Blimey, you work a lot quicker than me mate getting your videos up! All well said. I was flooded with stuff from your other vids, bet you got even more than me.
I followed your old advice, Jon. Politely sent the goon on his way and emailed Capita to tell tell them that I don't need one. They pinged me again after 2 years and I just ticked the same box. No issues.
Watching so called TV turns you into a addicted moron... Having your life controlled.. Waiting for a programme.. .. or is it to be Programmed? I gave it up when they changed to digital.. as signal too poor. I'm not an addictive personality.. but wow I think I understand what addicts go through.. Best thing I ever did.. Years later I found TH-cam .. I watch when I want to.. NOT when they make me. Cool you got recommend by BBB.
@@tony_w839 What if when my TV was first used (it's now quite old) it WAS for the purposes of watching BBC and the like but is now (via a Firestick) used for watching Netflix, Prime and TH-cam? I'm just not going to answer the door unless I know who it is :) . Hopefully, at some point soon, TVL will learn how to pay wall protect whatever content needs a license and they can stop harassing people. I should probably summon the motivation to wrestle my ladders, out of the thicket that has grown over them, and try to get the old dish down. I think it might make an interesting bird bath. Up on the wall it's a red rag to a bull. Quick question, though. Just checking. Is their any electrical charge going through the areal cable? Can I sever it?
@@batintheattic7293 You could possibly get a fine because your devices are capable to watch live tv. Proving you dont is hard to prove. Like you said dont let them in dont answer the door. Make sure your tv can not be seen if they look through your window and spot a tv then youre screwed.
@@WelshBMWandAudiDriver Unless they check who is using iPlayer, or they can see through the window that the TV being used, or the householder boasts online that he watches without a licence or their ex-partner grasses them up or ...
@@vatsmith8759 They are not legally allowed to look in your window, as for iPlayer, if you are not using it then there is no problem. If you are, then you clearly do need a TV licence. It's that simple.
@@terenceherming1838 as someone has already said, to gain a warrant they need evidence and they get that evidence from what you say when you open your door. They don’t know who has opened the door, all they know is that property isn’t licensed. Say nothing, shut the door, no evidence is gained and no magistrate will ever grant a warrant with no evidence. As CJC says, treat them like a door to door salesman, as that is all they are.
And make sure to check the warrant carefully. If it's more than one calendar month since being issued, it has expired, and is no longer valid. If the address is wrong (even slightly, such saying Road instead of Street), then it's not valid for your address. Also, it can only be executed once. They can visit as many times as needed, to gain entry, but once entry has been obtained, the warrant has expired, and cannot be used again. But none of the above is even remotely likely, if you don't communicate with them. There are only about 100 warrants issued per year, for all of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I saw Jon's video yesterday and apparently he had got a load of abuse from people saying he's wrong. I'm glad that between you two you can clarify things for us more mild mannered sorts. As you said, the whole thing is rather obscure. If they themselves can't decide what TV channels are included then what chance to we have? It definitely needs an overhaul in my view.
@@jmiller007 Only when watched live, its perfectly legal to watch catch up programs other than the BBC's iPlayer, without a TV licence. And you can watch most BBC programs with an inexpensive subscription to BritBox which streams BBC and ITV content. So unless you cant live without live broadcast TV programs there is no reason to buy a TV licence at all.
When I was made unemployed during the couf, one of the things I looked into was cancelling my TV licence - it was either heat my flat or eat, and TV was a luxury I could easily do without. BUT! The response i got from the licensing folk was unbelievable. I felt threatened, harassed with numerous letters, I got a call from a mobile saying 'someone will come round and if you don't permit access we WILL come back with a warrant' - maybe that's all talk, but for a disabled girl living on her own - that's frightening. I paid it out of fear. As a follow up, I now have work, I can pay luxuries freely again. But if the rumours of the law intending to decriminalising not paying the TV licence are true, I'll welcome it.
Bastards, cancel on line hun takes 2 minutes covered for at least 2 years , any letters just repeat..never let them in, don't engage and put any further correspondence in bin
I did see this original video from BBB but as I am subbed to CJC I did realize that some people would be confused but I am glad they got together and addressed the problem after complaints. Our communities are great.
I woukd expect so but depends how a layman as it were defines innocent versus how the law sees it, like if you go murder someone & as it to it are you therefore hypothetically innocent until found otherwise in a court?
Why on Earth dont the BBC make the sign-up process for iPlayer dependent on also providing a current, valid, TV license number?? That way if you have a logon for iPlayer, you have a license - simple as that and it takes away confusion around usage of iPlayer and stops anyone without a license to access iPlayer in the first place.
Thanks for the response to Chilli John's recent video on TV licence. I enjoy both channels and the different accounts of the minefield that is the TV licence requirements. It's fair to say that John is more focused on one subject he particularly passion about. I do enjoy the varied content on your channel which not just explains the law but can raise awareness against scammers etc, prevention being preferential to cure. All the best, for the future of your channel.
Well said on this issue. The ownership of equipment is not a reason to have a licence only if it is used for live TV, recording Live TV or use of BBC iPlayer. I use my equipment mainly for listening to audio \ radio and video production. I'd still not let TVL in without a warrant. Guidance is key here as it is a starting point.
Many thanks for the clarification. One question : You say that the warrant instructs the person to "assist" with the enquiry. What exactly does this mean, and what happens if you decide not to ? After all, why should you assist in your own potential prosecution. There's a viral clip (viewed millions of times) where someone lets 2 TV men and 2 cops into his house. They have a warrant. He refuses to overtly assist. He refuses to give his name. But he does give them access to his equipment. That's all. The good news ... all 4 of them walk out. He's not prosecuted.
@@shuggiemcg1 Below is the video I was referring to. 2 Plod and 2 TV licence goons walk out, with nothing. What I really like is after he's been read his rights, the guy is asked "Do you understand ?" (Which I believe is code for "Stand under my authority"). He says "No". Twice. Very nicely played. th-cam.com/video/tvq48AguDeU/w-d-xo.html
I don't possess a fishing license car licence gun licence or any kind of licence but no one comes Knocking on my door asing me why not apart from the BBC
As someone who is a practicing legal practitioner once told me many laws are introduced to enable corporations and public entities to extort financial penalties from others so never rely on your interpretation of legislation without also understanding how case law influences it and being willing to defend your interpretation in a court where chances are the prosecution has every possible advantage. If in doubt say nothing other than the words "I wish to seek legal representation prior to any comment being made or access granted" as any decent bailiff or police officer will allow this unless they are manipulating the situation in an unlawful way. Another tip in this sort of matter is to have a device you can record with that cannot be seen to receive live TV such as a body cam, digital camera or similar device.
I watch live TV from time to time, but will NEVER pay for a license. Without getting over my front door, they can do nothing! I live in a town with a population of just over 8 thousand. In 13 years in my home, I have not once been visited by TV Licensing. Should that day ever arise, I'll be ready to politely say "No thank you, goodbye" and close the door. The TV License is a relic. Watch whatever you want guys...don't let them try to intimidate you. Stop paying the likes of Lineker, just so he can spout on about allowing foreigners into our Country.
Hi, thanks for clearing that up. But Could you make it clear in your vlog for every one on the point of the warrant. From what I have noticed is a lot of the TV reps turn up with so-called warrants. And a few guys have said to the TV reps that the warrant is not legal because it does not have a wet signature. Could you elaborate on that as even some police officers don't seem to know and usually side with whoever has the warrant.
Just by simply opting out on the TV licensing website, and not paying a licence will bring down the BBC eventually anyway. Be cautious, be discrete, be non confrontational.
A lot of us Brits are too polite and have a real problem shutting the door in the face of someone and these TV licensing goons play on this. That is why the vast majority of conviction are against women because they allow themselves to be bullied. Never forget ANYONE who knocks at your door is making a request NOT a demand and this also includes the police. And when they start rudely asking personal questions!, just shut the door!!
Another question who is responsible for paying for the TV licence?. The owner of the TV?, the home owner?, the tenant?, the legal occupier? or the person watching the TV?.
Question: bbc iplayer is automatically installed on many devices and is unable to be removed in most instances. So how can any device in that position be safe
BBB and CJC are both great guys offering free information or advice and I am very grateful to both of them for doing so! The bad guys are the bbc and the tv licence.
What is a TV anyway, I have a machine where the picture swirls around and around with cloth and soap bubbles, do I need a licence for this swirly picture?
I wonder how many of the people that are prosecuted have let them in and talked to them? Evidence is everything, if they don't have any then there are no grounds for a warrant. If in doubt say nowt, and don't allow them in.
