TV Licensing Officers REFUSED Entry on Search Warrant
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 มี.ค. 2023
- An occupier refused TV Licensing officers entry to the property, despite having a search warrant - but that is not the end of the matter!
Thanks to @ChilliJonCarne for flagging the video for review.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated.
Thanks for taking a look at this one, it's good to get a more legal opinion on it. I couldn't really say too much as it was above my pay grade
No worries - Thanks for the tag and hope it's useful!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Very useful mate, thank you.
Just makes me glad these warrants are pretty rare. Are they a lot of effort for TVL to obtain? Do you think they could use these more going forward with 'evasion' rates going up as they are?
@@ChilliJonCarne There is quite a threshold, as the do grant power of forceful entry, so I doubt we'll be seeing many of them. As you say, they may try more often as people stop paying!
@@ChilliJonCarne by what right did they have to use evidence they got through looking through his window? That was the evidence tv licence person said was the evidence
@@PaulaSB12 This is a good question as I have a TV that I watch Netflix and Prime on so, looking through my window, you will see something on the TV.
However, the actual aerial cable is in the next room and, as my TV is wireless, the only cable going into it is the power cable.
Amazing how they find police for tv licensing, but u wait weeks for a visit regarding a burgalry!
Sods law
I believe the police was there for breach of the peace of the execution of warrant. The police officer will have the power to execute public order offence if incidents were caused outside the premises.
@@anoyakashi8775 Yes, but the point being made is that for an actual crime the police don't bother; but in this case, on the chance that something MIGHT happen they turned up! .... has the Minority Report become a reality???
I think its because the BBC has more money and has friends in the grovernment. Money gets things done.
BECAUSE IN TODAYS CRAZY MONEY ORIENTATED SOCIETY - MONEY FOR ESTABLISHMENTS RANKS ABOVE HUMAN WELFARE!!.
'Trust me. I'm a police officer' ?
Those days are long gone.
So when you get home and its been ransacked. Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?
@@Xanderbelle Waste of time calling the police, they don’t even visit, you just get a crime number
@@Xanderbelle Not the Police, they're too busy helping TV licensing to get £100 and tell you they don't have the resources to help you.
The police have never been for the people, but always for our political and corporate overlords. Time people stopped being divided and distracted and stood up together as one.
Lol trust me I'm a police officer,funny
What I find so troubling about TV licensing is it is treated as a guilty until proven innocence offence which is contrary to the entire paradigm of any civilized legal system.
As an Australian I find the very notion of a TV licence so utterly bizarre. The ABC gets funded out of general taxation, the same way we fund education, roads, and the police. There's no need for a specific separate payment to watch "free-to-air" television. There's no justification for the UK not doing the same with the beeb.
@JimCullen, as an English man, i find the idea of a tv licence bizarre and haven't had one since i left my parents, i am now 51😂😂
I'm no fan of the TV license, but it definitely isn't guilty until proven innocent. The warrant issued here is to obtain evidence of suspected criminality (it is, after all, a crime to watch television without a license, like it or not).
Nobody was arrested or charged with an offense, because the presumption is that he is innocent. If the evidence suggests otherwise, then that changes, of course.
@@christiananderson8686 You're talking specifically about when it escalates to the legal system. I'm talking about how the organisation itself behaves. You obviously haven't heard the stories. These people relentlessly harass elderly people who don't even own TVs, behaving as if they are empowered by some authority and making legal threats. They try to intimidate people into getting licences by sending letters that are deliberately phrased to imply as strongly as they legally can that you ARE violating the law by not having a licence and you are minutes away from a jail cell. It's disgusting how these people act. It's disgusting that they are allowed to "investigate" people for potentially violating this law simply because they aren't registered with a licence, which very much does lean right up against the line of the violating civil liberties. To the extent they can get away with it, and through masquerade, even beyond it, they definitely do treat you as guilty until proven innocent. This has been a major problem across the country for a long time. Most people don't even know they are legally allowed to not have a TV licence, because they intentionally make it sound that way with their constant threatening letters and sending people around to accuse you. It's a racket, and this entire practice should be scrapped.
