this case, not just the bbc and their goons.
Sooner the bbc goes ‘bust” the happier i will be. All of this is just making me more and more angry. I dont watch tv and have not for the last 8 months so i will not be renewing my licence.
We never watch live TV anymore as it is mostly rubbish. Play our own DVD's collection from over the years and find our viewing is far superior than watching TV!
Everybody with an ounce of compassion, and even basic intelligence knows the TV licence is grossly unfair and needs to be abolished. Shame we don't have any politicians with the balls to actually do it.
every person in the uk should write to tv licensing and withdraw the implied right of access and then they cannot bother anyone and they wont be able to gather the infornation.
You should be very proud of yourself jon ... for helping all the 1,000s of people understand that they don't need to pay it, unless they watch it Live.. without you explaining it on every video, you truly are a National Treasure of this country..
My grandad was petrified about the tv licence letters he was getting. Lived on his own and panicked so much, he got rid of his TV. Later he went to a store and bought a TV and told the staff he didn’t want the ability to watch tv on it and his worries about the TV licence. Later on in the month got a call saying he had failed to pay his licence and if he didn’t pay £13k he would be taken to court. Scared to death and confused, he paid!!! We were devastated when we found out
I bought TV's from many stores over the years but always filled in the address card with Donald Duck, Walt Disney Studios, Hollywood, USA and paid with cash. Did it for years and nobody ever noticed!
It's boiled my pee as well. Also, those in charge of the lady's finances should have fought back. Shame on them for not doing so. I have to have some of my affairs overseen by others due to disabilities...when my council tax got into a mess, social services said to just roll over, pay court costs, etc, etc...I didn't. I went to the court and the council buckled before we went in front of the magistrate because they knew they were in the wrong. Result: no court costs (which you can asked to be waived, btw), no court order, no record against my name.
When I was having hospital treatment I had to to call them an complain and tell them to remove my number because they were harrasing me with calls and txts every week when i was late paying even tho ive allways paid it
Why is Greenwich council pleading guilty on her behalf? the resident shouldn't have the criminal record. The person/s responsible for her payments should be the one with the criminal record. On the other hand, Greenwich council should be taking Capita and the person who spoke to the woman to court for proceeding with the case knowing that she's disabled. What a bunch of merchant bankers🤬😡😡
The current/recent TV drama "Mr Bates -v- The Post Office, illustrates that business 'conglomerates' are all following similar business plans; with major decisions being divorced from having any sense of empathy. Empathy 'costs'....and in this crazy world, 'costs' must be reduced, no matter what!!!
Never believe in anything that the TV licensing tell you. Their job is to sell you the licence regardless of your circumstances, that includes whether you are responsible for you situation or not, they do not care, period.
Thoroughly disgusting!! Also this training, how can they they're agency staff. The magistrate should also be Thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Both of these cases should involve being fired. Magistrates have an even higher standard of public behaviour. They should be named, nationally, and all 3 of (its usually 3 magistrates) should be fired and barred from any public office!!!
This woman couldn't even agree to buy a licence from the salesman goon, even if she wanted to. How can this be a legal prosecution in any circumstances?
They don't trust their foot soldiers to collect money but it is fine for them to go to anybody's home even if they are lone females, have children there, are vulnerable or disabled. How is that?
Tv licensing send me a letter every other month , this man is right ,if they come knocking at ur door just tell them to F right off and go and get a proper job dont let the bullies win ❤❤❤
What else would you expect from Centrica? This is the same company that runs the DWP disabilty assessment service. Automatically deemed to be fully fit unless proved otherwise by at least 2 independant assessors, chosen by by Centrica who are wholy owned and run by Group 4.
Spot-on analysis! Your ability to delve into the intricacies of such a complex issue while maintaining a straightforward and engaging narrative is nothing short of impressive. It's disheartening to see vulnerable individuals being caught in bureaucratic nightmares. Your emphasis on the human aspect of this issue, rather than just the legalities, brings a much-needed perspective. Keep up the great work exposing these injustices and advocating for those who might not have a voice. Your job is essential and deeply appreciated. I am looking forward to more eye-opening content!
Sadly the individual, whilst not having control over her finances, it doesn't mean they don't have capacity. However, whomever is responsible for her finances is responsible SHOULD have ensured that the TV License was in force, but unless a responsible person has a OPG or Court order, then it is only a informal agreement, often within the family. The best course of action is to appeal the conviction using the Mental Capacity Act as guidance. Our justice system sucks!
This lady need a investigation into the miss justice and abuse of the lady's situation unmorell unjust unbelievable I hope she gets real help and justice
The vulnerable adults Power of Attorney should look into prosecuting the Enforcement Agency. This is as they may well have a case against them due to financially pressurising a Vulnerable Adult. I'm not legally trained but my brother is mentally handicapped so I know stuff. I bet other laws have been broken here!
