| January 2008
It has been two years since I became
an unlicensed person. I have saved £402.50 by not paying TVL/BBC. Today,
I receive my 21st letter.
The statement "Action required immediately" is a lie;
there is no "requirement" for me to take action; TVL/BBC may request
action, and I am entitled to ignore them. The back of the envelope has a bold
Mr Hales says
that the TVL/BBC caught "32,336 evaders" last month. I wonder whether this is
another bogus figure. If anyone out there has the same figure for a different
month, or in another region, I would be interested to
like the one above, has a black flap on the reverse. There is a message waiting
for me when I remove the letter:
says Notification of Impending Action. This is the third such envelope to say
so, the other two being in May and October 2007.
There is also a leaflet enclosed, which I have
received twice before:
A similar envelope type as last month,
but 9 by 6-inch rather than 9 by
After a long
run of the same letter formats, TVL/BBC has come up with something
The psychological purpose of parts A and B is to induce the
reader into selecting at least one of them. This is a technique commonly used
in sales, whereby prospective customers are presented with options A and B with
the aim of creating thoughts as to which option is chosen, not
whether one of the two options is
TVL/BBC reduces the option of not using TV (they mean receiving
broadcasts) to a footnote, and ties to it the condition that the reader should
telephone TVL/BBC and expect a visit. The option that the BBC leaves people
alone is not listed.
Here is the return form for option
The BBC is lying to me again by saying
that action is "required" on the front of the envelope.
Inside, I am
greeted by TVL/BBC's new logo, which omits the trademark symbol ("TM" in a
circle). This gives the impression that TV Licensing is an organisation rather
than the brand name it is.
I also note
that Mr Hales has changed signatures:
I used to compare signatures on high value cheques in a bank and
can state categorically that this pair will fail any comparison test. The new
signature is broader and more relaxed; the J starts from a pronounced curve;
the top of the J sweeps across; the top of the A is not closed; the L is not
looped; the letters are not joined up; and the signature is not underlined.
Finally, the new signature is level, whereas the previous signature is written
at an angle.
These signatures are not by the same person, and I conclude that
"John Hales" is not real. This is the second time the BBC has misled me as to
the identity of the person writing to me;
here for "Val Smith".
I am disappointed that despite the
exposure of the BBC's bogus phone-in contests, its withholding of charity money
and other deceptions, the BBC still regards misleading people and using false
information as permissable.
the letter is the same leaflet as received in February (see above). This is the
fourth time I have received this particular leaflet. Since the only difference
is the change in payment total and TVL/BBC logo, I will save on visitors'
downloading time by not reproducing it.
Previously, letters were from the London South
Enforcement Team; this one indicates London South West. Looking at my
previous letters, I see that the letter of May 2006 refers to London South
East. I do not see how I can be switched from London South East to
London South West; my property has not moved.
We have switched departments again: the June letter
was from the London South Enforcement Team; this one is from the "UK
Enforcement Division". Does that mean there are enforcement divisions outside
A short envelope this
letter that is 1½ inches narrower than
There is also
a leaflet, similar to ones received before, but shorter in length; is TVL/BBC
economising on paper?:
The envelope appears white below but
is in fact pale blue, similar to that received in March
Another narrow envelope: