My petition has officially been removed

My petition has officially been removed from the 38 Degrees website. They “offered me” to start a new petition elsewhere but this couldn’t be done without loosing all the signatures I had gathered already.


Don’t you think it’s ironic to shadow a petition and silence its 393,000 supporters to “protect democracy”?

Anyhow, this all started because 38 Degrees didn’t want to send a message on my behalf urging my supporters to complete the survey on the Future of the TV licence.


Click here to take the survey

( it’s really quick and simple, but if you want to know the questions ahead of time top prepare your answer, Click here for instructions )

Or email them your thoughts here:


PS This is NOT an April Fool. This is very urgent. There is only a few hours left to make a difference.


The government’s consultation on the future of the TV licence will close on 1 April 2020. ​There are two options for those who want to participate: You can complete a survey (the link towards the end of this text) or email a response to . The survey is actually quite short, so I encourage you to use this option. Let me walk you through it.


First, you’ll need to press a couple of arrows to get to the questions and you will need to tick ‘YES” to ‘I have read and understood the disclosure of responses statement’. They will then ask you if ‘you are 16 years old or over’ and if you are ‘responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation’.

The first real question is: Should TV licence evasion (the use or installation of a television receiver without a TV licence) no longer be a criminal offence? You will need to tick one of the 3 answers:

  • It should no longer be a criminal offence
  • It should remain a criminal offence
  • Don’t Know

They will then ask you why and provide you with a box for comments. I encourage you to write something, but it’s not essential. You can just press the arrow to get to the next question.

The second question is: If you have a view, what alternative enforcement scheme models do you consider to be most appropriate? Why?

There are many ways to fund the BBC: subscription, advertisement, general taxation, donations, household levy, etc. If you have an opinion, tell them which one is best. If you are not sure, I’ve made a logic flow chart (at the end of this document) to help you decide. I personally don’t care, as long as it’s not a flat tax with criminal sanctions anymore.

The third question is: What steps could the Government take to mitigate any impacts that may result from decriminalisation of TV licence evasion?

Again, you will be given a box for comments. You can leave it blank if you want.

The fourth question might be the one where your answer is most needed.
The question is: Please provide any evidence you consider appropriate, especially where there is an impact on those with protected characteristics or the most vulnerable. In other words, they want to know how the current TV licence impact people. Do you feel harassed by the relentless letters they send? Did you get a visit from a TV licence officer? Have you been prosecuted? Convicted? Jailed for TV licence fine default? Do you know anyone who has? If you don’t have a personal experience to share, you can remind them of the number of people harassed, prosecuted and jail each year, the proportion of women and mention that it even included children as young as 10 or 11 at one point.

The survey can be accessed here:

(if the link is not working try this one )

If you want some reading material before you send your comments, I invite you to read my TV licence Cheat Sheet

or have a look at the 5-year table

or read about kids prosecution specifically

Logic flow chart

38 degrees has threatened to close my petition ‘End the BBC Licence Fee’


I’ve received a phone call from Robin Priestley, Campaigns Director at 38 Degrees informing me yesterday (11/03/2020 at 13:55) that they can’t keep my petition (which they have been fine with for the last 5 years) because it gets in the way of a campaign ‘Save Our BBC’ that they created 24 days ago. Here is the written confirmation I received last night, and my reply in bold, to each argument they submitted.

Dear Caroline,

Thank you for talking with me earlier, as I mentioned on the phone I’d been trying to talk with you but couldn’t get through on your phone. I’m afraid we’re no longer going to be able to host your petition, and we’d like to work with you to move it to another website.

The reason for this is that it’s now actively working against a campaign that we’re running – and the mission of 38 Degrees to protect our democracy, including scrutiny which is delivered through a public service broadcaster.

38 Degrees is currently running a campaign to save the BBC. The government’s plans to curtail BBC funding would mean the majority of BBC radio stations and TV channels are scrapped, along with the license fee. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to dodge scrutiny and accountability.