I found black belt barristers stream interesting about when he wrote to them and asked for a list of what he needs a licence for when watching TV and they replied there isn't one, so how can all this be inforced legally.
What makes this even worse is that someone was officially appointed to handle the disabled ladies finances? .. Can you imagine the abuse that must be going on? I mean just imagine TV enforcement officers being appointed to manage peoples finances? LOL... This is where its all going Jon!! Happy new year M8.. Keep em coming this TV license needs to be gone!!!
I'm sick and tired of getting these threatening letters. I DON'T watch BBC at any time or live TV either... and I DONT want to tell them I don't need one because I don't want them having my details. Why do they need that information if I don't need one? I'm just waiting for someone to turn up at my door, see the satellite dish on the block of flats and assume I use it. I hope there will be some sort of Channel 4 Dispatches into TV Licensing and their shadiness.
A good days work for someone that. Earned their 15k a year... Presumably how to respond appropriately is to rub your hands together in glee, force your way in and issue a £1000 fine. The *idiot* from the council should've pleaded not guilty. No common sense whatsoever, just nod and conform to the rules. A criminal record and 6 months conditional discharge? We the people smash the court up. They should have dismissed this out of hand.
He was probably completely un-aware. It was handled through thr 'Single Justice (sic) System'. He would be presented with a list and a declaration that a guilty plea had been entered. It appears to be a flawed system. The individuals to blame are the visiting TV goon (I usually avoid that term, but not this time), and the council officer who entered the guilty plea. Sack them !
May I start by saying HAPPY NEW YEAR CHILLI, we all had a great 2023 with you and as for this story whoever knocked that poor woman door he or she would of been able to sss the situation they could have and should have walked away. Vile person.😡
If you engage with them, they are highly trained to either sell you a licence or secure a prosecution. Walking away is not an option for these type of people.
This is absolutely disgraceful. The shame belongs to the BBC.
The court has to take responsibility too.
the whole tv liscence fee needs to be scrapped. its a farce that you need to PAY to watch tv in this day and age
And it is to watch Crap , just crap.
This should shock me, but in modern day Britain.. it really doesn't.
The magistrate and the council officials involved should be punished for their actions.
What made do do a job ,what work that’s not nice 😂😂😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉🎉
@@cliffordbuttle4529 'I was just following orders', when did we last hear that I wonder? 🤔
Hello there I am a vulnerable customer who has to pay for separate tv license &I hate paying for it now& they don't care about vulnerable people they only care about themselves just so they get their money that they get their money in the own pockets that they only thing that they care about I think that they are bullyies from Rachel
This prosecution is another example of a disgraceful thing going on in Britain
The British justice system is broken, completely broken.
Among many examples I agree my friend, Happy New Year.
Haven’t paid one in years, there’s absolutely no way I’m financially supporting a corporation that enables child sexual exploitation.
Here, here!
This should be published in every newspaper in Britain on the front page.The BBC is an absolute despicable organisation .
They don't treat anyone with empathy or compassion when it comes to collecting the licence fee despite saying they do so.The way they treat the elderly and vulnerable on the doorstep should be outlawed.
I entirely agree with you. I hate the BBC.
The BBC is despicable, but this is TV Licencing who do this. They're a separate organization from the BBC, although they're also despicable.
It is Capita PLC, a corporation, which runs TV Licensing on behalf of BBC.
The problem here isn't TV licensing. It is the council that entered a guilty plea on behalf of someone else (which I didn't even know was possible) when they admit it was their responsibility and their mistake.
It's not the BBC. They were instructed by the government to use Capita: a private organisation there to make as much profit for shareholders as possible.
Absolutely outrageous. Mencap should become involved with this. The BBC shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
In general 'Downs Syndrome' is usually visible. Therefore, this case should never have been brought. This lady had no control over the payments to anyone and should never have been charged with anything. Typical behaviour from Capita. Not such a good reflection on the courts either. THis MUST stop. How it can be a CRIMINAL offence to not pay for a TV Licence is beyond most people's comprehension. The first Government to abolish this, and the TV Tax as well, will get my vote!
The BBC is a tool of government, if they were to scrap the licence fee it would be akin to them chopping off one of their own limbs, in other words it's never gonna happen.
The government want the BBC to ram their propaganda down the throats of as many people as possible.
I agree entirely. The TV licence inspector should have apologised and walked away.
As CJ says, it IS a dirty, horrible system but, there again, Capita are a dirty, horrible company who employ dirty, horrible people to intimidate people on their own doorsteps.
Any "contrition" expressed by Capita is simply as a result of being banged to rights as one of the most despicable commercial organisations operating in the UK.
Also i'm assuming the council were responsible for handling her finances, defended her in court and let her take the blame instead of themselves.
Maybe capita can bung councils some money and they can forget to pay the bills of some more of their dependants. Everyone's a winner apart from the vulnerable of course.
