BBC’s Worst Nightmare – How to Cancel you TV Licence for Good!

The BBC will absolutely HATE this video; make no mistake about that! Their days are numbered and this video provides all of the info you need to put an end to their protection racket once and for all. Together we can make the BBC’s worst nightmare come true. It’s the least we can do to pay them back for the untold misery they have inflicted on the UK population since TV Licensing was first conceived of.

This video gives you the knowledge you need to successfully deal with BBC TV Licensing once and for all. The more people who follow the advice in this video to avoid the TV Licence, the sooner we can put an end to the BBC’s extortion racket. Even if only one in every 10 of us cancelled our TV Licence today, the BBC would lose £400 million over the next 12 months. They would then have to start thinking about alternative ways to fund their propaganda machine. Extorting money from every household in the UK may have been acceptable in the days when the TV broadcasting infrastructure had to be put in place, but in today’s world the licence fee is nothing more than decriminalised extortion. The licence fee rakes in £4 billion each year for the BBC, but where does all of this money go? … a bunch of TV and radio channels and a website does not cost £4 billion per year. So you can bet that a large proportion of that money is finding its way into the pockets of some shady people at the BBC. The bottom line is this: No one in this country should be forced to buy something against their will, especially if they have no use for what they are being forced to buy.

It is so unfair for the BBC to hire commission-hungry salespeople at Capita, who use fear and high-pressure sales tactics to scare the public into parting with their money. The BBC like to call these salespeople “Officers” and to impose targets that compel them to sell 28 TV Licences per week or face the sack. Imagine if the police operated in this way. The prisons would be full of innocent and vulnerable people. It is also unfair that TV Licence goons prey on the most vulnerable people. Imagine a non-TV Licence payer who lives in a mansion surrounded by a large perimeter fence and gates at the entrance that prevent anyone from getting anywhere near the property. A TV Licence goon wouldn’t waste their time calling at such a property, as they know they wouldn’t stand a chance of being able to even speak to the occupier, let alone scare them. It is far easier and more productive for the goon to prey on occupiers living in working class areas where there are many homes with front doors that are easily accessible. Therefore it makes perfect sense to simply not engage with any TV License goon. The worst they can do is knock on your door every couple of months. Eventually they’ll give up calling altogether and go and prey on an easier target. As for TV Licence threat letters, well they can come in handy in the winter if you have a coal fire or log burner. Shredded TVL letters can also provide a more comfy home for all sorts of house pets. Or alternatively, making things out of papier-mâché can be an awesome way for people to express their creativity.

REMEMBER: Every single person who has ever been convicted for not buying a TV Licence, was convicted for one reason only – they accidentally answered their door to a TVL goon and didn’t know what to say or do from there. Some victims even inadvertently provide the goon with grounds to obtain a search warrant. Don’t be another victim of the BBC’s intimidation, bullying and phoney search warrants. Save money instead by getting clued-up on TV Licensing. The answer to the BBC is LLF… along with silence and a closed door!


Share Content


  1. W.osborne

    Instead of forcing pensioners to pay for a biased media, why don’t the BBC cut the fees of the likes of Gary Lineker and the enormous salaries the director’s are paid?

  2. Brian

    We poor people in England have enough bills to pay which takes every penny from us surely they can get money from advertisements, but no let’s get as much out of the poor people as they can to keep us locked in our homes with no money to do anything else but watch tv and supply the money to make them rich. Do you know anybody who has been on tv to be poor, no they all get big salaries and the poorer people are paying this. Disgusting

  3. On a technical note, pictures received through the ariel are not live, as they have been digitised. Courts are illegal, as the following explicates succinctly. On a final note, if at court, a human says they are there as a living being as a man/woman, the court lose all rights over the juristic person (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), as the court is now a common law court. Man is superior to, and anterior to, administrative courts, which are illegal anyway.

    Halsbury’s Laws of England are regarded as the overall authority on England’s Laws.
    (iii) Particular Types of Act
    1221.  Constitutional Acts.

    The British Constitution is said to be ‘unwritten’. This only means that, unlike most countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution and much of its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth the state’s constitutional principles1. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be regarded as a constitutional Act2. The main significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which then apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear words3.