I read a story about a woman who invited them into her home she showed them her smart tv, explained that she doesn’t watch BBC iPlayer but she was still fined £1000 because her Smart tv was still able to access the BBC IPlayer app.
Exactly why I wouldn't let them in without a warrant. They are not looking to catch you red handed watching live TV- they just want to see if you have the ability to. When TV licensing said I was watching live TV (I don't have a TV), they probably meant when I was watching Cracker ITV hub when a live broadcast of the same episode on ITV was on even though I thought it was a catchup on my Chromebook.
@@501sqn3 Just because someone has a Smart tv doesn’t mean that they still need a tv licence if they genuinely do not watch any live tv. Plus don’t know why you have to be so horrible for in the comments.
When a private co aka Capita can even apply for a warrant to enter remember Semaynes Case 1604 an Englishmen's his castle you know they whole system is bent!
So the situation we have is that in the home or the business we have an increasing number of devices that are capable of receiving live TV through their Broadband connection, whether the want it or not. How does TV Licensing conclude that you watch live TV unless they catch you red-handed? I watched a video of a TV Licensing search under warrant where the licensing officer plugged in the aerial to the TV although it was only linked to the DVD player at the time presumably, to prove that the home owner watched live TV? We have a smart TV that connects to TV and streaming services through the WiFi (it does also have an aerial connection that it defaults to when booting up). We also watch live TV on 'breaking news' on You Tube so that you could conclude that because we have Broadband and various pieces of apparatus to connect to it, we therefore watch live TV, ergo we need a license (which we have). It would seem to me that it is far too easy for TV Licensing to make a case that you watch TV if you have any device that connects to Broadband.and it doesn't matter what you actually use it for.
For them to issue a warrant you have to open the door to accept the warrant. I never answer my door. I don't see how they can issue me with a warrant if I'm not there.
Can you please answer my question on the last video. If I have legally to assist the TV licence people is it not right that I am helping convict myself. However I have the right not to help anyone including the police by giving evidence against myself. I think this needs cleared up.
I neither watch nor want to watch live TV and so I don't have a licence. However I have no patience for those who don't have a licence but do watch TV. They don't approve of the TV licence legislation and therefore won't obey it. They are lawbreakers. However you can't pick and choose the laws you will obey. Moreover, you can't expect the law to uphold your rights on the one hand while you break it on the other. The TV licensing law is now inappropriate and outdated. It needs to be scrapped. Possibly it will be at the next BBC charter review, if it doesn't die a death of its own accord before then.
Who said the tv enforcement officers ( goons ) are qualified to check said equipment and equally do they have insurance in case of mishap ? Whilst on your property with a warrant . Would it be classed as obstruction asking to see qualifications and insurance documentation ?.
Should the warrant be signed by a judge or a clerk? Ive seen instance where the came along with the police and touted a warrant but the owner raised it was not signed by a judge and he successfully prevented them from entering the property. Can someone clarify?
Both the comments from Zeyr0 and Vatsmith are wrong. Modern Warrant can be fully electronic (i.e. on a phone or tablet) but they do still require an electronic signature and stamp as per BBB's video about warrants.
If I’m watching live tv from abroad ( meaning like I’m watching live tv from Poland), using satellite dish , do I have to pay tv license? ( I’m paying for that already to receive signal)
But surely a test of reasonableness and proportionality must be applied with regard to videoing a goon visit on a mobile phone, if that was used as grounds for TVL applying to a court for a search warrant. Wouldn't such a warrant request be viewed by the court as vexatious and wasting the court's time?
If my pc has access to Internet, which means I could streem live TV (which I do not) it is password protected due to having clients and personal information details etc am I covered by the protection of data act, and can they force me to reveal my password and go through my pc, as this would then seem to counter the protection of data act 🤔🧐
You have to unlock your PC, if they have a warrant but they are only allowed to look for iplayer or apps that can show live TV broadcasts and, in theory to search your internet history, looking for iplayer/app websites, the warrant does not allow them to just trawl through your files etc. as this would be a data protection breach, even more so if yours is a PC for a business.
When you make a 'no licence needed' declaration on the TVL website you can check a box that says that your television is used solely for a games console. I have checked this box every couple of years for the last 8 to 10 years. Have not had a visit in that time (touch wood). However, modern games consoles have the capacity to access youtube, and youtube has the capacity to show live tv. I have never knowingly clicked on a live sky news stream on youtube, but how do their 'enforcement officers' know that? Also laptops and phones are still an issue for the same reason. I think that saying the TVL laws are flawed is somewhat of an understatement.
They wouldn't know if you clicked on Sky News live unless you told them. If you happen to have it on and it can be heard by them, then even then you could debate you were watching an on demand clip
@@MatthewLenton Sure, i get that, but the whole threatening a search warrant thing, and the implication that your search history or watch history could be examined and used against you is pretty horrifyingly intrusive. (Edit:- I should add, that's regardless of whether you have anything to hide or not. It still seems like a tyrannical overreach on behalf of a relatively petty possible infraction. Thanks anyway Matthew, for attempting to assuage my paranoia a little bit. 😉)
The BBC's system of obtaining a warrant is unbelievable! If I opt to never watch/record live tv again, and never spoke to or invited an inspector into my property, I could still end up in court because: If the BBC see that I have a smart phone - a warrant could be obtained If the BBC see that I have an aerial on my roof - a warrant could be obtained If the BBC check the registration number of my vehicle and see that it has a television feature - a warrant could be obtained It's like being issued with a court summons for doing 155 mph and basing it not on evidence but by simply owning equipment that gives you the potential to do it.
Additional question on the position of a Search Warrant as it applies to smart phones, laptops, computers or tablets. I have a work laptop which technically could be used to watch live TV, but my policies at work would prevent me from allowing, a TV Licence official for example, from viewing it, interrogating the data stored and even showing it to them. In such an instance would they be able to charge me for obstructing the search if I refused to compromise my employment contract and policies. If presented with a warrant, I would want to take legal advice before permitting them to search a laptop owned by my employer. The other point is that the TV Licence is not required to install an app. It is the act of viewing Live TV or BBC iPlayer that requires a licence. For example I might have the iPlayer App on my iPad, specifically for when I am staying in a hotel (I do a lot of business travel). So if they found it on my iPad, that in of itself is not evidence of a licence breach, and effectively they are just gaining anecdotal evidence to support a prosecution. I am horrified that the courts seem to ignore the defendant’s position, and the prosecution case is upheld when no actual evidence of a breach is provided.
The law trumps your employment contract. Your employer couldn't (successfully) take action against you for complying with a statutory duty. Just make sure you notify them straight away about what happened. I'm not aware of any evidence that the courts are doing anything wrong. I think most of the successful prosecutions are people that either confessed on the doorstep or voluntarily let someone in that saw clear evidence of an offence. Or people that have the TV facing the window so anyone standing outside can see that you are watching live TV.
@@thomasdalton1508 I agree, such a scenario is almost impossible as I would never enter into a discussion that could possibly lead to evidence sufficient to get a court to sign a warrant. However, the specific wording on the warrant would surely define whether it applies to any and all devices in a home, or whether it only applied to the property of the occupier. The issue here is whether the search warrant for the purpose of TV Licensing served by an employee or contractor of TV Licensing is the same as a criminal search warrant for a much more serious offence. Clearly a laptop in a house where an offence of a serious nature would permit the police to seize and search the computer, vs the TV Licence, where I might be forced to open a work laptop to compromise its security to allow an inspection. I think the key here is the wording of the warrant. The bit of research I have done suggests the search warrant commonly issued does not permit searches of laptops or computers
@@fatbikemontage2931 I agree, the wording of the warrant is key. I expect it would say they can examine any TV equipment as defined in the act, which would include computers and phones. Did your research find anything reliable or just people guessing?
It's absurd that they prosecute that many people every year for that kind of offence which is minor does not harm or cause anyone harm yet rapists can't even taken to court because they have limited resources to do so why don't they take that money that they wasted on this pathetic law and put it to something that actually matters!
If/when you get a visit, treat them as sales people and ask for what deals are on offer - as you would with any other provider. Ask them if Sky/Virgin offer a better service, and what is NOWtv can they go through their deals? ........ waste as much of their time as possible as they are on commission.