@@anonnemo2504 TV licence man should be sacked...
Isn’t it the whole government/council/BBC buddy system they have going? They are losing lots of money, so are trying everything to get some back. They don’t give a toss about us plebs. I don’t know who is worse, them or the Indian scam centres who keep calling folk!
It's now 2024.
GET RID OF THE UK TV LICENSE.
It's 50+ years overdue.
💯
This doesn't suprise me one bit, from such a morally bankrupt organisation.
Yes, but be sure to put the ire where it is appropriate. This is the action of Capita, a private company there to make as much profit for shareholders as possible, and the BBC were instructed by the government to use this private company.
@@nickryan3417 Stop trying to defend the BBC. They’re a corrupt, greedy organisation which knows they can do whatever they want and get away with. I don’t hear any protest from them about the behaviour of Capita. Their silence is just as much guilt as Capita’s behaviour is.
@@nickryan3417 Yes I keep hearing the BBC making a big deal about this all the time.... Oh wait no they don't have any problem with it.
@@doyle8711 Do you honestly think that they are allowed to complain about them? I suspect many don't know, or don't care. The BBC is an odd place to work at (I haven't worked there myself but know quite a few people who have).
@@nickryan3417of course they can, would it take them having some balls? Sure
What the hell is the court system doing prosecuting this poor woman.. 😡😡😡
Run by cowboys nothing new there 😂😂😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉🎉😮😮😮😮😮
Easy target?
Courts are part of the 'system'. BBC, Gov.., Media, Courts.. there all part of the system..
The BBC TV Licence is the most unfair and unjust Tax there is and must be ABOLISHED.
And make no mistake. It IS a backdoor tax, pure and simple.
I agree 100%, but if it is abolished it will simply be put onto the general tax burden so there will be less accountability and nobody will ever know what the BBC cost. The BBC has to become a subscription only service. That is unlikely to ever happen.
The TV licence is supposed to be abolished in 2027, but plans are to add it to the already extortionate amount I pay in council tax, even though I DO NOT have a TV!
To say I am pissed off is an understatement, welcome to rip off Britain!
The BBC should be a subscription only service like Sky, if you don't watch it, you don't have to pay for it.
What gets my goat is that they make us pay but give it free outside the UK🤬🤬😤🤬
I'd love to see how much BBC Workdwide makes from selling the shows we pay to make. @@Caribbeanpenguin
In 14 months of cancelling my license, I've just had my 8th letter saying they've authorised an ENFORCEMENT visit. I wonder what they think they're going to enforce? Hope I'm in when they call round!
Did they turn up?
@@rOBvAN878 no, no one has ever been
If Greenwich Council is supposed to be managing her finances, and representing her in court, they're doing a bad job.
When has a council ever done a good job?
@@symbiote1982pkabsolutely correct they all should be abolished
If they are responsible, then it should be them that are in court. I'm sure the victim here has an assigned "responsible adult". They too should be held to account. The whole thing sounds like a massive disability discrimination case.
The council entered a guilty plea on her behalf. I don't know how that is even possible. How can you plead guilty plea on someone else's behalf? They admitted that they were responsible for her finances and that it was their mistake.
Surly it's Greenwich that should be in court for not paying it they have the responsibility for her
Absolutely astonishing from the agents, the TVL and the courts
This woman has no control of her finances, which means Greenwich Council had power of attorney over her affairs. They failed to ensure the licence fee was paid so they are culpable, not her. The case should have been thrown out against her and the Council prosecuted for failing to pay the fee. That they compounded their fiducial negligence by then entering a "guilty" plea ON HER BEHALF, when it was their negligence that caused the issue in the first place is wholly immorral and negligent. They are supposed to represent HER best interests. The council should now be sued for negligence. The compensation for reputational damage and distress to the person in their care should run into the tens of thousands of Pounds easily.
I don’t understand. If I’d been the magistrate I’d have thrown it out.
@@mikoto7693sounds like the magistrate wasn't given that info as part of the written 'evidence' it was a closed doors process so she wasn't represented.
@@soapybacon4358 The council entered a guilty plea, the magistrate didn't have to decide anything.
@@Thurgosh_OG Honest question... *Why* were the council there entering the plea, shouldn't this have set off some alarm bells in the Magistrates heads?
The council should have been find as the responsible party for not paying the licence fee, and as they entered the guilty plea
How cruel. Poor lady should never have been put through all of that grief. She's vulnerable.
Why on Earth did the council put in a guilty plea for the lady when they are in charge of her finances? Absolutely disgraceful. As for the Judges, why the hell are they allowing these convictions? I'm sure it's just because the courts are so busy they just rubber stamp them with little or no oversight.
No,the magistrates court get a share of the fine,it`s a scam .