    1 See eg Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.
    2 See eg the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.
    3 See PARA 1299 text and note 5 post.

    note 2–Supreme Court Act 1981 now cited as Senior Courts Act 1981: Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Sch 11 para 1 (in force on 1 October 2009: SI 2009/1604).

    The Constitution derives from the Magna Carta 1215 – and also the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.- as well as Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.

    As Lord Halsbury was a very interesting man and I’ll finish by quoting a piece from that excellent (though expensive!) work that bears his name:-

     “It is a constitutional principle that the assent of the Queen & Parliament is prerequisite to the establishment of a Court which can operate a system of administrative law in Her Majesty’s Courts in England. This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250: “There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights”.

    So, performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. A breach of that Oath is perjury.

    If the argument is that Common Law has no basis in administrative law proceedings (and therefore is irrelevant), it should be noted that administrative law has not been sanctioned by Parliament.



    All Administrative Courts are UNLAWFUL “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful”. The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that “To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason”.

    Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 Halsbury’s 4th Edition of Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them. Lord Diplock stated … (its recorded in HALSBURYS) “All administrative courts are illegal and can never be legislated into existence”, performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. A breach of that Oath is perjury. To add: ‘Administrative Law’ (so called) forms no part of ‘the laws and usages of the realm’ – Which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct – otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially.
    This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250:

    “There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.” OR THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF 1688

    Volume 49 of the Journals of the House of Commons (1783). Page 663 goes on to say:
    “. . . all Sovereign, Legislative, and Judicial Powers are the Rights of the People; and though the People have delegated those their Original Powers to others, in Trust, for the Benefit of the Community, yet the Rights themselves are reserved by the People, and cannot be absolutely parted with by the People to those Persons who are employed to conduct the Business of the State.”
    It continues, “That the Constitution of England is held by the King, Lords, and Commons, and other Officers appointed by the People, in Trust, for the Benefit of the People; and though these Trustees may regulate and improve the Constitution, yet they cannot alter or subvert it without committing Treason against the Nation . . . That Magna Charta, or THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, . . . the Constitution of England, which are in and by them respectively declared . . .”
    ” . . . the Office of KING of England was not instituted by the People merely as an Office of Profit and Honour to the King, but he was so appointed as chief Trustee and Guardian of the Constitution and Rights of the People; and that important and laborious personal Duties are annexed to the Regal Office, the Objects of which are, to promote the Good of the People, and preserve their Rights in full Vigour from Innovation and Corruption . . . That it is the Duty of the King to preserve the Constitution of England and the Rights of the People against every incroachment; and, in order to enforce that Duty, the [Coronation] Oath is required to be taken by every King on Accession to the Throne of Great Britain.”…
    “That the Constitutional Rights of’ the People have been violated, and that it is the Duty of the People, in the present alarming Crisis to assemble and enquire into the Innovations or Infringements which have been made upon the’ Rights of the People.”…
    “That is the Right and the bounden Duty of the People to punish all Traitors against the Nation.”…(Skip to Appendix C. 20. Apr. 1792. on page 665)

    “That all Civil and Political Authority is derived from the People.”

    Common law is the highest law in the land. Under common law, a judge has no rights over a human, it is the juristic person, the birth certificate, that is used to control the human, which believes it is that person. A judge is a fictitious legal entity, controlling the fictitious legal entity of a birth certificate, which belongs to the state, but you are representing it.

    This will demonstrate mathematically, legally and lawfully, why a judge or the state has no rights over a human; no official can order a human to do anything, under penalty of forfeiture. A juristic person can be ordered to do something, as it is owned by the state, (you just represent it), if you agree to represent that juristic person.

    See hear, they both refer to the same document…

    By the way, a court as it is understood, magistrate or judge’s court, is only an administrative court, that is, it is administering paperwork between the executive, aka government, and the juristic person, aka birth certificate, who is being represented by yourself in that administrative court. A proper court, where there are 12 people who decide your guilt or innocence, as a human, is a common law court.

    I hope this clarifies the position.

    I should add that under common law, there are only two directives, as it were, which originate from God, (whoever, whatever you believe God to be), and this is what is used today in common law countries.

    They are:

    1) You cannot harm or kill a human.

    2) Property – you cannot damage, destroy, steal or receive stolen property, i.e., you cannot have ‘doings’ with property you have no rights to.