On warrants, don’t they need a paper copy to hand over, rather than ohh it’s on my tablet or phone. Who signs or puts their name to warrant for it to be valid and Lawful ? Thanks
The correct term is a Receiving License. This applies to any receiving equipment capable of viewing "LIVE" BROADCAST. IF a commercial entity ( CAPITA) Agent calls to engage you with the intention of selling goods or a service that person is "TRADING" and can be asked to leave immediately and not to return. FAILURE TO DO SO IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Prepared cards are/ were available for free from your local Police Station. Assuming it is not closed. Other protective terms are OFFER DECLINED, NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT. BEST PROTECTION IS CLOSED DOORS AND SILENCE, SILENCE, SILENCE! In order to obtain a Warrant of Entry they will need EVIDENCE on OATH placed before the Courts (PRIVATELY HIRED?) where there's a risk of PERJURY (PRISON) among others and financial loss to the complainant/ Agent. As always each case turns on its own merit. Don't expect Justice though. Personally I make a conscious effort NOT to watch ANY BBC CONTENT. LIVE OR DEAD.
Fair enough. Don’t let them in. However if they get a warrant and come in what is the situation with default built in apps that cannot sometimes be removed? BBC/itv/Amazon/TH-cam apps are on these devices as a default. Apps can be removed from computers and iPads etc but some TVs come with these apps as Bart of the basic software so they will be present although would not be signed in. What happens there.
They still have to prove you have been using those devices for the purposes of watching or recording live TV or BBC iPlayer. As long as you don't then you've nothing to worry about.
Sign out of iPlayer and remove your email from the BBC database - there's a link on the BBC website to do this. This will ensure iPlayer can't be used and even though the app is there by default, it can't be used without a sign in.
Im foreginer, my english is not very good, im using tv only for netflix and youtube and mostly as a monitor for my playsation - i never watch bbc broadcast or any live tv - that means i do not need license at all (But what i would like to use foregin satellite tv paid in this country do i need tv license?)
I didn't install iPlayer for any purpose. It was already installed on my TV streaming device when I bought it, which I understand I could quite legally use for other purposes without a licence. What's the legality of software I ddn't install if I don't use it? Am I obliged to uninstall it? What if I couldn't uninstall it? This is just theoretically of course, as I'd never let a licence inspector into my house because they can't do anything as long as you don't invite them to cross the threshold - same rule as for bailiffs, or vampires.
When they knock on the door don't talk to them close the door they came to mine some years back I opened the door told him I have removed their perceived tight of accesses they ain't been back since
For years now CJC has been telling people they only need to be worried about Capita if they're 'watching' live tv, he's never mentioned (until yesterday for the 1st time that I'm aware of) what the Telecommunications Act says about the requirement for a licence if you also have equipment 'set up' to be capable of receiving a live signal, regardless of whether your using it or not. He's been repeatedly warned about this omission & how it could land people in trouble potentially who follow his advice when dealing with Capita, but has carried on oblivious & regardless. It's about time he was brought to book on this issue of what the Law actually says.
You are not required to have a licence if you have equipment capable of receiving a 'live' TV broadcast. I've got a 50" TV set which is indeed capable of receiving television programmes but as long as I only use it for watching DVDs or listening to a live digital radio broadcast then I don't need a licence. Yes, Capita can check my equipment assuming they get a warrant but otherwise there is nothing they can do - they are only salespeople trying to get you to buy a licence and sadly many do just that and then they get their bonus! Maybe you need to check what the Law actually says.
@@Horizon344 It is 'capable' of receiving a live signal as most if not all TV sets are but the question is can you prove that it is used for that purpose? As I said as long as I only use it for watching DVDs then I don't need a licence.
@@mda5003 If they inspect the tv/equipment, turn it on & it has an aerial/is tuned to receive live broadcast channels, you've broken the Law without a licence. Watching live broadcasts on it is a related but separate offence.
@@Horizon344 No because I need the aerial to be connected to receive live digital radio broadcasts which I can legally listen to on the TV set without a licence. As regards being tuned to receive TV channels it came like that and as far as I know there is no way to detune it - I'm not an engineer. So, by watching DVD films or listening to the radio I am not breaking the law.
Truth is confusion rules, fuelled by intimidation. The only satisfactory way forward is a subscription system. I can't watch Sky or any other subscription channel, I am not subscribed. We also don't watch live TV but we still pay the "fine" as I don't know who in my house might open my front door to a Capita "employee".
Sorry, BBB, I am still trying to work out what a warrant would allow in the case where someone turned up with a warrant to a property that does not legally need a TV license. Would the legal occupier be permitted to refuse entry on the basis that the warrant only covers "TV receiving equipment" and that no such equipment exists within the property? The main issue being the definition of "TV Receiving Equipment" states installed or used for the purpose.
With regards to this I expect it would fall under the bit he mentioned in previous video about assisting them therefore if they have a warrant I would presume you must them in but show that there is no TV receiving equipment or that is not being used as such & show them you have no apps on handheld devices such as phones installed that allow viewing of live TV.
The point I was making wasn't so much the access to the house but the fact there is no equipment that falls under the legal definition of TV receiving equipment. A warrant is not there to prove you don't posses such equipment but to prove that you do. I would refuse to turn on my TV for them as, in my scenario above it does not constitute "TV Receiving Equipment" by legal definition because the TV is not used/installed for..... Refusing to turn on the TV I would argue is no different than refusing to open up the fridge door to prove that he milk bottle has not been installed or used for....
@@mattwoodford1820 Yes, but you need to ask yourself how or why they were granted the warrant in the first place - they need evidence so they must already know there is TV receiving equipment in the house. I use my TV for watching DVDs so they would have to prove otherwise to obtain a conviction. Refusing entry to TV Licensing with both a warrant and police in attendance would only exacerbate the situation and may result in a prosecution for obstruction.
I'm glad you 2 can clarify I have a licence for my mother and suppose can understand how confusion can arise but abuse is not something that should be done and you were very good and careful and well structured as chilli Jon carne is and he always clarifies aswell hopefully any problems can be put to rest now
@@CrimeVid it's no problem and a easy to miss thing but as long as your covered and if mother has pension credit it's free so best been safe wish you all the best
given that a tv officer has obtained a search warrant. Is it possible, at what ever time to get site of the "evidence" produced to obtain said warrant?
When people say you only need a licence for live as it's broadcast TV and any BBC iPlayer content, which is steamed, what about any of the content that BBC posts to TH-cam. It is still BBC content that is streamed.
as long as it is not Live or on Iplayer you do not need a licence, it is BBC advertising itself in the hope people will buy a licence to watch on Iplayer or Live.
I wouldn't think watching BBC News or other BBC clips on TH-cam would need a licence. Clearly if they broadcast anything live on there, then you would There are also loads of channels where people upload BBC programmes on TH-cam, such as episodes of Only Connect. You are free to watch those without a licence
in your opinion do you think its time to get rid of the TV licence fee and get the money another way, maybe a subscription like sky or include in tax maybe?
I've asked before but here goes again. If I sit in a park and watch iPlayer on my laptop, but don't have a TV licence at home, am I committing an offence? I ask because the TV licence is for a property not an individual.
@@books742 So that indicates that 'a person' requires a licence to watch TV (Which seems at odds with the need for the TV licence to be held for TV reception at an address). Additionally if I, by rights of having a TV licence for the address I live at, go round to my neighbours, who don't have a TV licence, to watch a TV programme there that's OK because I have a Licence. It seems that if my home address TV licence covers me to watch TV in the park it should also cover me at any other location😄😄 On that basis how does a person with no fixed abode get a TV licence to watch TV legally? While a supporter of the TV licence principle I think the laws around it do need revision to improve clarity.
These people have NO authority. They are door to door sales people who work on commision. Its very magnanimous of both of you to help each other over T V licensing.
@@twig3288 Everyone should just stop paying, what are they going to do. We would be O K, we have a Barrister to defend us and a reporter to report it. Thanks Twig.
Does TVL have to prove in court that someone that's pleads not guilty is guilty? If so how? You could have all the on Demand apps, that also let you stream live TV. Is the only way to prove guilt is a photo of your TV playing East end ers ect live? Then wouldn't that be a breach of privacy?
A very good indication of why everyone should have a working (original) Nokia 3310 at home, so that when they ask if you have a mobile phone, you can show them that, which could not receive any live broadcast.
What if TVL obtain a search warrant, but the householder denies access? Would the householder then be given a chance to argue their case in court? Perhaps on the grounds of proportionality, as the search warrant was not to be used to investigate serious criminality, such as terrorism etc., but merely for a relatively small amount of possible revenue for an essentially discredited and disreputable entertainment service, and is therefore an egregious invasion of privacy?
Yes but they would also be charged with obstruction which has a more hefty fine so they would most likely win without evidence the TV licence case but have a huge fine for obstruction (refusing to co-operate with a valid warrant).
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Could you not then appeal, on the basis that the search warrant should not have been issued based on proportionality, which I believe is also a human rights issue on the basis of egregious invasion of privacy, and today's technology meaning that there is a credible non-live use? If the appeal is lost, could it not then be taken all the way to the Supreme Court until it is won and a precedent is created, thereby changing the statute law. It could be crowd funded.
