strawman

To which the response was:
XXXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
Near IP28 XXX
27th February 2011
Carl Shimeild,
Operations Director,
TV Licensing,
Bristol,
BS98 1TL
NOTICE
Your Ref: 504794/OS
Dear Carl,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 18th February 2011. As “Mister” is not part of my name, I would appreciate it if
you would address me by my name which is Patrick (or more fully, Patrick-James of the Kelly family). There is no
“Mr P. Kelly” living at XXXXXXXXXXX, Red Lodge, Suffolk, nor has there ever been.
You state in your letter that “if you are watching or recording television programmes as they are shown on a TV at
this address – whether on a TV set, computer, mobile phone or anything else – you are breaking the law”. That
statement is wholly incorrect and I have already asked Claire Hacker to state the law which demands any such
licence, and she has 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.
Perhaps I should explain the situation clearly to you. Having been deceived myself for well in excess of sixty
years and having only recently been made aware of the true facts, I can fully understand that you will not be
aware of the actual situation and that due to the many years during which you have been misled, you will probably
find it impossible to accept the facts. However, I feel that I am duty bound to at least present the facts to you.
The basic requirements of law come from the ten commandments stated in the Bible. In England, the application
of those commandments has resulted in a large body of decisions made by juries of ordinary people who have
heard criminal cases in a court “de jure” or “court of justice”. That body of previous decisions changes gradually
with time as the accepted norms of behaviour alter over the decades. That guiding set of decisions is called “The
Law of the Land” or “Common Law” and that is why England is referred to as a “Common Law jurisdiction”.
Everybody in England is subject to Common Law although that law may be altered in any individual case at the
direction of the jury.
In the year 1600, a commercial company was set up by Lord Falconer of Thoroton. It was named “The Ministry Of
Justice” (D-U-N-S Number 22-549-8526) and it’s commercial business was to receive payment for providing a
supposedly independent and disinterested third-party ruling on a commercial dispute between two parties. Those
hearings are called “de facto” or “factual” hearings and neither Common Law nor a jury is involved. Today, each
local Magistrates Court is a trading name of that original company.
154