I find you guilty of being very beautiful ❤ now you have to prove your innocence?!
Well now you know how words work. Words are meaningless when they aren’t lawful 😉
Much like those tv license letters. Ain’t no different to an iPhone add on the bus stop. Apple wants £849 from you with words. BBC want £170 from you in words.
Yayyuhhhhj 😂
It's amazing how there are enough cops available to help the BBC out yet if you get burgled it takes them weeks to visit you and a lot of the Time they won't come at all.
To be honest I think a lot of it is to do with people being awkward with them, they pull someone over and it’s never a simple case of, License, insurance then warning/ticket, a lot of the time someone pulls a phone out and starts recording which eats up a lot of a police time. Although I totally agree our police is spread really thin, probably due to the gov keep cutting their funds.
cops are there to deal with an event IN PROGRESS. When you phone to say you were burgled last night, and the offenders are no longer there, whilst it's distressing for you, there is no requirement for cops to rush to you. I don't really know why that needs explaining?
@@Just-Ross Exactly. It reminds me of the time my ex-girlfriend was murdered during a home invasion; although it was distressing for me at the time, those pesky culprits had got away! I wrote a letter to the police because I didn’t want to bother them when they have more pressing matters to deal with such as people not paying a few hundred pounds to an extensive, government funded media institution. Still haven’t heard anything, but I wouldn’t want to disrupt the BBC’s revenue stream by troubling the police further…
@@whoahahaha9619 re-read my comment. May have to read it twice given your apparent levels of comprehension. Decades of underfunding by government means police do not have the resources to send 3 double crewed cars to a burglary that happened several days ago I'm afraid. Phone in a job that's IN PROGRESS and cops show up. IN PROGRESS being something like a burglary with 'intruders on', a fight - or a breach of the peace for example...
i got stabbed in the face and they never came. after 3 calls. they dont come here, because im an area thats dangerous for police.
The fact that a private company can get a warrant to enter your property due to the suspicion that you watch telly live is bonkers !! what a world
Please stop the world I want to get off before it gets any worse.
and if you don't let them in you will get find 5k or more 🙄
@@M.Y.O.F.B5178 so the moral of the story is explain to them and show them if needed why you don't need one ! then tell them to do one
Why ? ultimately anyone serving a warrant is an agent of the court be they directly employed or a contracted agency. The real issue is how easy it is for a warrant to be issued not how its enforced. Unlike the BBC a warrant wouldnt be issued for a private company say Sky alleging hes using a doggy box. Had the statement to the court included comments saying a live BBC program was witnessed on the 1st visit there would be compelling reasons for the court to grant a warrant but in this day and age having a monitor on is not compelling IMO.
@@williamgardner2739 That's a bit Extreme (th-cam.com/video/2S8-C8AMq8M/w-d-xo.html) 🎸
That our courts are even bothering to concern themselves with a sub £200 annual fee is ridiculous. That they give private companies warrants to enter your property, is obscene. And that the police turn up to lend credence to the whole affair is laughable.
No what’s ridiculous is people who think they can free ride through life which from your reply saggiest is you. The police in many cases have to be there in case it turned violent. Had the man paid for his license neither police officer or warrant would be required. The house owner is the one wasting police time and causing me to pay more in both taxes and license fee to cover free riders.
@@wobby1516 it's dangerous is it? So why have laws which encourage violence? Just make TV voluntary, if you want it, apply for it. If you dont, do nothing. Simple as.
@@wobby1516 you don't need a TV licence if you do not watch live TV. Why would someone pay for something they don't need?
@@wobby1516 why do they do this to people who don't watch the BBC? It's all war and hateful news nothing but depression you subscribe to that?
@@cecil4485 Yes you do if you have a TV receiver. Communication Act 2003, Section 363 para 3.
so legally you are obliged to comply regardless. Which means we need to abolish the Comms Act
I found it humorous that aside from the police officer, they felt it necessary to send the neck-less goon to serve as "muscle" during the interaction. As if the presence of a tattooed thug is going to make one more likely to comply.
