The case law supports (or perhaps, "tends to support") the PRS about wireless at work.

The removal of the wireless ends any infringment of copyright by that route.

It does not undo any past infringments.

I cannot envisage any court being likely to accept that it was only talk shows that were on. It would be so unusual.

I am surprised that the word "prosecuted" was used. Normally PRS enforcement for copyright infringment is civil not criminal and one can only be "prosecuted" for a criminal offence. The provisions in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA") about criminal infringment are fairly hard to read - but are not normally invoked save against knowing pirates.

Perhaps he indicated an intention to assist the expedited departure of the PRS people?