    As an addendum to the above, if monies were extorted, this is then under false pretence, as you were lied to, as it is the juristic person who was fined, not you, the human; this is a false declaration, and technically fraud, which the state knows of, so the contract is null and void, and remedy is payable by the state to you, the human being.

    This may be useful too.

  4. alisonnpaul

    if we have the ariel installed or a dab radio that receives the bbc we are able to connect, however we are at a stand off as to who can prove we do or don’t technically the law states we are innocent until proven guilty so if the bbc can’t prove in a court of law we have watched their program we shouldn’t really be prosecuted / penalised for it. if you move into a new home and it’s got an ariel can they prove you installed it or was it a previous tenant the law can’t prosecute if it’s not been proven

  5. Theodore

    As you may know, here in the USA, we do not pay any kind of “License” fee for live TV broadcasts (including the BBC). It is paid for by companies that pay the various broadcasters to show their advertisements to promote various products. I had no idea that it was any different anywhere else. The tactics shown in this video the BBC uses are extortion, plain and simple. Should that be attempted here in the USA, the company would be fined, the owners jailed and shut down immediately. The only thing I can think of that relates to this here are the “Traffic Cameras” that have begun popping up on various public roads. These are run by third party companies, not law enforcement or the government. They photo you running a red light or speeding and send you threatening letters that you have to pay a fine or go to jail. However, since they are not law enforcement, they have no legal ability to make this claim. Part of our constitution states you have the right to face your accuser. This is why, when you dispute a speeding ticket in court, the officer who ticketed you is present in the court room. A camera cannot do this. Not to mention photos can be altered. I hope you are able to stop this obvious threat to your rights and freedom to choose. I will be following this more closely.

  6. Ricky lister

    I Watch everything through the Internet I don’t watch BBC channels or ITV or Channel 4 or Channel 5 It’s not just BBC why do we need to have a license at all I don’t understand why nobody is complaining because when you watch any channel there all repeats It’s just the same old crap on every channel repeat all the time

  7. Alan

    There are questions about the police’s part in this…they are paid to protect us but do they really?. The people who are working for a private company to extort money from us by intimidation, are surely breaking some law in the manner they are going about their job to entrap us and the police are being party to this by allowing it to happen. Have there been any court cases brought against those?.

  8. Billy Coyle

    What would the Tories do without BBC we pay BBC to keep the Tories in power,without their funding the Tory party would die,i for one would never pay to help the public school boys who run this so called government who take great pleasure in watching people suffer.

  9. Diane

    We,v been ripped off n lied to by the BBC for years,,they never show real news that the public NEED TO KNOW ABOUT,,,,cover up stories to show fake news or no news,,kept things from the public that was n is vital need to know news,,we still say the BBC n those in power had Jill Dando murderd just before she was due to spill the beans n reveal the dirty secret cover ups on child abuse,,she was going to expose them all,real off the endless list of names of who was involved in the child abuse,grooming gangs n pedos,,including vile savil,,gary glitter,,Tv presenters,Actors,Mps,even those in higher power n the police force to judges,,she had been doin her own investigations over the last few year leading upto her murder!!!! making pensioners pay for a full licience,sending them threatening letters too,,SHAME ON U,,,plus the EU leader/s pay BBC millions,, thats to keep the truth from the people,,sack them all,,shut down the BBC,,investigate these crooked liars,,and certainly dont pay for ur tv licence,,

  10. colin

    People of UK; do not worry about corrupt BBC and Affiliated Tory scum. If you do not watch BBC “LIVE” then you have no worries from these scum. Just tell them to go away and never pay their corrupt fees. They will then cease to harass you, other than regular threatening letters, which you must simply ignore. You must not allow immoral filth to upset you. Trust me, time will prove that BBC is one of the most despicable organisations that has EVER existed- one only needs to examine the ASTRONOMICAL salaries of BBC executives and managers, and yes their favoured presenters, requiring the massive TV licence to fund their salaries, to see why they try their utmost to rip off the British populace.

  11. You

    Total disgusting for our pensioners veterans blind persons scrap it it wouldn’t bother me if I never had a television it’s terry

  12. Marjorie Leavey

    Total rip off if they got 50 pound a year off everyone they getting enough instead of paying all these high earners for eating a bag of crisps and sitting commenting on footbalk with high earnings reduce there wages .