Hilarious
The whole thing stinks of intimidation. They probably get inside, claim there is an aerial hookup and coerce granny into signing a contract.
The ''trust me I'm a police officer'' line made me crack up.
Trust is earned and the Police have backpedalled so much from the 1950s its unreal....they are now nothing more than a paramilitary goon squad that uses force at the first opportunity. To me they are the enemy
Or I'm a Barrister, I give unbiased opinions...
Works for people like Wayne Couzens...
Some policemen are great blokes. I called one back recently, concerning a friend's house being cleared. He was off-duty, but gave 20 minutes while cooking his son's tea one-handed.
That's up there with
'I'm with government and hear to help'
' Trust me, I'm a Police Officer ' going by many recent events, never a less true statement.
Especially with all these chief inspectors getting nabbed with having indecent photographs of under-age children on their laptops. All good men and true . . .
The video is pretty old and recorded well before recent events.
Doesnt mean they know the law either
Trust me I'm a police officer. I'm sure that was a line that Wayne Couzens may have said in his time. The first thing I won't do is trust a police officer
Trust me, I'm a Police Officer said Wayne Couzens to Sarah Everard
The fact that they can force entry to your home in order to ascertain whether you're watching live TV or not is ridiculously antiquated and needs to be repealed.
They can’t force entry. They’re not allowed.
Cps and bailifs can apparently enter only withing reason. Force to get is v limited. They can't force your door or window open. If they do it's criminal damage. It's a civil matter so can't. Only the police can and they need the right paperwork
Especially since it serves no purpose. The BBC is far from being impartial. They're a government propaganda mouthpiece and the quality of their shows is poor in my opinion
People watch Netflix, TH-cam, prime ect. Nobody but boomers watch cable TV.
Just stand there if they touch you at all just bring charges against them.
The cost of employing Capita to send an "Agent" plus a "heavy" plus a Policeman must far outweigh the cost of a TV licence;( and all this based on what someone thought they witnessed through a window with blinds) How can the BBC justify this kind of action.
They are supplying propaganda across the country and the world, that's justification enough for them.
It is not, of course, about an individual case, it is about enforcing the law in general. If the message got about that the law could be ignored with impunity, then there would be a huge growth. You can argue whether the TV license is justified or not, but that is an entirely different point.
@@TheEulerID The warrant to be issued requires actual proof, they never had it. Correct me if i am wrong. There is also the very high assumption the person was watching live TV. Where in reality, they could have been playing a video game or watching a DVD. The law is, you can watch anything on a TV screen as long as it's not a live broadcast from any country.
@rhippo2091 The evidence would be heard in court and, as a summary offence, that will be by a magistrate or district judge. You would have to be in court to hear the full evidence available, and a TH-cam video like this is not going to provide that. However, this is not the matter I was addressing, which was about the economics of the matter. In this case, it appears the search warrant was obtain forensic evidence. For example, was the receiving equipment connected to a TV aerial or satellite dish, were there any BBC programmes recorded on a set to box and so on (using iPlayer or recording BBC programmes requires a TV licence). This could all form part of the evidence.
The term "ultimate proof" is meaningless in law. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, and what determines that level is, in this case, down to the judgement of the judge or magistrates that hear any case. In more serious cases, it is the jury that determines it.
If he wasn’t watching live tv why refuse entry to the warrant.
Likely original tv guy knows what live tv programs are on, and it matched.
Yes it’s an invasion of your home but author did himself no favors by refuse to say what he was watching and instead went down the route he did.
Be interested to know if this went further.
I personally think the fact they don't need proper evidence beyond a persons opinion that they saw a tv through a window to gain a warrant is highly questionable.
Witness Evidence is given all the time in court.
@snowflakemelter not when the witness has clear bias, and witness testimonies in court need to be corroborated.
In this case, it's a licensing officer being a witness for his own warrant. "Yep, I definitely saw evidence", and if they got in and searched and found he didn't use TV license covered broadcasts, then what would happen to the lying licensing officer? Nothing unless the citizen who has had his privacy breached wanted to spend a lot of money to try and take a company to court who are clearly favoured by the government and court system.