I've raised the same question in a separate comment. I also briefly said my own position as some of my affairs are overseen due to disabilities and I got into trouble with late payment of council tax. Social services advised me to accept the court process, with the problems that would cause for my credit rating, and paying the court costs. I didn't. because actually the council, imo, weren't acting legally. My brain confusion is such that I turned up at the court a week too early...came back (had to use their stair lift to get into the court) on the correct day. Before we went in the court staff tried to help and got myself and the council appointee to talk about it. When the appointee knew that I knew they'd messed up they fell over themselves to stop the court action and couldn't be helpful enough. Result: no court costs, no mark against myself, a fair outcome for both sides. As I left court staff were coming out and saying, "Well done".
Yes, well done. Very well done!
from my experience with local councils they will always go for the cheapest option. They probably saw that it would cost more in fees to do the right thing so let her take the blame instead.
I don't belive this story I don't belive she got found guilty.
If thats not insane what is 🙄 Absolut madness and criminal on their part
The whole concept of having to pay a tax or whatever just to own a TV to support a channel you never watch is insane
If they make it a tax it'd be applied whether you've got or not... the "licence fee" is ONLY payable if you watch or record LIVE TV... though a smart move is to take the plugs off all the aerials to be sure they can't evidence tamper if you do make the error of letting them into your home.
@@RogueWraith909 and delete the channel tuning settings so it wont receive anything if anyone tries it .....
The simple fact is, transmitting a free to access signal through our air space WITHOUT our consent, then demanding payment for that signal is outrageous and should be illegal, especially in 2024 where all other premium media services can only be viewed via subscription and therefore will have to be connected or disconnected by the that media company as required. It is NOT a licence fee, it is a compulsory government charge on every household. No other company would legally get away with making a signal accessible without consent and then start harrassing us on the doorstep and by post for payment. One can liken this to posting an item through a persons letterbox they didn't ask for, then a few days later accusing them of theft and demanding payment for it. Crazy! It's obvious the courts are blindly working on behalf of the government to extort from the public.
The tax is for viewing live broadcasts, not owning a TV. That requirement want out a good 40 years ago (1981, I think).
Now it is changing again to a “device that can be used to watch live tv license”
Jon, could you pass this on to the black belt barrister, as I didn't think someone who is mentally incapable could be prosecuted. This conviction should belong to the local council and therefore the councilors or persons in charge. Maybe he could get this quashed for her and the correct person convicted?
Well said! ... I am sure that Jon's done that himself in any case and or Daniel (black belt barrister) has probably got wind of this on his ' in tray...' it wouldn't hurt to reference the video to Daniel in any case... He could act on pro bono? ( no fee? ) to represent this lady with Downs.
That prosecution should be overturned
The council worker that is in charge of the ladies finances is the one that should get a criminal record for mismanaging them. The lady should have her record expunged immediately.
i mean, someone at the council thought it was a good idea to appoint that person to be in charge of that persons finances, shouldnt they be responsible instead? what about the person who appointed the person who appointed the person to be in charge of finances? what about the person whos idea it was for the council to be responsible in the first place?
thats right, what i am saying is that it would be absolutely fucking ridiculous to blame the individual responsible for this womans finances. absolutely moronic
@@MrMoralHighground Kinda funny that you say she's responsible, but not accountable.
That's actually pretty moronic.
Shouldn't be held criminally responsible however. No-one should, except perhaps Capita in this case. Some kind of reprimand from her employer would seem appropriate for not actually doing her job. Y'know, the sort of thing that happens in employment when you don't do you job. A disciplinary hearing, possibly a demotion or dismissal.
@@Pooknottin i am not saying anyone is responsible, i am continuing the same logic as the original poster with the same logic, but going further down the chain because why wouldnt you? and i agree its 100% moronic, thats the point i was trying to make obvious! its moronic to blame this person individual at the council because to do so, you are assuming first of all that this person is properly and fully trained, you are assuming that they are regularly checked up on to ensure their quality of work is as it should be, you are assuming that either no one double checks their work or if they did then they missed it too but are somehow not responsible, the point is there are a whole load of assumptions you have to make to blame this person which is COMPLETELY FUCKING MORONIC you are saying this one person didnt do their job, how can you possibly know that without making assumptions? what about this persons manager ffs? you assuming this individual answers to nobody? for real?
anyway, thanks for realising that my point was (deliberately) moronic but apologies you didnt realise it was intended that way, to emphasise the stupidity of the OPs logic
The money was probably siphoned off, bit by bit, by the "responsible" official. We read about many frauds conducted with the money that they control by power of attorney.
As does the person that went to her house and disregarded her obvious disability. As far as the judge is concerned he/she should be disbarred. People with disabilities have enough to deal with never mind unwanted, uneducated people going to her home.
Errrr what filth! Why do people still pay em?
Because they are silly
When I was in direct sales we were told not to pitch potential 'customers' who lacked capacity. These included blindness, deafness, dementia etc. since it violated Trading Standards rules. These TV Licensing goons need to stop intimidating the vulnerable.