Our BBC is a world leading public service. The way that it is funded means that it’s independent of government and corporate pressure. 38 Degrees believes that independent, well funded, publicly owned services are vital to uphold and defend democracy.

At a time when fake news can spread like wildfire on social media and when so much is at stake, this is a dangerous attack on democracy.

Initially we were happy to host your petition as it seemed more focussed on tweaks to the funding model and suggestions for other approaches to consider. However the context has now changed, with the government briefing their intention to “whack” the BBC and “prune its reach” into peoples homes, using funding changes as the vehicle to do so.

I’m afraid as we’ve said above, we can not continue to offer our services to you, as in the current context, in light of government attacks, your campaign could be seen as directly in conflict with our own which seeks to protect an independent public broadcaster and fund it fully.

(I’ve skipped the part where they told me to start a new petition on a different website such as

My reply:

My petition is not, as you put it “now actively working against a campaign that we’re running”. It’s the other way around. My petition predates the ‘Save our BBC’ petition and the older ‘Protect Our BBC’ petition. You should be supporting me because this a David against Goliath battle. And yet, your people have been contacting my supporters via email asking them to support these other petitions. How is that acceptable? And at least back in 2015, money had been thrown at it as well: 38 degrees banners and T-shirts had been printed, volunteers had been assigned to collect signatures in public places, etc. I let it slip both times because I both believe in freedom of speech and in the spirit of ‘may the best one win’, even though I’m just a billy no mates with a dodgy grasp of English and no endless source of donations for my cause.

If the mission of 38 Degrees is indeed “to protect our democracy”, you should be thinking long and hard about this. Because you are basically supporting a multimillion-pound company who harass prospective and former customers on a monthly basis with an investigation, threats of a search warrant and a 1,000 pound fine, prosecute hundreds of thousands of customers, real or suspected, (140k last year, but some years it’s closer to 200k), knowingly preying mostly on women because they are more likely to trust/get intimidated by the salesmen posing as ‘TV licence officers’. They also abuse the judicial system because guilt is assumed and a special status is given in court to commission-based salesmen and most people can’t challenge their prosecution (either because they don’t understand the system, or because going to a different county to face a magistrate is just too much for them). I’ve also recently uncovered that TV licensing had even been prosecuting kids as young as 10 or 11 years old. How can you let that fly?? And lastly, people so poor they can’t afford to pay the TV licence fine are sent to jail for fine default. That’s over 1,200 people in the last 10 years. THESE PEOPLE MATTER. All this is done in the name of making TV.  All this to gives millions to Gary Lineker and Graham Norton. As much as I like (insert any show title here), the ends never justify the means. And now they want to chase pensioners too! (well they already chase dead people, sending nasty letters to grieving families so it’s just the next natural step I guess).

 I’m afraid you have bought into a ‘fake news’, peddled by the BBC itself since the last TV licence review, which is that ‘if the TV licence fee dies, the BBC will die too’. If the BBC is as loved as they say, they will have no problems with a subscription service (and should make much more money too, judging on how Sky is raking it in. For the records, their budget is 6 billion/year). But take it from the horse’s mouth: if the TV licence fee is scrapped, the BBC has already estimated that they would lose 200 million. The collection of the TV licence fee itself is 102 million (sending over 8 million threatograms and conducting 3 million visits a year is not cheap), so the real hole is 98 million. To put this number into perspective, the BBC get 3.7 billion / year from the TV licence fee and a further 1.2 billion from international sales. Millions are poured into Russian, Korean & broadcasts in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Thailand. Cuts can be made without comprising the British output.

If 38 Degrees “believes that independent, well-funded, publicly owned services are vital to uphold and defend democracy” then the TV licence fee must be replaced. It’s an archaic system that creates criminal stigma. Whenever I explain it to foreigners, their jaw drops. It’s not a well-respected institution anymore, they realise, it’s a money grabbing self-serving entity who do not care about those they are supposed to serve.

