strawman

To which the response was:
XXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
Near IP28 XXX
15th February 2011
Claire Hacker,
Customer Relations,
TV Licensing,
Bristol,
BS98 1TL
NOTICE
Your Ref: 504794/CH
Dear Claire,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 8th February 2011 and I thank you for addressing me by my correct name.
You state in your letter that “it’s still against the law to watch broadcast television programme services without a
TV licence”. That statement is wholly incorrect and I have already asked you to state the law which demands any
such licence, and you have failed to do so.
As I have already stated, I am not a member of the society whose regulations you are attempting to enforce, nor
do I consent to be bound by those regulations. Consequently, no government statute or statutory instrument
applies to me. You appear to be unaware of the major difference between the Law and government statutes, so I
suggest that you research what is meant by the Law of the Land (“Common Law”) and stop claiming that the “law”
demands a TV licence as it most certainly does not and for someone in your position to be unaware of these
matters is generally considered to be ‘gross negligence’ which is a serious matter.
If you believe that the law does actually require human beings to have a TV licence, then, within fourteen days of
the date of this letter, provide the direct reference of the law which states this. As you are now aware, a statutory
reference is not valid in this matter. Should you fail to provide the reference to any such law within that period,
you enter into legally-binding agreement that I am not required to have any such TV licence.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Patrick-James of the Kelly family
Without any acceptance of any liability whatsoever, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.
There was then a standard letter which is presumably intended to intimidate somebody
into paying:
150