@@snowflakemelter1172 Yes, but this has not come to court with all parties present and represented, has it?
Admittedly, when the author said he was watching this on TH-cam at the time, did they knock on his door to ask him about this? Surely, someone looking through the window is an invasion of privacy.
I’ve contacted the police a couple of times in the last 12 months. A 999 call about someone being physically threatened and racially abused on the street outside my house. An online report about criminal damage to my car. Neither situation resulted in any police contact/actions whatsoever yet they have the time to assist in this matter because someone looked through this guys window and thought he was watching a live sports event on his TV.
Outrageous and egregious
So true
Is that Kramer's Lawyer Jackie Chiles!?@@jayturner3397
All the more reason to get those nets up and shut those curtains.
I walk by so many houses and they have theirs wide open and i can see straight n.
Don't contact the police. We are on our own. Get your own protection.
When my mother had a free TV licence for so many years then at 99yrs has to start paying! Who is committing a morally unlawful act!
One of my friends had something similar a few years back, an inspector used "Evidence looking through a shut curtained window" to obtain a court order because he could see a tv on.
They arrived with a court order and police to search his property and found no tv in his house, took him to court for hiding equipment and trying to obstruct the court order. (not that he had any prior warning they were going to show up).
Turns out, my friend had one of those plug in TV imitated lights in his front room to make it look like he was in at night as he worked nights. The goon has obviously seen the flicker from that, put two and two together and got thirteen, and tried to base evidence off of something he couldn't have seen clearly anyway.
Why the court signed on the warrant in the first place is laughable. So frustrating to see a private company abuse powers of courts like this.
I’m interested in how they go from having “equipment capable of watching live TV” to using said equipment in a fashion that requires a license. I have plenty of stuff in my house that’s capable of committing crimes I just don’t use it for that purpose. Just because I have knifes in a kitchen draw doesn’t make me a murderer.
My sentiment exactly! ..... Surely its their job to prove that you watch live TV on one of these devices, not the public prove they don't use a device to watch TV...I have a gas oven but I dont use it for cooking my food...ever! .... How we can be bullied into paying for something we say we dont need is beyond me...Capita, along with the BBC are private corporations and shouldn't have anymore power than McDonalds or Marks & Spencer...Its ridiculous! ... I've not watched TV for more than 15 years, but until 6 years ago I was led to believe I had to have a license just because I owned a TV....I no longer buy one because I DONT NEED ONE, not because i refuse to pay for one ..I filled out their form online stating I don't need a license yet they still hassle me with threatening letters...I will not bow to them...I refuse to pay for something I don't need....Would I buy car tax, and insurance for a car I didnt drive?...It's time more people stood up to this intimidating bullying!
careful what you say on social media....
@@HarryNicNicholas dont be soft. He makes a valid point. Like arresting someone in a stationary car because it has the ability to break the speed limit.
@@HarryNicNicholaswhat an utter load of hog wash you speak sir.
"Your honour, the defendant possesses a pair of eyes which could be used to watch live television. We're going to need a warrant to search his property"
i had a tv license chancer put his foot in my door trying to stop me closing it. im partially sighted and cant actually watch tv unless its from 6 inches from the screen so i dont watch tv. the guy was mocking me and calling me a liar. my dog (a tactically trained american bulldog) sat patiently and quietly behind the door. when he put his foot and blocked me i gave my dog the command to bark and intimidate as i opened the door fully. the muppets couldn't get away quick enough. i done the proper complaints but never heard a thing about it after. the tv license is a farce and the arrogance of their employees is disgusting.
He cant do that. That’s trespass
Give him another chicken leg from me what a good boy
They have tried to claim they have seen my TV from the door and the window before. I live on the second floor, and my doorway gives sight into the bathroom only. Not to mention... I literally don't own any TV whatsoever.
They lied, perish the thought.
I get horrible, threatening letters addressed to occupant. They don't even know who lives here! I don't own a TV but these letters get increasingly threatening. Bold face, all caps, red ink! And, no, the "snooper vans" don't do anything!