If “the context has now changed” as you put it, nothing has changed in my petition besides small adjustments to reflect new stats. I always mention to people that there are many ways to fund the BBC that do not stigmatise women and the poor. I’m still backing subscriptions, adverts, general taxation and donations (like for NPD radio in the USA) and I’ve even created a flow chart to help people choosing which system is the best in their opinion.

I’m sorry, but I do not want to transition to another website so close to the end of the TV licence review and so close to reaching 400,000 people. I’m not a computer literate person. I wouldn’t know how to sort it out, how to keep the numbers growing after all the hard work I’ve done single-handedly reaching journalists across the entire United Kingdom for the last 5 years and reaching communities such as the Poles and the British Punjabi. There are only 3 weeks left before the end of the consultation, so pulling my petition now feels like you want to silence me at a critical moment when I need to alert my remaining active subscribers to tell them ASAP about the survey they can complete online.

You know, the support for the BBC in the general population is declining. I think you have noticed it too, as your petition ‘Save Our BBC’ is not doing as well as ‘Protect our BBC’ did. So it looks a lot like someone wants to win by fair means or foul by pulling the rug from under my feet and I won’t put up with it. I hope you will reconsider your position in light of the information I’ve given you today. Otherwise, you will leave me with no other option than contacting an attorney and instruct them to get an injunction.

PS. if you want more information on the mockery of a trial that is a TV licence fee prosecution, or the number of children prosecuted, or anything else of the sort, I’m happy to forward you all the FOI results I’ve collected over the years.


link to my petition while it’s still active: End the BBC Licence Fee

38 degrees has taken my page down today 13/03/2020 at 15:00. They say I didn’t accept their offer to move my petition to a different website, but they gave me less than 3 days to find an alternative and they couldn’t make sure I wouldn’t lose the 393,000 signatures I had already. So that offer wasn’t worth shit.


End the BBC licence fee/


What is it?

  • The licence fee is officially classified as a tax since January 2006. The British Broadcasting Corporation is an independent body allowed to use the state as its debt collector. “That special status only serves to fuel an arrogance and sense of entitlement at the BBC and distance the corporation from the very people it is to serve” (quote by Andrew Bridgen, MP)
  • Watching live TV or the BBC iplayer without a TV licence is a crime and TV licence evaders will get a criminal record. It will not show up on basic criminal record checks, but it will impact the TV licence evader’s credit rating. And because the public has a right to know criminal matters, some local newspapers have decided to add public shaming to the list of consequences.
  • The TV licence fee is not a payment for a service. It’s “a payment for permission to receive television broadcasts and not for the service provided. It is payable in full irrespective of the use made of that service and the quality of reception”.[1]


The law:

  • Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003[2] creates 3 categories of TV licence evaders:

– those who install or use a TV receiver without a licence

– those who intend to install or use a TV receiver without a licence and

– those who know someone living under the same roof who installs, uses or intends to install or use a TV receiver without a licence

  • TV licensing specifies that “TV receiver” means any devices (TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder) but that only live TV broadcasts and the iplayer are subject to a licence.[3]
  • According to the BBC, a licence fee payer is “also (so far as is sensible in the context) any other person in the UK who watches, listens to or uses any BBC service, or may do so or wish to do so in the future”.[4] The mind boggles. Is this verging on thoughtcrime?
  • There is no legal requirement to inform the BBC that no TV licence is required.[5] Their letters, though worded strongly and borderline on harassment, remain unsolicited junk to prospective customers and therefore can just be binned. TV licence “officers” are just salesmen, they don’t have to be entertained.


When did it started?

  • A£2 TV licence fee was introduced in 1946 – equivalent to £85 in today’s money. Until then, the BBC had been solely relying on a radio licence fee introduced in 1922.
  • There is a slim chance (10/1 according to Paddy Power[6]) that the TV licence will be abolished before its 75th anniversary, in April 2021.