Their entire business model relies on exploiting vulnerable or ignorant people.
They just need to be stopped from going to people's private property in general.
That should apply to parking companies and CONcils
Well said
How would the bbc get half their money if they didn’t intimidate the vulnerable?
This Just Stinks, they are just as Bad as the Post Office who are a Law unto themselves when it comes to prosecution,
My autistic son lives on his own and I spoke to the licensing people about him. He certainly doesn't need a license, he never watches live TV, no iPlayer etc. Speaking to the customer support we agreed that he still ought to buy a license as they would probably manipulate the conversation to make him appear guilty. These really are despicable human beings.
The money would be better spent on a camera doorbell, then he knows not to answer the door and thus no twisting of any words said, easy.
@@tvguy61 Agreed, but we felt that if he got the knock on the door, he's polite and would always try and engage in conversation and even the BBC person agreed that they could probably manipulate/confuse him into a situation where they perceived guilt.
@@symbiote1982pk Hi, he has one. You need an autistic child to know what they're like. He uses it on video for a while then forgets and goes back to the normal settings. Even then, he'd still open the door and would never hide. Either way, why should he? Why should be fear opening his own front door? I agree with you 100% but none of this should be necessary.
@@simonbroddle754I understand the situation, but the BBC person probably said that to scare you into paying. Difficult, but if it wasn’t cause of how they treat people, it’s maybe not worth the chance in case they do appear.
Appalling,😢
What an absolute disgrace!!! And beyond disgusting the courts continued through with a fine! 🤬🤬
It takes a special sort of person to work for TV licencing, and unfortunately, we are not short of them in this country.
@barriewilliams.. special sort of cnuts.
His chin strap filthy mask said it all...
I assume it's part of a Crapitas employee's contract that their parents were never married...
Same types that work for TFL/ULEZ....
Well said Barrie.
I wouldn't even answer the door to them...
DISGUSTING !
I hope she has someone that can question this and persue these scumbags in court including the clowns from Greenwich Council, who SHOULD have asked for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account . No, some goof from the (Anti)Social Services department and/or carer is responsible so they have just made her carry the can ..Poor Woman !
@gpo746 some goof from the (anti) social services 😂
That sums them up quite nicely
If I come back in another life after I leave this one I am determined to come back as a civil rights lawyer!
All those involved with the prosecution of that poor lady need to be taken to task, including the magistrate. They should all pay her compensation from their own pockets.
Excelent rant. 👍
Don't open your door to strangers no one knocks to give you anything free in life
Any individuals under the court of protection are not responsible for utility bills.
This is unfortunate but the BBC had no choice! They need lots of money to pay for the next Jimmy Savile & Rolf Harris👍
mate, seriously, if the best you have to offer is regurgitating the same old comments over a decade after "your" (LOL) examples then you should probably just keep quiet if you cant move on. look through the comments, there are not many people left so lacking in originality. EVERYONE knows about those events, of course, but most are able to not clutch at such straws for more than a decade so thumbs up to you too but at this stage its more than a little cringe
@@MrMoralHighground Your defending of Jimmy Savile & Rolf Harris is pretty disturbing. Weirdo😒
And I believe there are plenty of them!
and newsreaders
@Chris_34 What about garry glitter
Absolutely disgusting 🤬🤬🤬
If she was interviewed under caution, PACE dictates that she should have an appropriate adult present. If not the evidence is inadmissible
PACE only applies to the police, no-one else carrying out an interview
@@georgebarnes8163pace surprisingly applies to non police investigations, if the information is going to be used as evidence in court.
She was never interview under caution, that is just lies from Capita. Their staff have exactly the same rights to interview someone under caution as anybody else on the street
@@georgebarnes8163 Not entirely correct. PACE also applies to DWP Fraud Investigators, UK Border Force and a number of other government bodies who have law enforcement functions. Btw, I am a retired policeman (Uniform and CID).
Not any more, the police and criminal evidence act applies to police, no other government agency or private corporation can question anyone using PACE as a get out of jail card as besides PACE is not worth the paper it is written on and often abused by police.@@bluebottle1617
I’m so glad you are speaking out about this it makes me sick to hear they are behaving like this they are disgustingly low they should be taken to court for harassment
They should not legally have the right to speak to this lady without an appropriate adult present. I would sue them
I was also shocked they can take you to the SJP court with no written section 9 statements. Absolutely ludicrous that these matters go before a court of law! Just goes to show what state the judicial system is in grabbing money from vulnerable people and justifying the sentence by saying she pled guilty!
you are correct 100% on this.
I’m sure she’ll get legal aid to fund that, not.
The magistrate clearly knows nothing about the law.
Yes, so was I - in fact the magistrate should have rejected the "guilty" plea based on the fact that the person accused did not have the capacity to manage her own funds or make appropriate decisions.