@@grahamcook9289 Possibly it could be escalated but I doubt it. They would claim the only way to be sure you are not breaking the law is to search your home, just like the police can search your home if they suspect you are a drug dealer. Regarding Human Rights, it is whether or not their actions actually break the law, which I doubt. Many simply don't like legally valid laws and think they can somehow avoid them by claiming the law is immoral or the law violates their human rights when they are arrested. Regarding proportionality, if they asked to see your printed bank statements (unless you wanted to use them to prove you had in fact paid for a TV licence) and personal physical letters or the food in your fridge or the bras worn by you or your family members of some other rubbish them yes you could say that was disproportionate as it has nothing to do with potential TV licence evasion. However if they insisted on looking at what you recorded on a PVR that is fair and reasonable as it can prove you recorded shows illegally while unlicenced (as you need a TV licence to record shows). There have been many idiots that have tried to prove "the law sucks" and almost every time they fail.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Invading someone's home with a search warrant is a very serious infringement of someone's cicvil liberties and human rights and such extreme measures should be proportionate to the possible criminality. Evasion of a small sum of revenue to the BBC is hardly serious criminality or therefore proportionate. It is not terrorism, or organised crime or the like. Also, when these laws were enacted ownership of a TV could only mean receiving and washing live TV, as that is all there was. But today with widespread use the internet and on demand streaming no such assumption can safely or automatically be made. This trend will only increase. It is time it was tested in court to achieve a court judgement precedent that will invalidate the statue law and force the politicians and the BBC to reform to become a subscription service or wither and die, which it is doing.
@@grahamcook9289 Many don't like the law. Many try to be a smart ass in court then get stung. If you don't believe me look at what happened to Alex Belfield. Most of what he did was to write emails to people and tell them they were rubbish at their job. He did not give them death threats. He did not meet them in real life. Yet he was given a jail sentence. You may think the law is immoral, but a law does not have to be moral or good, it just has to exist. TV licence evasion is seen as fraud and it is officially a criminal offence. ||f a man has two wives which he registers illegally he can be convicted of bigamy and sentenced to jail. Even if the women know about and are happy about the arrangement. Even if there is no perceived victim. It is the law. You could argue if it is proportionate or not as in some countries such as Saudi Arabia that would be perfectly legal, but under UK law it is not. The way it works is MPs create, change and abolish laws. Only in extremely rare cases are UK laws ever found to violate other "higher" laws. Many have wasted their lives and efforts trying to fight convictions on the basis "the law is immoral" and usually such requests get ignored or they lose.
The public will eventually win because there is an inherent breach of justice such that guilt is assumed and innocence must be proven. It’s the modern equivalent of the window tax.
the law as it stands in England and Wales...anyone viewing from Scotland will know the law is different there because Scotland has its own legal system. Here in Scotland there are I think zero prosecutions and zero search warrants have been issued.....if you are found to be operating a Tv without a licence you will get a letter in the post offering to settle the matter with a fixed penalty fine and it is usually about £60 and that is the end of it, the fixed penalty is not a criminal matter and it is not a prosecution. I've had TV licence inspectors turn up at my door twice, the first time they started a conversation by asking my name , I asked who they were and they said TV licensing at which point I closed my front door on them while saying " no thanks". They shuffled about on my doorstep for a few minutes tapping information into a hand held device then they left. Second time they came I knew who they were and I quickly opened my door and said "no thanks" before they could even say anything. I don't watch TV, I occasionally use my TV to watch a DVD movie, I quite like watching things on youtube, but I don't need a TV licence so I refuse to engage with TVL in any way shape or form as is my legal right.
If I understand the evidence requirements here and correct me if I'm wrong. In order to obtain a warrant they need evidence that a device IS being used to watch TV not that a device MIGHT be used to watch TV.
Hi BBB Was wondering about your take on the you tube video {Goon warrant obstruction stich up} mainly the bit about the caution under PACE, is this not a matter of consent as not in a police station
Not true, all you need is an email address, which does not need to be tied to anything (ie registered property etc). The BBC have chosen not to ask for TV licence numbers to login, which suggests they dont want people to stop using it?
A justice of the peace must be satisfied under oath that there is a BELIEF an offence has been or is being committed. Therefore just seeing a device is not enough for belief. That would only be a suspicion, and that level could easily be argued also. They would have to swear on oath something much more than just seeing a device to obtain a warrant. For example by questioning or seeing a live program being watched. Otherwise they would be committing perjury.
Can someone (BBB) please tell us all the legal side of how on earth the BBC can force us to have a license, and take all the money even if we don't watch BBC generated live content?? I don't pay Asda when I shop in Tesco???
Politicians can pass any law they like. It does have to make sense. The view is that any law can be created by Parliament and provided it is passed by the King then it becomes law. It does not have to be a good law or make sense, it just has to be whatever whim the politicians decide to do at the time. Do you realise that if you record the wrong thing off the TV for your own sexual gratification and never show the recording to anyone you could go to prison? I am not even joking (search "extreme porn law" and it talks about locking people up for recording off British TV channels).
Blimey, you work a lot quicker than me mate getting your videos up!
All well said.
I was flooded with stuff from your other vids, bet you got even more than me.
Hello
Thanks to you I am now 14 months license free and I'm still waiting on a visit (TBH I'm quite looking forward to it) 😄
I followed your old advice, Jon. Politely sent the goon on his way and emailed Capita to tell tell them that I don't need one. They pinged me again after 2 years and I just ticked the same box. No issues.
Watching so called TV turns you into a addicted moron...
Having your life controlled..
Waiting for a programme..
.. or is it to be Programmed?
I gave it up when they changed to digital.. as signal too poor.
I'm not an addictive personality.. but wow I think I understand what addicts go through..
Best thing I ever did..
Years later I found TH-cam .. I watch when I want to.. NOT when they make me.
Cool you got recommend by BBB.
@@mySeaPrince_ Me too I came to hate the TV channels £159 better off each year thanks.
Basically you can fill your house with TV's/laptops/ipads and not need a licence. its all about what you DO with it! Dont let them in, and no problem!
Plus they can't search computers (smart phones) without RIPA authorisation
It's not just what you do with it, it is also the intended purpose of the equipment, which is more reason Do not let them in.
@@tony_w839 What if when my TV was first used (it's now quite old) it WAS for the purposes of watching BBC and the like but is now (via a Firestick) used for watching Netflix, Prime and TH-cam?
I'm just not going to answer the door unless I know who it is :) . Hopefully, at some point soon, TVL will learn how to pay wall protect whatever content needs a license and they can stop harassing people.
I should probably summon the motivation to wrestle my ladders, out of the thicket that has grown over them, and try to get the old dish down. I think it might make an interesting bird bath. Up on the wall it's a red rag to a bull.
Quick question, though. Just checking. Is their any electrical charge going through the areal cable? Can I sever it?
Disconnected from a receiver there is no voltage on that cable.
The dish will likely make a better drive than bird bath though.
@@batintheattic7293 You could possibly get a fine because your devices are capable to watch live tv. Proving you dont is hard to prove. Like you said dont let them in dont answer the door. Make sure your tv can not be seen if they look through your window and spot a tv then youre screwed.
Don’t talk to them, shut the door, then no warrant will ever be issued.
@@fwabble he is correct. The only evidence they can get in order to get a warrant is evidence you give them by speaking
@@WelshBMWandAudiDriver Unless they check who is using iPlayer, or they can see through the window that the TV being used, or the householder boasts online that he watches without a licence or their ex-partner grasses them up or ...
@@vatsmith8759 They are not legally allowed to look in your window, as for iPlayer, if you are not using it then there is no problem. If you are, then you clearly do need a TV licence. It's that simple.
Depends on if you are on the database, if u are not a great idea
@@terenceherming1838 as someone has already said, to gain a warrant they need evidence and they get that evidence from what you say when you open your door. They don’t know who has opened the door, all they know is that property isn’t licensed. Say nothing, shut the door, no evidence is gained and no magistrate will ever grant a warrant with no evidence. As CJC says, treat them like a door to door salesman, as that is all they are.
Don't say a word to them.Especially don't rant about Jimmy Savile or mention corruption.Just shut the door as soon as they identify themselves.
Don't answer the door to begin with unless you're expecting somebody like a delivery man.
Show us how to recognize proper warrant and what are different types of it
Yes, this
And make sure to check the warrant carefully.
If it's more than one calendar month since being issued, it has expired, and is no longer valid.