These warrants should never get into the hands of a private company
And they keep telling us that the UK is a democratic country, when a private company can force people to buy something that they don`t want.
What do you think the police and government who approve them are.. the courts.. all private companies who stand to make a profit. Welcome to Britain in all its fucking glory.. I say it's time we lined the streets personally, millions of us, out for blood and change. They can't arrest us all they don't have the man power, they can't jail us all even if they could, they don't have the cell space for that at hand, and best of all, they can't just send in the armed police and military to gun us all down for pushing back against them, because they created a country with more cameras and eyes on you than ANYWHERE on earth.. and I'm sure the US or another country would love to jump at that perfect excuse to send their troops in and invade us for control, so they aren't that stupid.. even the French had the balls to have a revelation for fucks sake, it didn't go too well for them but my point still stands, the citizens of this country are a laughing stock, we give an inch and they take 10 miles over and over again and still, we all do nothing. It's time for change.
Exactly ! But if he was never allowed in the house in the first place on the first visit then how has he got the evidence to get a warrant
As he been spying through the window 🤔 if so , isn't that illegal ?
Unfortunately the law allows it as most bailiffs are operated by private companies appointed by the courts
Most bailiff’s warrants are executed by commercial companies.
Honestly all this shows me is how bonkers the TV license is. My goodness. Just make it a subscription.
I agree.
Licence BTW.
Here's a headline for you:
"Netflix password sharing ‘a crime’ according to Intellectual Property Office and could result in prosecution"
Absolutely agree British Brainwashing Corporation is a comedy show! apparently we live on an oblate spheroid chasing the Sun/clearly fake pseudoscience news.
The problem is that you can't make broadcast TV a subscription service.
Make it a general Tax - it is there to allow the government to use the BBC as the public broadcaster ... Most other European counties do this already - the Licence fee is weird
The BBC TV Licence is the most unfair and unjust Tax there is and must be ABOLISHED.
This man should have been given the opportunity to challenge the issue òf a warrant.
The biggest joke is when he says "Trust me I am a police officer."
*gets raped*
"trust me I'm a police officer"
Since 2008 all police forces are REGISTERED BUSINESSES SAME AS THE COURTS . barrister never tells you .
I think he’s just dress up as a copper he looks like a school teacher
yeah dodgy and corrupt.
After the Yank cops we have the most corrupt cop squad in the world. Trust them? I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the right time. This so-called cop here looks like he’s just left his paper round and dressed for a school play about how nice our cops are.
The thing I found astounding is that search warrants are issued to private contractors, so basically you can get a job with Capita and after some minimal instruction be issued search warrants to enter private residences. That would be on a par with the security bloke form your local sainsburys being issued a search warrant because he thinks you may have shoplifted an item.
If a search warrant is issued, the owner of the property is allowed to request the presence of the Police. So the Capita people cannot act alone if the property owner doesn't allow it. Once the Police arrive, they will aid in the enforcement of the warrant, and keep things straight between both parties.
It’s not tho is it
Not only that they ( captica ) can be a pedo if they have had only one conviction and is spent under the spent conviction act 1971 ( I think )
@@ubiquitousubiquitous3843 well it is though isn't it, since short of you telling them you are watching tv without a licence they are assuming guilt
@@lard2069 They are there to inspect the tv, not conduct a search, vastly different.
As an overseas observer, the whole TV licence thing seems rather archaic. Why doesn't your King just add it to the tax bill like everything else?
As an American watching this..... 😟 You have to pay for a license to watch television. OMG
It’s absolutely wrong and antiquated, however the majority of people refuse to pay based on the fact that BBC is inherently economically right wing and regularly airs establishment propaganda without being suitably challenged. This at least gives us a way to protest that directly impacts the wallet of the offender. That being said, at least we don’t have to pay thousands of dollars to use an ambulance in an emergency, or 10s of thousands to give birth…
Well you have to pay for Cable TV , what is the difference?
@@Zefyna That's true. So don't you have to pay for cable "and" tax?
