The Times Online has run an article worthy of the tabloids announcing, “Public figures refusing to pay TV the fee are being let off to avoid making them heroes.” The article suggests several well-known figures including Noel Edmonds are not being prosecuted for their public refusal to pay TV licensing fees.

There may be an argument for TV licensing fees (let’s hammer that out in the comments) but there is no excuse for the bullying tactics employed against those who don’t register. There is a sad public complacency about the powers private companies have been given under mandate from the government to enforce this fee. How many other government enterprises run on the premise that citizens are guilty until proven innocent? From personal experience I have been there, done that, with TV Licensing. I declined to prove to the TV Licensing enforcement team that I do not have a TV (which I don’t nor do I watch it through receiving equipment) in order to stop the flow of threatening letters. The letters themselves are phrased with the supposition that anyone without a TV License is definitely in breach of the law - there is no room in the letters for the possibility a person may simply not have a TV. This eventually culminated in TV Licensing visiting my flat to which I declined to let them in (everyone should understand you have the right to deny entry without reasonable grounds).

Bitterwallet definitely does not advocate breaking the law and if a person is in possession of TV receiving equipment or otherwise accessing TV they should be prepared to pay the fee or pay the penalty for refusing to do so. However, it is essential that we do know our rights and where the government is crossing the line.

That being said - Noel Edmonds should definitely be abused equally to the rest of us when he publicly states he won’t pay TV Licensing.

[jasmin49 on HUKD]