If the address is wrong (even slightly, such saying Road instead of Street), then it's not valid for your address.
Also, it can only be executed once. They can visit as many times as needed, to gain entry, but once entry has been obtained, the warrant has expired, and cannot be used again.
But none of the above is even remotely likely, if you don't communicate with them.
There are only about 100 warrants issued per year, for all of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I saw Jon's video yesterday and apparently he had got a load of abuse from people saying he's wrong. I'm glad that between you two you can clarify things for us more mild mannered sorts. As you said, the whole thing is rather obscure. If they themselves can't decide what TV channels are included then what chance to we have? It definitely needs an overhaul in my view.
All TV channels are included. There shouldnt be any confusion at all over that.
@@jmiller007 Only when watched live, its perfectly legal to watch catch up programs other than the BBC's iPlayer, without a TV licence. And you can watch most BBC programs with an inexpensive subscription to BritBox which streams BBC and ITV content. So unless you cant live without live broadcast TV programs there is no reason to buy a TV licence at all.
I actually unsubscribed from Jon's channel, after he pretty much outright seemed to call BBB a liar.
@@SidBonkers51 NOPE. Live OR time-shifted, ie recordings of live tv.
@@GMMilambar don't do that , he's helping you
When I was made unemployed during the couf, one of the things I looked into was cancelling my TV licence - it was either heat my flat or eat, and TV was a luxury I could easily do without. BUT! The response i got from the licensing folk was unbelievable. I felt threatened, harassed with numerous letters, I got a call from a mobile saying 'someone will come round and if you don't permit access we WILL come back with a warrant' - maybe that's all talk, but for a disabled girl living on her own - that's frightening. I paid it out of fear.
As a follow up, I now have work, I can pay luxuries freely again. But if the rumours of the law intending to decriminalising not paying the TV licence are true, I'll welcome it.
Bastards, cancel on line hun takes 2 minutes covered for at least 2 years , any letters just repeat..never let them in, don't engage and put any further correspondence in bin
@@Jinxer121 or on broadband provider
So, do you now pay for a 'licence'? Don't be scared of words on paper that have no authority..
I think the both of you working together and not starting a slagging match is excellent,for us a win win ! hearing both sides
They're both on our side.
Very helpful BBB - glad to have both yourself and CJC giving us such good advice.👍👍
I did see this original video from BBB but as I am subbed to CJC I did realize that some people would be confused but I am glad they got together and addressed the problem after complaints. Our communities are great.
Does anyone remember innocent until proven guilty? does not apply to BBC extortion tax.
I woukd expect so but depends how a layman as it were defines innocent versus how the law sees it, like if you go murder someone & as it to it are you therefore hypothetically innocent until found otherwise in a court?
Why on Earth dont the BBC make the sign-up process for iPlayer dependent on also providing a current, valid, TV license number?? That way if you have a logon for iPlayer, you have a license - simple as that and it takes away confusion around usage of iPlayer and stops anyone without a license to access iPlayer in the first place.
Ooh err Mrs, don't let them come in and see your equipment!
Thanks for the response to Chilli John's recent video on TV licence. I enjoy both channels and the different accounts of the minefield that is the TV licence requirements. It's fair to say that John is more focused on one subject he particularly passion about. I do enjoy the varied content on your channel which not just explains the law but can raise awareness against scammers etc, prevention being preferential to cure. All the best, for the future of your channel.
Well said on this issue. The ownership of equipment is not a reason to have a licence only if it is used for live TV, recording Live TV or use of BBC iPlayer. I use my equipment mainly for listening to audio \ radio and video production. I'd still not let TVL in without a warrant. Guidance is key here as it is a starting point.
Many thanks for the clarification. One question : You say that the warrant instructs the person to
"assist" with the enquiry. What exactly does this mean, and what happens if you decide not to ?
After all, why should you assist in your own potential prosecution. There's a viral clip (viewed
millions of times) where someone lets 2 TV men and 2 cops into his house. They have a warrant.
He refuses to overtly assist. He refuses to give his name. But he does give them access to his
equipment. That's all. The good news ... all 4 of them walk out. He's not prosecuted.
I seen a similart one, the tv goon turns tv on plugs ariel in and then tunes tv in then reads the guy his rights! As far as i know he got done for it
@@shuggiemcg1 Below is the video I was referring to.
2 Plod and 2 TV licence goons walk out, with nothing.
What I really like is after he's been read his rights, the guy is
asked "Do you understand ?" (Which I believe is code for
"Stand under my authority"). He says "No". Twice. Very nicely played.
th-cam.com/video/tvq48AguDeU/w-d-xo.html
I don't possess a fishing license car licence gun licence or any kind of licence but no one comes Knocking on my door asing me why not apart from the BBC
As someone who is a practicing legal practitioner once told me many laws are introduced to enable corporations and public entities to extort financial penalties from others so never rely on your interpretation of legislation without also understanding how case law influences it and being willing to defend your interpretation in a court where chances are the prosecution has every possible advantage.
If in doubt say nothing other than the words "I wish to seek legal representation prior to any comment being made or access granted" as any decent bailiff or police officer will allow this unless they are manipulating the situation in an unlawful way.
Another tip in this sort of matter is to have a device you can record with that cannot be seen to receive live TV such as a body cam, digital camera or similar device.
I watch live TV from time to time, but will NEVER pay for a license. Without getting over my front door, they can do nothing! I live in a town with a population of just over 8 thousand. In 13 years in my home, I have not once been visited by TV Licensing. Should that day ever arise, I'll be ready to politely say "No thank you, goodbye" and close the door. The TV License is a relic. Watch whatever you want guys...don't let them try to intimidate you. Stop paying the likes of Lineker, just so he can spout on about allowing foreigners into our Country.
Never had a TV licence in my life, never will have one either lol
Defo
Have had one in the past, but not for the last 13 years. 🙂
Hi, thanks for clearing that up. But Could you make it clear in your vlog for every one on the point of the warrant. From what I have noticed is a lot of the TV reps turn up with so-called warrants. And a few guys have said to the TV reps that the warrant is not legal because it does not have a wet signature. Could you elaborate on that as even some police officers don't seem to know and usually side with whoever has the warrant.
BBB has already done a video on this.
'Wet signature' a myth..
Just by simply opting out on the TV licensing website, and not paying a licence will bring down the BBC eventually anyway. Be cautious, be discrete, be non confrontational.
True but doing that gives tvl/bbc some of your personal information. Better to just cancel you DD.
Who pays for the police presence at a TV licence scum warrant surly it's not free, I hope the BBC have to pay for it.
A lot of us Brits are too polite and have a real problem shutting the door in the face of someone and these TV licensing goons play on this. That is why the vast majority of conviction are against women because they allow themselves to be bullied.
Never forget ANYONE who knocks at your door is making a request NOT a demand and this also includes the police. And when they start rudely asking personal questions!, just shut the door!!
Thanks remaining 100% professional and for promoting his channel too, I watch both.
Another question who is responsible for paying for the TV licence?. The owner of the TV?, the home owner?, the tenant?, the legal occupier? or the person watching the TV?.
The TV licence covers the household and is registered against the property so no one person is necessarily responsible as anyone could pay it
@@MatthewLenton Again which member of the household?,as I have never heard of a househod being prosecuted for watching a TV without a licence.
Question: bbc iplayer is automatically installed on many devices and is unable to be removed in most instances. So how can any device in that position be safe
It isn't, if you have it & are not licensed yr in breach of the Law.
Stop buying 'smart' devices that claim to give you perpetual pleasure..
BBB and CJC are both great guys offering free information or advice and I am very grateful to both of them for doing so! The bad guys are the bbc and the tv licence.
What is a TV anyway, I have a machine where the picture swirls around and around with cloth and soap bubbles, do I need a licence for this swirly picture?
I wonder how many of the people that are prosecuted have let them in and talked to them?
Evidence is everything, if they don't have any then there are no grounds for a warrant.
If in doubt say nowt, and don't allow them in.
TLDW : Why run the risk? Letting them in serves no other purpose than becoming a fishing exercise for the enforcement agents!
As an OAP I don’t watch BBC and have just cancelled my TV License and am scared if they take me to court
Sound advice, clearly presented, as is that offered on Chilli Jon Carne's channel.
Good one BBB, was interested to see your response.
I read a story about a woman who invited them into her home she showed them her smart tv, explained that she doesn’t watch BBC iPlayer but she was still fined £1000 because her Smart tv was still able to access the BBC IPlayer app.
Exactly why I wouldn't let them in without a warrant. They are not looking to catch you red handed watching live TV- they just want to see if you have the ability to. When TV licensing said I was watching live TV (I don't have a TV), they probably meant when I was watching Cracker ITV hub when a live broadcast of the same episode on ITV was on even though I thought it was a catchup on my Chromebook.