@@JupiterThunder Most of them don't. They are guided by the Clerk of the Court who is supposed to be a qualified solicitor.
To think that MP’s charge the tv license to their expenses. This is monumental hypocrisy!
Those running the kangaroo "court" should certainly be asked if they are proud of their day's "work"!
To be slightly fair to them the courts, like all other public services, have been deliberately and maliciously underfunded by the conservative government and then instructed to run rubber-stamp courts to deal with the backlogs of such cases.
They should be fired and charged for working under the colour of law and not the law. I would give any judge that did this 5 years in prison if I had any power!
This should be published on every media / front page newspaper etc. Then get everyone to cancel their TV licence on mass in protest.
I agree with that sentiment - enough is enough!
The way to stop this nonsense. Is for communities especially on council Estates is to come together recognise vulnerable people in their community. And protect each other.
Don't you mean 'nonce sense'? 🙄
Neighbours can only do so much. They can't answer each and every knock on the door.
The way to stop this and it’s the only way is for every person in the UK to refuse to pay. But that won’t happen we are a nation of sheep
Aint that the truth.@@pj4433
The council pleaded guilty on this ladies behalf to try and cover up their incompetence. the Second Gentleman I also had my direct debit refused 3 times before it eventually went through
Even the police are required to have a suitable person present to represent a ‘vulnerable’ person, before they are allowed to interview them under caution. I would suggest the evidence obtained was unlawful and therefore inadmissible. There is a strong possibility that the person may not have understood the caution and therefore anything after it is irrelevant to a prosecution. This needs to be pushed hard to the Culture Secretary, make her get involved.
Unfortunately, you would be wasting your time trying to get the Culture Secretary involved. She is my MP and is totally in favour of the BBC and the way they use Capita to collect the Licence fees. Like all Tories her and her husband are on the take and don't care about anyone except themselves. We are really hoping to get rid of her in the next GE (if we ever get one).
I agree with you. I was a policeman for nearly 10 years and the way in which TVL Goons operate is less than satisfactory. Your suggestion that pressure needs to be put on the Culture Secretary is a good idea.
@@bluebottle1617 Politicians do not like being corralled and put in a position where they have to do something, if this was presented to her in a way she could not ignore it we might get somewhere. Being held to account is very inconvenient for them, needs a decent local reporter to collar her in the street where she lives and film it.
The bigger issue is the council.
The council employee should not have been representing the woman in court, due to a conflict of interest, as they were the ones responsible for the failed license payment. They entered a guilty plea on her behalf to avoid being the ones facing the prosecution.
I think 2024 will be the year the licence fee changes. People are refusing to pay it in bigger numbers than ever before.
Starmer is supporting the BBC licence
They should publicly release that tv enforcement officers name
They’ve run out of money so they have to prosecute everyone and the courts want to make an example of this poor individual so that it scares us to pay up
Well done Jon, since I returned to the UK from working abroad for quite a few years I initially had three visits from TVL and I followed your advice and said "No thank you, not needed"and closed my door. that was 4 years ago, and since then no more visits, they do however send periodic letters addressed as "The Legal Occupier" they don't even know my name...lol All letters now go in the bin unopened. Thank you for your advice and recommendations. On the subject If I ever decided to watch BBC / I Player or any Live Broadcast I would obtain a TV license of course. Again thanks for all that you do. Happy New Year.
Everyone involved - the court officials - the council officials - Capita - enforcement officer and BBC management should all be held to account and be taken to court to answer for what they have done, and then dismissed from their posts for gross incompetence. It is only when these faceless people have to pay for their actions will the public stand any chance of getting justice from the system - and, by the way, publish the names of all of these people !
If the goon isn't sacked for this then it proves they will pick on anyone regardless of disability or vulnerability
He'll get a bonus & promotion.
The tv licence is like having someone paint part of your house without asking first and then demanding money for the work.
Yes definitely in a bland or grey boring colour like something you would never choose
Just unbelievable. What a nasty piece of work to prosecute her.
Help her to set up a new direct debit sure. The judge should have thrown this case out.
Its absolutely shocking what they had done with this lady.
Is this decision not going to be overturned? Surely I don’t live in such a country where our legal system does this to vulnerable people rather than the legal system chasing those praying on vulnerable people
The system really need to be looked at…… our leaders should stop thinking of themselves, lining their own pockets and actually stop things like this happening
I'm so glad I cancelled my Direct Debit for a television licence. I looked at their online website but could'nt understand how to do it. The Bank was kind enough to stop it for me. I've paid it for over 50 years and no longer have any desire to watch the BBC. As a disabled retired pensioner I wish I had done this decades ago when I was fit and up for anything. A good tip I've picked up from this channel. "No thanks", and close the door.
It took less than 7 days before I had a "letter" from them in the post.
I'm enjoying your channel. All the best....