It’s fine our healthcare is free
@Cloudminster So is mine. I'm even frustrated we pay for streaming services and still have to watch commercials in the middle of a movie
this is why a large minority pay the tv licence out of fear (including my 96year old mother)
No. Its because she watches her tv
@@Xanderbelle Oh ...you know crivsmum's mother then , to make such an assertion ❓🤔
Fear and threats are the TV licence extortionate's way of getting their 'fees' 😡
@@Xanderbelle You know that how?
Some of us do abide by the law and enjoy watching live TV quite happily.
It’s laughable that Capita employees refer to themselves as “officers”. They work for a private company not a government agency. They are not officers but more akin to sales people.
A common scare tactic.
they are jobs worths
When you comment on this matter why do you assume the warrant was duly signed? If in your opinion ask yourself why did they withdraw?
The fact that the government allows these outrages to happen sometimes to extremely vulnerable people is proof they don't care about their citizens one bit.
That's the smallest of reasons that prove that.
If I can just stop you there. . . A broadcasting firm has no right to demand money off anybody, if it pumps broadcasts out on the airwaves, then asks for a payment. It is their loss. And no fucking way should our police be mis used to sort out a civil matter.
@@BLzBob.7268 Absolutely.
"It's a warrant. trust me I'm a police officer." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A malnourished police office with a skinny neck 💪
...with the Smiffy's Costume Hire attached to his jacket. 😆
I think they are using halisbury's courts
So the lesson learned is that, what is moral and what is legal are two entirely different things.
The difference between Moral and legal are clearly demonstrated in the fact that slavery was legal.. wars are legal.. moral absolutely not of course..
morals are subjective like laws
@@davidrichards3851the morality of war falls on the reason for invasion and justification of defense.
That distinction has always been valid, just as law courts are not about justice.
The phrase, ‘just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right’ didn't just appear out of thin air in the eighties!
Not morals. Ethics. What is ethical is certainly not cohesive with all laws, but that doesn't mean all laws are unethical. It's a minor point, but morality is more about broader, inalienable cultural notions. Ethics pertain to social fairness. TV licenses are unfair and should be abolished, but until that happens the moralistic position is to respect that, while the law is not perfect, it is a fundamental aspect of a free society and should be paid. This is why we have freedom to protest. Breaking the law isn't the way to protest UNLESS the law is both unethical and broadly immoral. For example, if cops could kill babies, under the auspices of the law, it is morally abhorrent and refusing to recognise that law is more important than maintaining the general letter of the law. Any society that makes it legal to kill babies is acting outside the accepted social standards of morality. But we're talking about the other end of the spectrum.
In short, choose the hill you die on wisely.
you watched tv so we are going to arrest you! ridiculous
Yep, the population would have to be brainwashed to believe in such things... Oh wait...
The number of people prosecuted in 2019 -2020, the latest period that figures exist, in Scotland for not having a TV licence when one was required, was 4 people. One of whom I know was a person who admitted to watching live TV but still refused to pay for a TV Licence and received a minimal fine. There have never been any search warrants issued in Scotland regarding a TV license as far as I was able to find out.
More credence to not communicating with them at all.
I was working in Kirkwall, the place I stopped at told me someone on the mainland would phone a warning when the TV Licencing people got onto the ferry, so they never caught anyone.
Back in the summer of 1997 I was getting ready to go to work. The British Transport Police knocked on my door with a warrant to enter and search my house. I let them in and asked why then had a warrant. They said that due to the aerial masts attached to my house they had suspicions that I was monitoring Police radio messages. I took them into the room where all my radio equipment was. I told them I was a fully licenced radio amateur who had been licenced since 1978. They said they have never heard of amateur radio and thought I was telling lies. I then switched on my radio equipment so let them hear what it received. They heard amateur radio Morse Code and SSB speech. They then abruptly left my house looking rather unhappy without explanation. Later that day I phoned the BTP and said I will bring down my amateur radio licence documents to prove that I am a fully licenced radio amateur. They said that won't be necessary. That episode cost me a day's pay. I am not impressed with the Police or Magistrates for causing this unnecessary intrusion to my home and costing me a day's pay. Now at that time enforcement of the Wireless Telegraphy Act was purely the responsibility of the Radio Communications Agency and nothing to do with the British Transport Police. I did ask for compensation for loosing pay but the British Transport Police ignored my request .Resulting from this incident I have little respect for the Police or Magistrates.