Yes...., That's because she has a TV, but no TV licence. Can't believe how thick so many people are when it comes to basic regulations and laws!🤦
@@501sqn3 Just because someone has a Smart tv doesn’t mean that they still need a tv licence if they genuinely do not watch any live tv. Plus don’t know why you have to be so horrible for in the comments.
@@stuartwells4133 1. Yes you do FFS!!!.
2. Because terminally thick, scrotey types are so fxxxxx annoying!.
I watch both of your channels and it seemed clear to me that you were both right.
When a private co aka Capita can even apply for a warrant to enter remember Semaynes Case 1604 an Englishmen's his castle you know they whole system is bent!
what if the warrant is signed with a stamp or a photo coppied signature is it still a vallid warrant ?
So the situation we have is that in the home or the business we have an increasing number of devices that are capable of receiving live TV through their Broadband connection, whether the want it or not. How does TV Licensing conclude that you watch live TV unless they catch you red-handed? I watched a video of a TV Licensing search under warrant where the licensing officer plugged in the aerial to the TV although it was only linked to the DVD player at the time presumably, to prove that the home owner watched live TV? We have a smart TV that connects to TV and streaming services through the WiFi (it does also have an aerial connection that it defaults to when booting up). We also watch live TV on 'breaking news' on You Tube so that you could conclude that because we have Broadband and various pieces of apparatus to connect to it, we therefore watch live TV, ergo we need a license (which we have). It would seem to me that it is far too easy for TV Licensing to make a case that you watch TV if you have any device that connects to Broadband.and it doesn't matter what you actually use it for.
I have a TV that can view the BBC. If I never turn it on do I need a licence?
…I’m more confused than ever..!? What?!
I wouldn't watch TV if they paid me.
Yeah right
For them to issue a warrant you have to open the door to accept the warrant. I never answer my door. I don't see how they can issue me with a warrant if I'm not there.
So if you buy a new TV for movie watching uninstall all of the relevant apps on it?
If they come to your door me no thank you then close the door been doing this for years & years
Can you please answer my question on the last video. If I have legally to assist the TV licence people is it not right that I am helping convict myself. However I have the right not to help anyone including the police by giving evidence against myself. I think this needs cleared up.
Don't let them in the house they could lie or twist what they see , there's zero benefit to letting them in
I neither watch nor want to watch live TV and so I don't have a licence. However I have no patience for those who don't have a licence but do watch TV. They don't approve of the TV licence legislation and therefore won't obey it. They are lawbreakers. However you can't pick and choose the laws you will obey. Moreover, you can't expect the law to uphold your rights on the one hand while you break it on the other. The TV licensing law is now inappropriate and outdated. It needs to be scrapped. Possibly it will be at the next BBC charter review, if it doesn't die a death of its own accord before then.
Who said the tv enforcement officers ( goons ) are qualified to check said equipment and equally do they have insurance in case of mishap ? Whilst on your property with a warrant . Would it be classed as obstruction asking to see qualifications and insurance documentation ?.
Should the warrant be signed by a judge or a clerk? Ive seen instance where the came along with the police and touted a warrant but the owner raised it was not signed by a judge and he successfully prevented them from entering the property. Can someone clarify?
If it's not wet ink from a feathered pen it's not real. 😉
@@Zeyr01 Don't forget that it also needs the Royal seal impressed in red sealing wax.
Both the comments from Zeyr0 and Vatsmith are wrong. Modern Warrant can be fully electronic (i.e. on a phone or tablet) but they do still require an electronic signature and stamp as per BBB's video about warrants.
@@Thurgosh_OG How do you provide the copy of the electronic warrant to the occupant if he doesn't have any electronic gadget?
@@Thurgosh_OG
Sarcasm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Please can someone do a template letter to remove the inferred right of access, that I can send to tv licensing.
No problem. Try this one - "Dear sir madam, your 'infered' rights of access have been revoked"
If I’m watching live tv from abroad ( meaning like I’m watching live tv from Poland), using satellite dish , do I have to pay tv license? ( I’m paying for that already to receive signal)
I’m in UK watching Polish live tv
not had one for 20 years and my telly works just fine still
But surely a test of reasonableness and proportionality must be applied with regard to videoing a goon visit on a mobile phone, if that was used as grounds for TVL applying to a court for a search warrant. Wouldn't such a warrant request be viewed by the court as vexatious and wasting the court's time?
A magistrate or judge should require more evidence than 'they had a mobile phone' to issue a warrant, so it' shouldn't even get to court.
If my pc has access to Internet, which means I could streem live TV (which I do not) it is password protected due to having clients and personal information details etc am I covered by the protection of data act, and can they force me to reveal my password and go through my pc, as this would then seem to counter the protection of data act 🤔🧐
You have to unlock your PC, if they have a warrant but they are only allowed to look for iplayer or apps that can show live TV broadcasts and, in theory to search your internet history, looking for iplayer/app websites, the warrant does not allow them to just trawl through your files etc. as this would be a data protection breach, even more so if yours is a PC for a business.
The bottom line is ,
DO NOT LET ANY STRANGER INTO YOUR HOUSE , it's dangerous, only a fool would do that. 🏴🌧️
When you make a 'no licence needed' declaration on the TVL website you can check a box that says that your television is used solely for a games console. I have checked this box every couple of years for the last 8 to 10 years. Have not had a visit in that time (touch wood). However, modern games consoles have the capacity to access youtube, and youtube has the capacity to show live tv. I have never knowingly clicked on a live sky news stream on youtube, but how do their 'enforcement officers' know that? Also laptops and phones are still an issue for the same reason. I think that saying the TVL laws are flawed is somewhat of an understatement.
They wouldn't know if you clicked on Sky News live unless you told them. If you happen to have it on and it can be heard by them, then even then you could debate you were watching an on demand clip
@@MatthewLenton Sure, i get that, but the whole threatening a search warrant thing, and the implication that your search history or watch history could be examined and used against you is pretty horrifyingly intrusive. (Edit:- I should add, that's regardless of whether you have anything to hide or not. It still seems like a tyrannical overreach on behalf of a relatively petty possible infraction. Thanks anyway Matthew, for attempting to assuage my paranoia a little bit. 😉)
The BBC's system of obtaining a warrant is unbelievable!
If I opt to never watch/record live tv again, and never spoke to or invited an inspector into my property, I could still end up in court because:
If the BBC see that I have a smart phone - a warrant could be obtained
If the BBC see that I have an aerial on my roof - a warrant could be obtained
If the BBC check the registration number of my vehicle and see that it has a television feature - a warrant could be obtained
It's like being issued with a court summons for doing 155 mph and basing it not on evidence but by simply owning equipment that gives you the potential to do it.
yes great work, yes how are they going get warrent,?if no everdence?
Additional question on the position of a Search Warrant as it applies to smart phones, laptops, computers or tablets. I have a work laptop which technically could be used to watch live TV, but my policies at work would prevent me from allowing, a TV Licence official for example, from viewing it, interrogating the data stored and even showing it to them. In such an instance would they be able to charge me for obstructing the search if I refused to compromise my employment contract and policies.
If presented with a warrant, I would want to take legal advice before permitting them to search a laptop owned by my employer.
The other point is that the TV Licence is not required to install an app. It is the act of viewing Live TV or BBC iPlayer that requires a licence. For example I might have the iPlayer App on my iPad, specifically for when I am staying in a hotel (I do a lot of business travel). So if they found it on my iPad, that in of itself is not evidence of a licence breach, and effectively they are just gaining anecdotal evidence to support a prosecution. I am horrified that the courts seem to ignore the defendant’s position, and the prosecution case is upheld when no actual evidence of a breach is provided.
The law trumps your employment contract. Your employer couldn't (successfully) take action against you for complying with a statutory duty. Just make sure you notify them straight away about what happened.
I'm not aware of any evidence that the courts are doing anything wrong. I think most of the successful prosecutions are people that either confessed on the doorstep or voluntarily let someone in that saw clear evidence of an offence. Or people that have the TV facing the window so anyone standing outside can see that you are watching live TV.
@@thomasdalton1508 I agree, such a scenario is almost impossible as I would never enter into a discussion that could possibly lead to evidence sufficient to get a court to sign a warrant.
However, the specific wording on the warrant would surely define whether it applies to any and all devices in a home, or whether it only applied to the property of the occupier.
The issue here is whether the search warrant for the purpose of TV Licensing served by an employee or contractor of TV Licensing is the same as a criminal search warrant for a much more serious offence.
