I feel Klondike and Diasi partly see my aim. I can't find any 'previous' challenge to the BBC on the point (strictly punctilious) known commonly as a 'loophole', that I may contest in 'defence'. My overall aim is not to give any more of my money to support this edifice that denies free speech and promotes biased reporting.
I believe the broadcaster will accept the financial fall-out from those of my opinion and rather than creating a 'cause celebre' case, grabbing headlines on platforms they can't control, will inevitably desist prosecution. In fact Diasi's point concerning the 'doorstep precedent' liability, validates one of my previous suggestions for the reticence to withhold payment many face. With the fear of criminal prosecution as a septuagenarian a possible corollary, many will just leave the monthly DD in place through inertia. The BBC are now solely responsible in charging those aged 75 plus (subject to means testing). Previously this was a Central Govt decision legislated through 'The Communications Act 2003.' A timorous and politically motivated delegation to the broadcaster on this facet, by the instantly forgettable George Osborne in his unremarkable reign as Chancellor in the 'coalition administration' of Clegg and Cameron followed.
Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, said four days ago, he felt "let down" by the BBC's decision and warned that it would "have an impact" on whether failing to pay the licence fee is downgraded from a criminal offence in the courts ... an important indicative escalation, if more than merely a sound-byte?
Personally I am not afeared of the personal consequences. My background as an purveyor of legal opinion and lifetime knowledge of litigation as an advocate, convince me that my judgement will be correct in this overall assessment and that I won't face terminal pursuit. If I were advising the BBC weighing as a Plaintiff, I would sugggest the following. The detraction of creating a precedent, gained through losing a single, or even multiples of £157 units to a Plaintiff collecting £275,000,000 from 1.75 million overwhelmingly pliable elderly people (6% of the their £4.9 billion income last year) would mean I would advise the overall risk too high.
Even if they were victorious, elevating an elderly martyr to conceivable imprisonment would be disastrous. Imagine a 'Captain Tom' pensioner bravely taking on the bully-girl BBC!
However I am 'advised' that within Govt the viewpoint on this contested point are very divided. The Doves (Waitrose Tories) extol the hard line approach by the National Broadcaster and supporter for their 'neo-liberal' policies. The Hawks (Lidl free marketeers) want them stopped, fearing a backlash from the 'blue rinse brigade' deserting them for whatever 'Sir' Nigel Farage morphs into next.
That apart the BBC hierarchy are also a very arrogant collection of self possessed blowhards. Witness their £2.3 million compensation payout to Sir Cliff Richard for a hideously supercilious defence to their appalling actions. With the crunch of a massive tort at the end, including costs, probably £3.5 million overall. A hulking trophy to discourse, poor judgement and lack of objectivity, from start to finish.