Who manages it:

  • Originally, TV licences were issued by the General Post Office. The statutory authority was the Home Office until the BBC took over the administration in 1991. The BBC claims to have halved the number of TV licence evaders since then. (TV Licence evasion is now estimated to be in the range of 6% to 7%[7])
  • ‘TV Licensing’ is a trade mark of the BBC[8],  used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC. In 2002, the BBC awarded Capita the contract to deal with TV licence queries, process TV licence applications and payments, maintain the licence database, visit addresses, take statements, and achieve prosecutions of TV licence evaders. TV Licensing debt collection is carried out by Akinika, which is a debt collection agency owned by Capita. Marketing and printing services, including reminder letters and licence distribution, are carried out by Proximity London Ltd. Media services are contracted to Havas Media.


How is it enforced:

  • Proximity London Ltd sent 8,283,425 reminder letters (AKA threatograms), last year on behalf of TV Licensing[9].
  • These letters were followed with roughly 3 million visits by Capita’s TV officers[10].
  • Visits are usually conducted with the permission from the householder. A court can only grant a warrant if there are “reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed”[11], if evidence is likely to be on the premises and access is denied.
  • TV licence officers generated 139,718 prosecutions in the UK (including out of court disposal in Scotland.) last year.[12] (For comparison, in 2017, there were 147,744 prosecuted/dealt out of court. In 2016, there were 184,595 prosecuted/dealt out of court. In 2015, it was 200,117.)
  • 7% of cases brought to court last year were unsuccessful (9,319 cases). The number of cases thrown out in Northern Ireland is very high (27%) compared to the rest of the UK, hinting that cases are initiated on a speculative basis where it is hoped by the BBC that people won’t contest the prosecution.
  • A typical case is sorted in less than 60 seconds[13]. (This is corroborated by my own experience. I witnessed 92 cases being despatched in 80 minutes[14]) People who were not there were found guilty of a crime that was not proven. It’s a pure rubber-stamping exercise by the magistrates. TV licence reps are treated like solicitors despite their lack of a Law degree and the fact that TV licensing is a high-pressure commission-based sales operation is ignored. The absence of defendant can be partly explained by Magistrate’s Courts being centralised. For example, someone from Cornwall would have to travel to Dorset to defend themselves.


Dirty Side of Pressure Sales:

  • TV licence officers have targets to achieve.[15]
  • They also have financial incentives (commissions on top of their £20k+ salary) to catch as many evaders as possible. The annual average is £5,856 but earning potential is uncapped.[16]
  • TV licence officers try to take a statement using an untitled form (a copy of the form is supplied at the end of this document) from any responsible person living at the address to incriminate them later in court. This led to the prosecution of children (4 aged 10 & 11, 20 aged 12 to 14, and more than 400 in the 15-to-17 bracket) between 2009 and 2016. [17] Some of them have even been found guilty. This aberration is possible because greedy/desperate-to-achieve-targets “officers” only need a name, an address and a signature to start the legal process. Who’s to say how old a person is from just their signature?
  • Buying a TV licence on the spot (i.e. during a TV licence visit) can still lead to a prosecution (see the back of the Interview form at the end of this document. Highlights are mine). These cases are typically dropped on the day they are due to be heard in court, leading to weeks of unnecessary stress for the people involved.


The Money:

  • It costs £50 for a colour TV Licence and £52 for a black and white one. The blind are entitled to a 50% reduction. (There is no concession for the deaf). Residents of care homes may qualify for a discounted TV Licence fee of £7.50.
  • There were 25,752,560 licences in force during the financial year 2018/19.[18] (This does not include concessionary licences held by the Accommodation for Residential Care). This means there are about 5 million UK addresses without a TV licence (There is a discrepancy on total number of addresses in the UK. Royal Mail states some 30 million delivery points but the TV Licensing database shows more than 32 million addresses.[19])
  • There were 4.6 million so-called Free TV licences for over-75s, an increase of around 18% compared to 2004/2005. Until 2018, the cost of those TV licences, reimbursed by the Department for Work and Pensions, accounted for around 17% of the total licence fee income.[20] This is why the BBC is now trying to renege on the deal they made with Whittingdale (AKA the backroom deal that allowed them to increase the TV licence to cover said cost).
  • Income generated by the TV licence was £3.69bn in 2018/19, a decrease of £140m on the previous year.
  • BBC’s total income was £4.889bn. (To put it into perspective, Channel 4’s revenue was £975m[21]) However, the cost of producing all content and of running the BBC was £4.977bn. Results for this year show an accounting deficit of £69 million (2017/18: surplus of £180 million)[22]


How is the TV licence spent?