Clearly a laptop in a house where an offence of a serious nature would permit the police to seize and search the computer, vs the TV Licence, where I might be forced to open a work laptop to compromise its security to allow an inspection.
I think the key here is the wording of the warrant.
The bit of research I have done suggests the search warrant commonly issued does not permit searches of laptops or computers
@@fatbikemontage2931 I agree, the wording of the warrant is key. I expect it would say they can examine any TV equipment as defined in the act, which would include computers and phones. Did your research find anything reliable or just people guessing?
It's absurd that they prosecute that many people every year for that kind of offence which is minor does not harm or cause anyone harm yet rapists can't even taken to court because they have limited resources to do so why don't they take that money that they wasted on this pathetic law and put it to something that actually matters!
Most of those people incriminate themselves and offer up evidence.
@@robtheplod Virtually all do.
Prefer easy targets.
More than 50% of criminal convictions on women in the UK, are for TV licence evasion.
Never ever let them in
If/when you get a visit, treat them as sales people and ask for what deals are on offer - as you would with any other provider. Ask them if Sky/Virgin offer a better service, and what is NOWtv can they go through their deals? ........ waste as much of their time as possible as they are on commission.
funny how the warrant come from. the same court as the enagy company's warrant. bulk rubber stamped with no clear info of who signed it off
On warrants, don’t they need a paper copy to hand over, rather than ohh it’s on my tablet or phone. Who signs or puts their name to warrant for it to be valid and Lawful ? Thanks
Thanks very much for clearing this up
Thank you
The correct term is a Receiving License. This applies to any receiving equipment capable of viewing "LIVE" BROADCAST.
IF a commercial entity ( CAPITA) Agent calls to engage you with the intention of selling goods or a service that person is "TRADING" and can be asked to leave immediately and not to return.
FAILURE TO DO SO IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
Prepared cards are/ were available for free from your local Police Station. Assuming it is not closed.
Other protective terms are OFFER DECLINED, NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT.
BEST PROTECTION IS CLOSED DOORS AND SILENCE, SILENCE, SILENCE!
In order to obtain a Warrant of Entry they will need EVIDENCE on OATH placed before the Courts (PRIVATELY HIRED?) where there's a risk of PERJURY (PRISON) among others and financial loss to the complainant/ Agent. As always each case turns on its own merit. Don't expect Justice though. Personally I make a conscious effort NOT to watch ANY BBC CONTENT. LIVE OR DEAD.
Fair enough. Don’t let them in. However if they get a warrant and come in what is the situation with default built in apps that cannot sometimes be removed? BBC/itv/Amazon/TH-cam apps are on these devices as a default. Apps can be removed from computers and iPads etc but some TVs come with these apps as Bart of the basic software so they will be present although would not be signed in. What happens there.
They still have to prove you have been using those devices for the purposes of watching or recording live TV or BBC iPlayer. As long as you don't then you've nothing to worry about.
Sign out of iPlayer and remove your email from the BBC database - there's a link on the BBC website to do this.
This will ensure iPlayer can't be used and even though the app is there by default, it can't be used without a sign in.
Im foreginer, my english is not very good, im using tv only for netflix and youtube and mostly as a monitor for my playsation - i never watch bbc broadcast or any live tv - that means i do not need license at all (But what i would like to use foregin satellite tv paid in this country do i need tv license?)
Isnt having a satellite dish visible suspicion enough to get a warrant?
No
I didn't install iPlayer for any purpose. It was already installed on my TV streaming device when I bought it, which I understand I could quite legally use for other purposes without a licence. What's the legality of software I ddn't install if I don't use it? Am I obliged to uninstall it? What if I couldn't uninstall it?
This is just theoretically of course, as I'd never let a licence inspector into my house because they can't do anything as long as you don't invite them to cross the threshold - same rule as for bailiffs, or vampires.
When they knock on the door don't talk to them close the door they came to mine some years back I opened the door told him I have removed their perceived tight of accesses they ain't been back since
It is very simple, folks, keep your front door, and your mouth, Shut!
For years now CJC has been telling people they only need to be worried about Capita if they're 'watching' live tv, he's never mentioned (until yesterday for the 1st time that I'm aware of) what the Telecommunications Act says about the requirement for a licence if you also have equipment 'set up' to be capable of receiving a live signal, regardless of whether your using it or not. He's been repeatedly warned about this omission & how it could land people in trouble potentially who follow his advice when dealing with Capita, but has carried on oblivious & regardless. It's about time he was brought to book on this issue of what the Law actually says.
You are not required to have a licence if you have equipment capable of receiving a 'live' TV broadcast. I've got a 50" TV set which is indeed capable of receiving television programmes but as long as I only use it for watching DVDs or listening to a live digital radio broadcast then I don't need a licence. Yes, Capita can check my equipment assuming they get a warrant but otherwise there is nothing they can do - they are only salespeople trying to get you to buy a licence and sadly many do just that and then they get their bonus! Maybe you need to check what the Law actually says.
@@mda5003 Is your equipment set up to receive a live signal?
@@Horizon344 It is 'capable' of receiving a live signal as most if not all TV sets are but the question is can you prove that it is used for that purpose? As I said as long as I only use it for watching DVDs then I don't need a licence.
@@mda5003 If they inspect the tv/equipment, turn it on & it has an aerial/is tuned to receive live broadcast channels, you've broken the Law without a licence. Watching live broadcasts on it is a related but separate offence.
@@Horizon344 No because I need the aerial to be connected to receive live digital radio broadcasts which I can legally listen to on the TV set without a licence. As regards being tuned to receive TV channels it came like that and as far as I know there is no way to detune it - I'm not an engineer. So, by watching DVD films or listening to the radio I am not breaking the law.
Truth is confusion rules, fuelled by intimidation. The only satisfactory way forward is a subscription system. I can't watch Sky or any other subscription channel, I am not subscribed. We also don't watch live TV but we still pay the "fine" as I don't know who in my house might open my front door to a Capita "employee".
What is the best way to ask a question?
Sorry, BBB, I am still trying to work out what a warrant would allow in the case where someone turned up with a warrant to a property that does not legally need a TV license. Would the legal occupier be permitted to refuse entry on the basis that the warrant only covers "TV receiving equipment" and that no such equipment exists within the property? The main issue being the definition of "TV Receiving Equipment" states installed or used for the purpose.
With regards to this I expect it would fall under the bit he mentioned in previous video about assisting them therefore if they have a warrant I would presume you must them in but show that there is no TV receiving equipment or that is not being used as such & show them you have no apps on handheld devices such as phones installed that allow viewing of live TV.
If they have a search warrant you cannot stop them entering, that's the whole point of a warrant.
@@vatsmith8759 But if you are not at home when they call they still cannot enter as these warrants are for peaceful entry only.
The point I was making wasn't so much the access to the house but the fact there is no equipment that falls under the legal definition of TV receiving equipment. A warrant is not there to prove you don't posses such equipment but to prove that you do. I would refuse to turn on my TV for them as, in my scenario above it does not constitute "TV Receiving Equipment" by legal definition because the TV is not used/installed for..... Refusing to turn on the TV I would argue is no different than refusing to open up the fridge door to prove that he milk bottle has not been installed or used for....
@@mattwoodford1820 Yes, but you need to ask yourself how or why they were granted the warrant in the first place - they need evidence so they must already know there is TV receiving equipment in the house. I use my TV for watching DVDs so they would have to prove otherwise to obtain a conviction. Refusing entry to TV Licensing with both a warrant and police in attendance would only exacerbate the situation and may result in a prosecution for obstruction.
I'm glad you 2 can clarify I have a licence for my mother and suppose can understand how confusion can arise but abuse is not something that should be done and you were very good and careful and well structured as chilli Jon carne is and he always clarifies aswell hopefully any problems can be put to rest now
Thank you Edward, I did not know that I needed a licence for my mother, so we ran her unlicensed for all those years ?!
@@CrimeVid it's no problem and a easy to miss thing but as long as your covered and if mother has pension credit it's free so best been safe wish you all the best
@@CrimeVid such class!! You really cheered me up (& really did Laugh Out Loud) thanks. 🤩
Thanks for your advice/ guidance
given that a tv officer has obtained a search warrant. Is it possible, at what ever time to get site of the "evidence" produced to obtain said warrant?
Is word of mouth to the judge enough for a warrant? What if the goons make it up, can they get a warrant that way?
Unfortunately some claim they have.
When people say you only need a licence for live as it's broadcast TV and any BBC iPlayer content, which is steamed, what about any of the content that BBC posts to TH-cam. It is still BBC content that is streamed.