  13. Bronwen

    SarahWesson you are a remainer no doubt due to the comment which reads.. Quote…

    I refuse to subsidise the further brainwashing of the entitled Brexit generation who are more concerned about some arrogant, imperialist crusade and numbing their minds with the dregs of BGT and Love Island than the state of our planet

    We are on this blog to condemn the BBC TV licence not throw Insults about. I am a brexiteer and you seem to know what I view on my TV…
    I know many remainers who watch Love Island or was your message meant to insult the uneducated.. Brainless.. Idle working class. .the. only people who would watch Love Island or BGT..I admire your elitist arrogance..

  14. Debbie Ayton

    My Family never watch BBC
    I used to watch breakfast BBC but I found it boring and negative in the morning
    As we are forced and Bullied to purchase aTV
    I tired to pay online and opted for the years payment so I would not have to give them my Full
    Bank details and access to my account
    Not satisfied with a years money In full
    They still required my bank details to collect the money after a year

    Money grabbing criminals as I do not require there services and do not want to watch any BBC programs as we all
    Watch Netflix or get the news on line
    What a massive scam this is. And we are powerless to stop them sending us a fine.

  15. Alan hemming

    I thought that no company in England can have an monopoly, but has the BBC not got one, why pay to view only a few channels, when there are loads more to watch, is this not dictatorship, what has the BBC got that the others don’t, don’t say adverts, they do as they are allways plugging other BBC programmes, is this not advertising, get lhe legal department to look into this and sue them, sorry that’s my rant over with

  16. Pete tuey

    Think a lot of people’s comments on here saying the bbc are right wing think you got that wrong the BBC ARE VERY LEFT WING no wonder the country is in the mess it’s in with people like you voting and not knowing your left from your right And has not watching the bbc for one day LOL do you think that will make a difference

  17. Mark Edson

    the govenment make money out the TV licence the BBC is out dated and we should only pay when we watch BBC I have told SKY to block the BBC they didn’t so I puled the plug on SKY I watch Amazon and Netflix now when I want to watch TV but that is limited as I buy my TV programs on DVD & Bluray no adds no right wing bull shit the BBC is not and never has been for the working class

  18. SarahWesson

    I haven’t had a TV license for many years and I boycott BBC and live TV channels out of choice. Why should I pay to have intrusive, annoying adverts shoved down my throat every 10 minutes, interrupting my viewing and leisure time and invading my home? The British Biased Corporation pander to the right wing government and refused to show aid infomercials for Palestine because they favour the terrorist regime of Israel. Furthermore, I refuse to subsidise the further brainwashing of the entitled Brexit generation who are more concerned about some arrogant, imperialist crusade and numbing their minds with the dregs of BGT and Love Island than the state of our planet that will be a barren, toxic wasteland for my children to inherit. Don’t fall for their bully tactics!

  19. Mary

    I am a pensioner and I am horrified to say the least with the BBC. I will NOT be watching any BBC channels or Radio on 21st June. I will spread the news to all my pensioner friends to do likewise. This is disgusting, we have all worked hard all our life, what a disgraceful way to treat us.

  20. Ally S.

    Let’s see if that niggles them a bit.

  21. Syra McCarthy

    I don’t and haven’t for best part of my life watched the BBC or any their channels, there’s just not anything on them I would watch so I grudge every penny of the TV licence.
    If you don’t use those channels you shouldn’t be made pay for them.

    In regards to oap having to pay for a license is a joke. Most these people working in the BBC make more money in a few month than an oap makes in a year….they have fought for our country they have paid into the government for donkey years and should be entitled to a wee perk in their retirement time. TV is most these people’s ONLY pleasure and the BBC should be hanging their heads in shame for even suggesting this. Here’s an idea why don’t they drop their annual income by a couple percent or even better the bigwigs suggesting this ludicrous move not to take a bonus this year any debt they are in will be cleared!

  22. Jim

    If the BBC are struggling why don’t they take adverts ? then we wouldn’t have to pay the robbing sods !! whether you pay for sky or any other provider, if you have a TV in your house you need to pay 🙁 its crap ! talk about a captive audience

  23. Morag Low

    Absalutly shocking after what they let all those sick men do to innocent young children now you want to attack the elderly who else will be next scrum

Leave a Comment