  • £102.6m is spent on collection costs (£59.9m in call centres, £15.1m in reminder letters and information campaigns, £12.5m in postage, £8.5m in updates to systems, £4.7m in administration and £1.9m in depreciation of new systems)[23]. If you lump it with “Other”, it accounts for nearly 15% of the budget.
  • One can also wonder why the TV licence fee, paid by the British people, is used to fund BBC World Service’s broadcasts in Africa, North Korea, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Thailand and Russophone countries.[24] One way to reduce the TV licence fee would be to stop broadcasts abroad.


TV Licence Fine:

  • Fines for TV licence evasion are based on the criminal’s income and the length of the offence.

Up to 6 months without a TV licence: a “Band A fine” will apply. Over 6 months: the starting point will be “Band B”.


  • Factors increasing or reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation may apply[25].
  • If a Guilty Pleais made, the level of the reduction should reflect the stage at which it is made[26].Untitled
  • The average fine was £127 last year[27], which indicates that the majority of cases involve people of limited means. It’s also worth noting that the average fine is lower than the price of a TV licence and way below the maximum fine of £1,000 stressed in TV licensing’s letters. Court costs and a victim surcharge will be added on top, but they may not be recovered, depending on the financial situation of the criminal.
  • By multiplying the average fine by the number of successful convictions & out of court disposals (121,080), it can be deduced that a maximum of £15.3m could have been gained by prosecutions. However, court records show that less than 35% of TV licence fines are actually recovered.[28] Therefore only £5.3m was probably obtained by criminal courts last year.



  • Failing to pay the TV licence fine (aka TV licence fine default) can lead to prison.
  • In England and Wales, the duration of the stay is decided by the amount owed.Untitled
  • Last year, 65 people were jailed for TV licence fine default (40 women and 25 men, which means women accounted for nearly 60%).
  • The average duration of stay last year was 19 days for the 5 offenders living in England and 8 days for the 60 in Northern Ireland.
  • 1,235 people have been jailed for this crime during the last 10 yearsprison 2009-2018
  • Repeat sentences indicate that the system doesn’t work as a deterrent anymore.
  • It costs the English and Welsh tax payer an average of £89 per day[29] to keep one person behind bars. The same costs £158 per day to the Northern Irish tax payer.[30]
  • The last prison stint for TV licence fine default in Scotland was in 2008.


Gender discrepancy:

72% of evaders were women last year.[31] This is unfortunately typical and the BBC has been made aware of this aberration during the last TV licence review. Nothing has changed though, if anything, the percentage is going up. This can be explained by the fact that:

  1. a) women are far more likely to be at home than men, taking care of children, when TV licence officers come around[32].
  2. b) women are generally more trusting and /or impressionable when being interrogated by an “officer”. They are therefore more likely to sign the interview record (AKA confession) that will lead to their prosecution.

Not only women are more likely to be prosecuted, found guilty and jailed for TV licence fine default, they are also more likely to be repeat offenders (26% for women compared to 15% for men according to Interview records from 2015)*


The Decline of the BBC:

