strawman

alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within that named society. Any such society has to be
named, since the law deems that anything without a name does not exist. Proof would have to include evidence
that an application was made by myself, the human being, to join that society, that the application was
accepted, that evidence of membership was provided and that I have not since resigned from that society.
Failure to provide this evidence and the corresponding proofs within the specified time will constitute tacit
agreement on your part that you no longer demand that I apply for a TV licence and that there is no outstanding
debt on my part in connection with this matter.
In passing, may I remark that were all BBC TV and radio stations switched off right now and never restarted, it
would be a matter of complete indifference to me. The argument that the BBC needs ‘licence fee’ payments in
order to operate is wholly invalid. None of the other TV stations need a licence fee and they not only survive but
they outperform the BBC, providing better quality programmes. To claim that the BBC does not have
advertisements is also incorrect as they do have advertisements of their own making. However, the poor quality
of the BBC content is not the issue here, but rather the unlawful nature of demanding a licence and a licence fee.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Patrick-James
Without any acceptance of any liability whatsoever, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.
There was then a letter from Claire Hacker, again repeating the falsehood that “it is
against the law” to watch TV:
148