Why can't they accept the fact that since "UA-cam" some of us do not need BBC anymore, I actually find BBC very boring .....I get all my news on TalkTV and GB news...
You need the BBC if you are watching GB not news and talk rubbish
Haha
They trade on ignorance. There is still a widespread belief that simply to be in possession of a TV set requires a TV licence.
As CJ says, it IS a dirty, horrible system but, there again, Capita are a dirty, horrible company who employ dirty, horrible people to intimidate people on their own doorsteps.
Any "contrition" expressed by Capita is simply as a result of being banged to rights as one of the most despicable commercial organisations operating in the UK.
Only if it's live @@Stuboy
@@Stuboynot on UA-cam
I've always been told to never talk with any one who mentions they are from the TV License block, heck I'll even remove a friend if they join'em.
you can enter the country ...no passport...food and board free...but fined etc for watching the tv?
Exactly! This government should be ashamed of itself.
It's worse than that ... they get free BBC as well !
@@noelward8047 Correct.
Don't get me started 😡
Get a grip
If this was on a red top newspaper, this would definitely push up the amount of people waking up to the TV licence scam and stop paying it!
Defund the BBC. Cancel your direct debits now!
i used to work for the nhs in adult learning disabilities, with many different teams giving care in the community to disabled adults such as this person. i would have to arrange the weekly safeguarding meetings and get all the relevant teams together to discuss the weeks cases, where situations like this should have been brought up and dealt with. how this has been managed by the supporting team is a disgrace and needs to be investigated further. many failures to this case, not just the bbc and their goons.
Sooner the bbc goes ‘bust” the happier i will be. All of this is just making me more and more angry. I dont watch tv and have not for the last 8 months so i will not be renewing my licence.
We never watch live TV anymore as it is mostly rubbish. Play our own DVD's collection from over the years and find our viewing is far superior than watching TV!
Everybody with an ounce of compassion, and even basic intelligence knows the TV licence is grossly unfair and needs to be abolished. Shame we don't have any politicians with the balls to actually do it.
These mp's are probably getting backhanders for keeping it going
Thinking of scrapping my payments
every person in the uk should write to tv licensing and withdraw the implied right of access and then they cannot bother anyone and they wont be able to gather the infornation.
You should be very proud of yourself jon ... for helping all the 1,000s of people understand that they don't need to pay it, unless they watch it Live.. without you explaining it on every video, you truly are a National Treasure of this country..
My grandad was petrified about the tv licence letters he was getting. Lived on his own and panicked so much, he got rid of his TV.
Later he went to a store and bought a TV and told the staff he didn’t want the ability to watch tv on it and his worries about the TV licence.
Later on in the month got a call saying he had failed to pay his licence and if he didn’t pay £13k he would be taken to court. Scared to death and confused, he paid!!! We were devastated when we found out
😢😮
I bought TV's from many stores over the years but always filled in the address card with Donald Duck, Walt Disney Studios, Hollywood, USA and paid with cash. Did it for years and nobody ever noticed!
The women that accepted the guilty plea needs outing this is terrible
Thankyou again for your information brilliant 👏👍
It's boiled my pee as well. Also, those in charge of the lady's finances should have fought back. Shame on them for not doing so. I have to have some of my affairs overseen by others due to disabilities...when my council tax got into a mess, social services said to just roll over, pay court costs, etc, etc...I didn't. I went to the court and the council buckled before we went in front of the magistrate because they knew they were in the wrong. Result: no court costs (which you can asked to be waived, btw), no court order, no record against my name.
When I was having hospital treatment I had to to call them an complain and tell them to remove my number because they were harrasing me with calls and txts every week when i was late paying even tho ive allways paid it
Why is Greenwich council pleading guilty on her behalf? the resident shouldn't have the criminal record. The person/s responsible for her payments should be the one with the criminal record. On the other hand, Greenwich council should be taking Capita and the person who spoke to the woman to court for proceeding with the case knowing that she's disabled. What a bunch of merchant bankers🤬😡😡
The current/recent TV drama "Mr Bates -v- The Post Office, illustrates that business 'conglomerates' are all following similar business plans; with major decisions being divorced from having any sense of empathy.
Empathy 'costs'....and in this crazy world, 'costs' must be reduced, no matter what!!!
Never believe in anything that the TV licensing tell you. Their job is to sell you the licence regardless of your circumstances, that includes whether you are responsible for you situation or not, they do not care, period.
This has to change...STOP PAYING, STOP TALKING and CLOSE THE DOOR...Thanks for all you do John. (Licence-free since 2010)
Thoroughly disgusting!! Also this training, how can they they're agency staff. The magistrate should also be Thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Both of these cases should involve being fired. Magistrates have an even higher standard of public behaviour. They should be named, nationally, and all 3 of (its usually 3 magistrates) should be fired and barred from any public office!!!
In my experience magistrates are among the biggest hypocrites around, behind only judges and the fuzz.