Go see Crimebodge. They didn’t have REASONABLE grounds to believe you were committing an offence, as it’s not an offence.
Unfortunately, police do not provide any recompense, nor do they have any obligation to, through their internal complaints procedures.
Although well out of time for you now, if a situation such as this arises, a separate civil action (complaint) against the police/ their actions must be sought through court for a compensation order to be made. Lots of no win no fee companies will assess the claim and take their percentage too.
Let it go mate it was almost 30 years ago 😂
@@Overkill_dnb Yes but if I committed a crime 30 years ago and the Police were after me they wouldn't forget it would they.
Whether police would lawfully pursue an historic crime depends on the alleged offense, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_periods_in_the_United_Kingdom , fwiw.
So if the TV licence people lies to the judge about what he / she says, they saw they will get a warrant, and you are stuffed, and there is nothing you can do. Great Law, what about innocent until proven guilty
If it can be proven that they lied to obtained the warrant then it would be invalidated and any evidence gained from it thrown out
If they lied then you can get them into trouble.
They would still have to find some evidence that live TV has / is being watched. Unless you are actually watching TV at the time I wonder what evidence would actually prove your guilt. It seems there is a lot of wriggle room and reasonable doubt that can be presented. Unless as I say, the tv is being watched when they walk in.
@Steven Cowell nope all they need is reasonable suspicion to obtain the warrant however they cannot lie to obtain it
Having a warrant issued doesn't make you guilty. It makes you suspect, but not guilty. You plead your case the to judge, and it's upto TVL to prove that you were watching TV. At every stage of the case, you're innocent until proven guilty by a judge.
Thank you Mr Shensmith. This is why I enjoy your TH-cam channel. The elegant, concise and forensic mind of a Q.C./K.C., is a marvellous thing to behold. I would recommend folk subscribe to your channel as I know the costs involved in the technology to bring broadcast quality, edited material to this platform. It is only fair and right that a balance is struck. In other words the BlackBeltBarrister channel appears to be a not-for-profit channel run for the benefit of folk who would like to be less ignorant of the law. As the old expression goes: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Here, on this channel, Daniel helps a lot of folk understand the intricacies of the law and become factually better informed.
Technically he wasn't on the premises (s366 (7) (a)), so he didn't have to help them....correct me if I'm wrong?
That was why the cop wanted him on the premises, so that he would legally have to assist them and he could be charged for not providing that assistance.
If they lie and fabricate evidence to gain the warrant, surely challenging it in court is acceptable.
I believe the law around it is that if it has been issued then you must comply with the court order.
If you do wish to challenge the order and wish to say that court order was illegally obtained then I would ask the officers and more importantly the enforcers of the warrant that they are sure they wish to proceed as you are only giving permission under order of the court, if found later that the order was unlawful i would be challenging them personally and privately in addition to the BBC to unlawful practice, duress and any other convinction to which is applicable
Absolutely..., But they didn't 🤷
@@501sqn3 I mean.. their evidence was their 'co-worker' saying 'trust me bro'. 🤷♂🤷♂
Another issue is what is the legal of this, if something else /technically/ illegal is found on the premises unrelated to the warrant? For instance he might have bootleg tobacco, or maybe the house smells of Marijuana, or maybe he has a bong on his coffee table, maybe he has a vintage unregistered weapon framed on the wall above the fireplace, or an unregistered hooker in his bedroom banging his flatmate?
Does that mean ultimately he may win the tv licence, but then be served with a second warrant on the other matter due to what the police officer witnessed during the execution of an already questionable search warrant matter in the first place? There is a reason why such frivolous search powers are not meant to be given to private organisations; especially if they are collaborating with police. It seem like a conflict of interest.