  • More and more people are opting out by using online streaming services or by simply switching off.
  • The percentage of households owning a TV (95%) has fallen by 3% points compared to 2005.
  • For the first time ever, the number of TV licences is shrinking.[33]
  • The BBC’s audience share fell from 34% in 2008 to 31% in 2018 while ITV’s remained the same at 23%.[34]
  • 894,340 licences were cancelled last year (74k per month on average)[35]
  • BBC’s audience is aging. 92% of the 55 year olds and over watch 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, whereas 16-34 year olds only watch 2 1/2 minutes.[36] Put it anyway you like, but 13 min/a week is a ridiculously low number. (The BBC used to use 15 minutes of TV or 5 minutes of radio to claim public reach).[37]
  • The BBC also saw a decline in the sale of consumer products, i.e. DVDs, to the tune of £33 million.[38] Them Dr Who DVDS are probably not shifting as well as they used to.
  • Whenever there is an independent poll (i.e. not organised by the BBC), people usually vote to scrap the TV licence fee. Just google it. There are too many examples to list them all.
  • The number of people opposing the TV licence fee can be gauged by my petition “End the BBC licence Fee”. These days, there are 2,000 new signatures every 24 hours.


TV licence fees around the world:

  • The TV Licence fee in the UK is the 7th highest in the world.[39]
  • Recently, both Finland and Iceland have abolished their TV licence fee.[40]
  • Canada, United States, Australia, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Monaco and Spain don’t have TV licence fees.[41] (For alternative ideas to fund the BBC, see logic flow chart at the end of this document)


Value for Money / Burden on the poor:

  • “Value for money”, an argument frequently used to support the TV licence Fee, has to take into account the amount of resources available to achieve sustainability for both the provider and the customer.
  • Money worries affect 40% of UK employees[42]. 45% of the people surveyed claimed to often have months with no disposable income whatsoever and 22% claim to usually fail to stay within their limits.[43] Research done in 2013 found that a quarter of people said they had less than £50 a month to spend after bills and 5m British adults had less than £10 a month.[44]
  • Even though TV licensing offers “many ways to pay”, the total is always the same because this is a flat tax.
  • If it was great value there wouldn’t be any need to force people to pay for it. Look at Netflix & Sky.



  • The TV licence fee is an anachronism. It made sense in 1946: TV Broadcasts, which had started in 1934, had just resumed after the war and BBC was the only broadcaster (itv arrived in 1955.) Methods were more coercive back then too. But it should have been abolished at the turn of the century at the latest.


Subscription makes sense:

  • If the BBC is so universally loved and widely used as they like to claim, why does it content itself with a fixed income set at under £5bn by the government?
  • With about 9.6m traditional satellite TV households, Sky had £6bn in revenue last year[45].
  • Netflix had a global content budget of more than £10bn[46] of which £1.1bn came from an estimated 10m UK subscribers. [47] [48]
  • Prosecuting people and ultimately jailing some to fund the BBC doesn’t look good internationally.
  • The current licensing system is anti-competitive because the BBC is using public funds to copy, outspend and undermine commercial rivals such as itv & channel 4 & 5.
  • The BBC wants all the privileges of the private company with the benefits of state funding (no governmental interference and no accountability to those who pay for it)
  • Enforcing payment for a service people don’t want (the BBC) to have access to any that they do (freeview) is not logical.


MPs position on TV licence (and free TV licences)

Interview Form (AKA Confession)

Form Caution

The back of the form:interview form back mod

Alternative ways to fund the BBC

Logic flow chart





















[20] TV licence fee statistics by Lukas Audickas and Yago Zayed BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP-8101, 14 January 2019 House of commons Library









[29] This average is based on a disclosure from the Ministry of Justice that it costs £32,510 per annum to house a UK prisoner.



[32] figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that of the 2.24 million people who choose to stay at home to look after their family, 2.04 million are women


[34] TV licence fee statistics by Lukas Audickas and Yago Zayed BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP-8101, 14 January 2019 House of commons Library





[39] TV licence fee statistics by Lukas Audickas and Yago Zayed BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP-8101, 14 January 2019 House of commons Library











The TV licence fee is like making Tesco the National Supermarket and charge people a fee if they only shop at Aldi and then, demanding access to their kitchen to check their fridge…



*KIDS* have been prosecuted for TV Licence offences

Data from the MoJ revealed that:

  • 4 children aged 10 and 11
  • 20 aged 12 to 14-years-old and
  • 440 teenagers in the 15-to-17 bracket

were prosecuted for TV licence offences between 2008 and 2016.

