29 January 2011

Update: Robin de Crittenden’s Case

For almost nine years now, the TVLA has declined to prosecute Mr. Robin de Crittenden, the Monarchist who withholds the TV licence fee on account of high treason allegedly committed by the BBC. However, Mr. de Crittenden now demands a meaningful answer to his recent representations against the TV Licensing Authority.

This December, he replied to a TVLA warning sent to his address in the following terms:

‘I have said previously and I now repeat that your highly-suspect and publicly-funded Organisation has been and remains guilty of collecting financial support for the treason that is being practiced against the Crown & Sovereign Lady of this United Kingdom. I find that I must now repeat my earlier statements that I will not pay money to your organization, on any pretext whatsoever, whilst you continue to support the practice of treason, and that for the avoidance of all doubt I must repeat that I am not impressed by the claimed reliance on Legislation that is now being employed by your officers, in their misguided attempts to offer bully-boy tactics to the subjects of the Crown.’

In his letter, sent to the TVLA Chief Executive, Mr. de Crittenden refers to his earlier correspondence, which stressed it was a criminal offence to aid, abet, procure of counsel high treason. He further points out that all TVLA staff are fully responsible for their actions and cannot avoid that responsibility by referring to orders of their superiors, as it has been established at Nuremberg trials. The letter continues:

‘May I suggest that you now take all steps necessary to restore yourself to the pathways of decency by the process of resigning your position and by the further process of making public the very good reason for your departure from the service of Traitors; Thieves & Liars?

‘As an alternative course of action, I must now suggest that you hold to the courage of your own convictions and bring a prosecution against me for my continuing refusal to pay money to the worthless organization that you seem content to represent.  I am more than content to place my position before a properly-constituted Court of Law and to rely upon members of the British Public to decide whether or not my position is justified.’

However, the TVLA seems unwilling or unable to face legal difficulties arising from Mr. de Crittenden’s demand to be tried by a jury of his peers and in accordance with the law of the land. In a formal reply, TVLA’s Sue Barnett advised Mr. de Crittenden to buy a TV licence and dismissed his arguments on treason as irrelevant.

To that, Mr. de Crittenden replied:

‘Dear Miss or Mrs Barnett,

‘I am not satisfied with this response; not least because you are clearly nothing more than a minor cog in some monstrously-expensive (and publicly-funded) hierarchy of nonsense.

‘If your Chief Executive (to whom my e-mail was addressed) holds the misbegotten opinion that he is protected against the  consequences of his treason by the text of any legislation that has been enacted by Thieves; Liars & Traitors sitting in the House of Commons, then it is high time for all/any such legislation to receive the full attention of a long-suffering British Public.

‘The Documentation issued by your organization is offering constant threats against free-born English People, who are, no doubt, doing their level best to survive in the disastrous world that is being created by your vile masters, and I repeat that I am not impressed by such conduct from publicly-funded people who should have the courage to take themselves into lawful employment which would serve to provide some recognisable benefit to human society’

He then demanded ‘an intelligent response’ from Carl Shimield, the head of the TVLA. Mr. Shimield’s response, which followed the next day, stated that the TVLA did not share Mr. de Crittenden’s views on treason or on the legislation concerning TV licensing, and was acting under its ‘normal procedure’. Mr. Shimield added:

‘If you are using a television receiver at your address without a licence, you render yourself liable to prosecution and a fine of up to £1000. If you are not using a television receiver, please let us know so that we can update our records.’

To that, Mr. de Crittenden replied:

‘The records of my many contacts with your organization are such as to show beyond doubt that I continue to use my own television entirely at my own discretion, and entirely without any License granted at the behest of Traitors; Thieves & Liars.’

He criticised Mr. Shimield for his and his staff’s ignorance of the law, and suggested: 

‘I hold the opinion that you should now educate yourself in the entirety of our Constitutional Law, before you issue threats of prosecution to anyone at all, at any time.

‘On the other hand, I find myself forced to consider the possibility that in common with the Traitors; Thieves & Liars who are your masters and who are now infesting the House of Commons, you are of the misguided opinion that laws are created to the particular purpose of providing funds for your own pocket?

‘Please let me hear from you again, if and when you are able to muster the courage necessary to pursue the very real consequences of the present-day threats that are being sent to me by ill-educated members of your staff.’

At that, the correspondence stopped for the time being. However, Mr. de Crittenden was visited by a TVLA representative early in the new year. According to Mr. de Crittenden’s letter to Mr. Shimeild last week:

‘I have been asked to admit one of your 'collectors' to my home for purposes of further meaningless discussion, and I have noted very carefully that this same 'collector' asked for me by name when he was connected to me via the intercom facility at my flat.

‘You will not be surprised to hear that I referred your 'collector' to the entirety of the correspondence now on file with your department - and therefore in your own possession -  and that at this point of a very brief conversation he decided for himself that pure cowardice represented the better part of the 'valour' that is clearly being taught to the entirety of your staff.

‘May I suggest once again that your department represents nothing at all that has value, and that the entirety of your staff should now begin an active search for work that will be of some value to the society that you are currently attempting to threaten and oppress? 

‘For myself, I remain very thankful that I am not a poor widow or orphan, and that I have been given the ability to recognise the value of a tree by the value of the fruit that is offered by the same tree!

‘In closing, I should mention that since receiving the above-mentioned visit, I have more recently received a further communication that is addressed to the Legal Occupier of my home:  Is it too much to suggest that all correspondence should be addressed to me by name, or is it the case that your staff have not be trained in issues of courtesy and morality at any level at all?’

In conclusion, Mr. de Crittenden demanded a ‘substantive’ response to his representations on ‘the issues that lie between us’.

In his campaign against the TVLA and BBC in defence of the Constitution, Mr. de Crittenden enjoys a full backing of Vladimir Bukovsky’s TV License Refuseniks. We monitor the developments most closely, and shall offer him every support whenever he needs it.