This woman couldn't even agree to buy a licence from the salesman goon, even if she wanted to. How can this be a legal prosecution in any circumstances?
They don't trust their foot soldiers to collect money but it is fine for them to go to anybody's home even if they are lone females, have children there, are vulnerable or disabled. How is that?
This is awful. This country has gone mad! Thanks for highlighting this CJC great work and great cause
Tv licensing send me a letter every other month , this man is right ,if they come knocking at ur door just tell them to F right off and go and get a proper job dont let the bullies win ❤❤❤
What else would you expect from Centrica? This is the same company that runs the DWP disabilty assessment service.
Automatically deemed to be fully fit unless proved otherwise by at least 2 independant assessors, chosen by by Centrica who are wholy owned and run by Group 4.
centrica owns brittish gas , dont think do dwp
CAPITA moosh CENTRICA is a utility company HAHAHA
….slaps forehead and mutters “Jesus wept” at the level of ignorance displayed here!
Spot-on analysis! Your ability to delve into the intricacies of such a complex issue while maintaining a straightforward and engaging narrative is nothing short of impressive. It's disheartening to see vulnerable individuals being caught in bureaucratic nightmares. Your emphasis on the human aspect of this issue, rather than just the legalities, brings a much-needed perspective. Keep up the great work exposing these injustices and advocating for those who might not have a voice. Your job is essential and deeply appreciated. I am looking forward to more eye-opening content!
Gary Lineker raises a glass of champagne and has a little giggle to himself.
Their a disgrace me and the wife finally as of Jan 1st cancelled ours, never again 🙌
How did the council, who were responsible for her finances, have the nerve to plead guilty *on her behalf* ?
to cover their own tracks or rather the lack of them.
Someone should sue TV Licencing on this unfortunate woman's behalf. Fifty thousand pounds, plus costs, sounds like fair compensation.
Happy New year and thank you for all the good advices. I appreciate yourtime so much.
This is like the post office scandal. It will take 10 years to get justice
Sadly the individual, whilst not having control over her finances, it doesn't mean they don't have capacity. However, whomever is responsible for her finances is responsible SHOULD have ensured that the TV License was in force, but unless a responsible person has a OPG or Court order, then it is only a informal agreement, often within the family. The best course of action is to appeal the conviction using the Mental Capacity Act as guidance. Our justice system sucks!
This lady need a investigation into the miss justice and abuse of the lady's situation unmorell unjust unbelievable I hope she gets real help and justice
About time the BBC was shut down...
Gary lineker needs every penny off us...
The vulnerable adults Power of Attorney should look into prosecuting the Enforcement Agency. This is as they may well have a case against them due to financially pressurising a Vulnerable Adult. I'm not legally trained but my brother is mentally handicapped so I know stuff. I bet other laws have been broken here!
I found black belt barristers stream interesting about when he wrote to them and asked for a list of what he needs a licence for when watching TV and they replied there isn't one, so how can all this be inforced legally.
Its time to ditch all television licences by getting rid of televisions i suspect.
What makes this even worse is that someone was officially appointed to handle the disabled ladies finances? .. Can you imagine the abuse that must be going on? I mean just imagine TV enforcement officers being appointed to manage peoples finances? LOL... This is where its all going Jon!! Happy new year M8.. Keep em coming this TV license needs to be gone!!!
I'm sick and tired of getting these threatening letters. I DON'T watch BBC at any time or live TV either... and I DONT want to tell them I don't need one because I don't want them having my details. Why do they need that information if I don't need one? I'm just waiting for someone to turn up at my door, see the satellite dish on the block of flats and assume I use it. I hope there will be some sort of Channel 4 Dispatches into TV Licensing and their shadiness.
Most people are too polite and the goons rely on that
A good days work for someone that. Earned their 15k a year... Presumably how to respond appropriately is to rub your hands together in glee, force your way in and issue a £1000 fine. The *idiot* from the council should've pleaded not guilty. No common sense whatsoever, just nod and conform to the rules. A criminal record and 6 months conditional discharge? We the people smash the court up. They should have dismissed this out of hand.
I also blame the judge handling the case, because it should have been thrown out!!
He was probably completely un-aware.
It was handled through thr 'Single Justice (sic) System'. He would be presented with a list and a declaration that a guilty plea had been entered. It appears to be a flawed system.
The individuals to blame are the visiting TV goon (I usually avoid that term, but not this time), and the council officer who entered the guilty plea. Sack them !
Sounds to me like those responsible for buying the tv license are the ones that should be prosecuted !
May I start by saying HAPPY NEW YEAR CHILLI, we all had a great 2023 with you and as for this story whoever knocked that poor woman door he or she would of been able to sss the situation they could have and should have walked away. Vile person.😡
If you engage with them, they are highly trained to either sell you a licence or secure a prosecution. Walking away is not an option for these type of people.