A good question, TVL clarifies that it is BBC iPlayer
as long as it is not Live or on Iplayer you do not need a licence, it is BBC advertising itself in the hope people will buy a licence to watch on Iplayer or Live.
I wouldn't think watching BBC News or other BBC clips on TH-cam would need a licence. Clearly if they broadcast anything live on there, then you would
There are also loads of channels where people upload BBC programmes on TH-cam, such as episodes of Only Connect. You are free to watch those without a licence
in your opinion do you think its time to get rid of the TV licence fee and get the money another way, maybe a subscription like sky or include in tax maybe?
No Tax
I've asked before but here goes again. If I sit in a park and watch iPlayer on my laptop, but don't have a TV licence at home, am I committing an offence? I ask because the TV licence is for a property not an individual.
Yes.
@@books742 So that indicates that 'a person' requires a licence to watch TV (Which seems at odds with the need for the TV licence to be held for TV reception at an address). Additionally if I, by rights of having a TV licence for the address I live at, go round to my neighbours, who don't have a TV licence, to watch a TV programme there that's OK because I have a Licence.
It seems that if my home address TV licence covers me to watch TV in the park it should also cover me at any other location😄😄
On that basis how does a person with no fixed abode get a TV licence to watch TV legally?
While a supporter of the TV licence principle I think the laws around it do need revision to improve clarity.
These people have NO authority. They are door to door sales people who work on commision.
Its very magnanimous of both of you to help each other over T V licensing.
It would be good if they joined forces to abolish TV licensing.
@@twig3288 Everyone should just stop paying, what are they going to do.
We would be O K, we have a Barrister to defend us and a reporter to report it.
Thanks Twig.
Does TVL have to prove in court that someone that's pleads not guilty is guilty?
If so how?
You could have all the on Demand apps, that also let you stream live TV.
Is the only way to prove guilt is a photo of your TV playing East end ers ect live? Then wouldn't that be a breach of privacy?
A very good indication of why everyone should have a working (original) Nokia 3310 at home, so that when they ask if you have a mobile phone, you can show them that, which could not receive any live broadcast.
But you if you don't talk to the tvl 'salesperson' at your door you don't need to prove anything.
What if TVL obtain a search warrant, but the householder denies access? Would the householder then be given a chance to argue their case in court? Perhaps on the grounds of proportionality, as the search warrant was not to be used to investigate serious criminality, such as terrorism etc., but merely for a relatively small amount of possible revenue for an essentially discredited and disreputable entertainment service, and is therefore an egregious invasion of privacy?
Yes but they would also be charged with obstruction which has a more hefty fine so they would most likely win without evidence the TV licence case but have a huge fine for obstruction (refusing to co-operate with a valid warrant).
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Could you not then appeal, on the basis that the search warrant should not have been issued based on proportionality, which I believe is also a human rights issue on the basis of egregious invasion of privacy, and today's technology meaning that there is a credible non-live use? If the appeal is lost, could it not then be taken all the way to the Supreme Court until it is won and a precedent is created, thereby changing the statute law. It could be crowd funded.
@@grahamcook9289 Possibly it could be escalated but I doubt it. They would claim the only way to be sure you are not breaking the law is to search your home, just like the police can search your home if they suspect you are a drug dealer. Regarding Human Rights, it is whether or not their actions actually break the law, which I doubt. Many simply don't like legally valid laws and think they can somehow avoid them by claiming the law is immoral or the law violates their human rights when they are arrested. Regarding proportionality, if they asked to see your printed bank statements (unless you wanted to use them to prove you had in fact paid for a TV licence) and personal physical letters or the food in your fridge or the bras worn by you or your family members of some other rubbish them yes you could say that was disproportionate as it has nothing to do with potential TV licence evasion. However if they insisted on looking at what you recorded on a PVR that is fair and reasonable as it can prove you recorded shows illegally while unlicenced (as you need a TV licence to record shows). There have been many idiots that have tried to prove "the law sucks" and almost every time they fail.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Invading someone's home with a search warrant is a very serious infringement of someone's cicvil liberties and human rights and such extreme measures should be proportionate to the possible criminality. Evasion of a small sum of revenue to the BBC is hardly serious criminality or therefore proportionate. It is not terrorism, or organised crime or the like. Also, when these laws were enacted ownership of a TV could only mean receiving and washing live TV, as that is all there was. But today with widespread use the internet and on demand streaming no such assumption can safely or automatically be made. This trend will only increase. It is time it was tested in court to achieve a court judgement precedent that will invalidate the statue law and force the politicians and the BBC to reform to become a subscription service or wither and die, which it is doing.
@@grahamcook9289 Many don't like the law. Many try to be a smart ass in court then get stung. If you don't believe me look at what happened to Alex Belfield. Most of what he did was to write emails to people and tell them they were rubbish at their job. He did not give them death threats. He did not meet them in real life. Yet he was given a jail sentence. You may think the law is immoral, but a law does not have to be moral or good, it just has to exist. TV licence evasion is seen as fraud and it is officially a criminal offence. ||f a man has two wives which he registers illegally he can be convicted of bigamy and sentenced to jail. Even if the women know about and are happy about the arrangement. Even if there is no perceived victim. It is the law. You could argue if it is proportionate or not as in some countries such as Saudi Arabia that would be perfectly legal, but under UK law it is not. The way it works is MPs create, change and abolish laws. Only in extremely rare cases are UK laws ever found to violate other "higher" laws. Many have wasted their lives and efforts trying to fight convictions on the basis "the law is immoral" and usually such requests get ignored or they lose.
The public will eventually win because there is an inherent breach of justice such that guilt is assumed and innocence must be proven. It’s the modern equivalent of the window tax.
or even better, the 'Hearth Tax'
the law as it stands in England and Wales...anyone viewing from Scotland will know the law is different there because Scotland has its own legal system. Here in Scotland there are I think zero prosecutions and zero search warrants have been issued.....if you are found to be operating a Tv without a licence you will get a letter in the post offering to settle the matter with a fixed penalty fine and it is usually about £60 and that is the end of it, the fixed penalty is not a criminal matter and it is not a prosecution. I've had TV licence inspectors turn up at my door twice, the first time they started a conversation by asking my name , I asked who they were and they said TV licensing at which point I closed my front door on them while saying " no thanks". They shuffled about on my doorstep for a few minutes tapping information into a hand held device then they left. Second time they came I knew who they were and I quickly opened my door and said "no thanks" before they could even say anything. I don't watch TV, I occasionally use my TV to watch a DVD movie, I quite like watching things on youtube, but I don't need a TV licence so I refuse to engage with TVL in any way shape or form as is my legal right.
Magistrate shown to Rubber Stamp warrants.
If I understand the evidence requirements here and correct me if I'm wrong. In order to obtain a warrant they need evidence that a device IS being used to watch TV not that a device MIGHT be used to watch TV.
Correct.
Hi BBB Was wondering about your take on the you tube video {Goon warrant obstruction stich up} mainly the bit about the caution under PACE, is this not a matter of consent as not in a police station
If a telly inspector thinks he could demand my phone and snoop through it, he would be ejected from my driveway with my boot print on his arse.
Ok..but don't forget...he comes from Essex ! Easiest thing is . don't buy a licence, and don't answer the door.
As fa as I'm aware, you need your TV licence number to be able to sign into iPlayer?
That didn't use to be the case - when I had a licence, but that was quite some time ago.
I've never used my licence number to watch BBC iplayer
@@davidmaxwaterman likewise, I have not watched anything that requires a TV licence for near on 20 years.
not in my experience
Not true, all you need is an email address, which does not need to be tied to anything (ie registered property etc). The BBC have chosen not to ask for TV licence numbers to login, which suggests they dont want people to stop using it?
Chile is correct!!!!!!
A justice of the peace must be satisfied under oath that there is a BELIEF an offence has been or is being committed. Therefore just seeing a device is not enough for belief. That would only be a suspicion, and that level could easily be argued also. They would have to swear on oath something much more than just seeing a device to obtain a warrant. For example by questioning or seeing a live program being watched. Otherwise they would be committing perjury.
Can someone (BBB) please tell us all the legal side of how on earth the BBC can force us to have a license, and take all the money even if we don't watch BBC generated live content?? I don't pay Asda when I shop in Tesco???
Politicians can pass any law they like. It does have to make sense. The view is that any law can be created by Parliament and provided it is passed by the King then it becomes law. It does not have to be a good law or make sense, it just has to be whatever whim the politicians decide to do at the time. Do you realise that if you record the wrong thing off the TV for your own sexual gratification and never show the recording to anyone you could go to prison? I am not even joking (search "extreme porn law" and it talks about locking people up for recording off British TV channels).