Here are 3 screen grabs from the report.

kids prosec 10-14kid prosec 15-17

Grand total:  464

Prosecution of children have been possible because all they need is a name, an address and a “confession” signed (it’s a untitled form used by TV licence officers to record the conversation with unlicensed people). It’s therefore quite easy for unscrupulous officers to take advantage of a child willing to talk and sign a paper.

What’s even more shocking is that some of those kids have been found GUILTY!

  • one girl aged 10-11 in Kent in 2013
  • one boy aged 10-11 in Surrey in 2014
  • 3 girl aged 12-14 (one from Kent in 2011, one from Durham in 2012 and one in Merseyside in 2013)
  • 2 boys aged 12-14: one from London in 2011, the other in Westmidland, also in 2011.
  • and a truckload (162 girls and 92 boys) of 15-17


This information made it to the Daily Mail ttps://

When confronted by Daily Mail reporters, a spokesman for the BBC simply denied the whole thing. adding that ‘Our policy is to prosecute people aged 18 or over.

The full quarterly report can be accessed here






Royal Scam by TV licensing

Every month, TV licensing sends nasty letters to prospective customers, insinuating that they are breaking the law and that an investigation (and a £1,000 fine plus legal costs) is afoot.  It’s marketing gone wrong.

We affectionately call those “threatograms”. I, myself, have received over 20, with headlines ranging from “You risk a court appearance and a criminal prosecution” to “We are giving you 10 days to get correctly licensed” to “Please act before …” to “As we haven’t heard from you, an officer will visit your property soon” to “Will you be in on…”, to “Your address has been scheduled for a visit by an Enforcement Officer” to “Local investigation active in [your postcode]” to “Officers have now been authorised to visit [your postcode]”.


Old threatograms usually bear an ‘Enforcement Officer Visit Approved” seal and a fake signature, a 10 day calendar or a circle highlighting (wrongly) that the conviction rate for TV licence evasion is 99%. All designed to insidiously create a impression of authority and urgency.

TVL Stamp TVL calendrar

But that was before. See their new calling card for yourself:

flyer 1          flyer 2

(Back and front pictured side by side)

It’s red, like Royal Mail’s Missed Delivery cards. It only bear one logo: The Royal Mail’s, and it uses a hand written font to make it look like it was written by your postperson.

It states that the website is available 24hrs, but it deliberately omits to refer to, which would have given the game away.

It insists that this is urgent and that contact should be made ASAP, which is not true because the British public has no duty to inform or assist TV licensing, as confirmed by Matthew Hancock from the Department fro Culture, Media and Sports.

no legal requirement

When I received this, I was at home. It totally fooled me, I went rushing after the postman asking him why he left me a card instead of delivering me whatever he was supposed to. That puzzled him too at first but he said it was not one of his cards. I went back home and re-read the whole thing, trying to make sense of it. “Read information inside” was odd, as it was a card. But then I realised it was 2 pieces of paper really well stuck together, so with the use of my nails, I opened it and found the same usual drivel: Fake stamp, check! Threat of an investigation, check! Threat of a £1,000 fine, check! Insinuation that I might be breaking the law, check! Mention of “Enforcement officers”, check!  (By the way, TV licence “Enforcement officers” are just glorified sale reps, so give us a break and drop the pompous titles, Beeb! )

royal scam

The BBC (under their TV licensing umbrella) is using deceit and fear to prey on the vulnerable in order to compensate for the lack of interest for their products. This is a new low, even for them! Who knows the depths they are prepare to sink to manipulate the public!


The BBC needs to realise that people that more and more are switching off. They need to acknowledge that is is legal and that people like me are not “TV licence evaders”: we simply don’t want or need a licence. And if they wants us back as customers, they better change their attitude because there is NOTHING in their junk mail that makes us want to reconnect with them. It’s like trying to catch fly with a vinegar.