It all really goes against the /spirit/ of privacy laws; which is why it seems so absurd. Like honestly; if BBC was really serious about this instead of it being another case of power creep being allowed to violate peoples human rights, then they could legislate to have a sub channel decoder installed on all screens sold in the UK, that detects a prohibited live signal; and requests your tv licence number if you have not already entered one. Or take it a step further and encrypt all live broadcasts to begin with, requiring the licence to even decode it.
This tech as existed since teletype machines and teletext was invented. Why don't they use it?
@@phoenixx5092spoil sport. If they do that, how on earth will the government get to spy illegally on you, or crapita and BBC make more money out of you. Do be serious, they're not here to help us, they are here to alarm, distress and rob us, anything else that comes along after that is a pure bonus.
What you say is a good idea, but then no one would watch the biased BBC.
While I agree with your legal thinking 100%. It amazes me that the English system allows private organizations to search a residence to see if they are watching TV. The third man is obviously a bully boy to enforce it. And they allow the evidence of an officer that works for the company that gets a portion of the collected fees to testify they "saw" someone violating it. It sets up a reason to find anyone violating the law.
The third man is likely the technician who would examine the tv equipment as evidence of its capacity to show live tv. The warrant would normally be issued based on the fact that no current tv licence exists and other evidence such as that obtained by tv detector vans. There is no requirement to visually prove someone is watching live tv to obtain a warrant
@@richard-me7wx TV detector vans? What decade are you living in? It's been proven beyond doubt that these vans were a deterrent, nothing more.
@@richard-me7wx The question is whether there is a requirement to show visual proof for a case of Evasion... and if not, why not?
@@greenandpleasant5523 quite correct, well said.
@@andrewpiaf630 if tv detector vans actually worked wouldn't be much need for the warrant in the first place.
Practicing has two contexts.
1. You're learning something.
2. You are actively doing what you've learnt.
I can understand the confusion .
Lol...Sorry I spat my coffee out in laughter at the end there. I can't believe somebody thought "practicing" meant still in training.... So what if you were still training, that doesnt remove your knowledge of the facts.... Scary! they walk among us...
haha, yes, I've actually stopped saying it (unless I explain what it means) because so many people think I'm not yet fully qualified 🤦♂️😂
I assume attending situations like this, is why there aren't enough police resources to deal with real crimes. Like attending burglaries, recovering stolen cars, protecting victims of persistent harassment and anti-social behaviour!
That's why they sent that unimportant looking little scroat
This is a real crime. If the rest of us are paying to use a service and the other is using a service he isn't entitled to. Like using a train and not paying or filling with petrol and leaving without paying. If you want the police to do better things just let the TV people have a look in your house.
@@michaelprobert4014 Could just have a properly made subscription service and remove all doubt. That would work better than harrasing and fining people based on hearsay from commission based taddletales. I dont think they would lose out on revenue if they did enter the 21st century.
@@anthonybeswick1937 How do you make a broadcast service into a subscription service? You can't, hence the licence.
@@anthonybeswick1937 I think they would but you are right. Could just have that.
So basically these goons can make any crap up just to gain a warrant in itself needs to be looked into
No. They can give evidence to a court under the serious penalties of perjury to get a warrant.
Just imagine how much Court time is taken up with this kind of Shill scam.
@@snowflakemelter1172 They do lie to get gain a warrant, I know someone who did this job for a year and they were told to lie in their training material.
My friend was sacked as they wouldn't lie resulting in them having a much lower licencing sale rate.
In case you haven't realised, these whole dance is to get you to buy a licence to get them to leave you a lone...
It's a disgrace the whole thing.
You are giving powers to some of the worst companies out there.
Exactly. Amd that constable is there to uphold the peace not deceive and try and trick entry into the property. What a scumbag
@@snowflakemelter1172 since the warrant isn't signed. How would you find the judge to tell them they were lied to so they get penalized?
Love how BBB explains it nice and simple yet people still think public opinion matters 😢
With the prevalence of camera phones I'm surprised that a warrant issuer would not ask for visual evidence and not what could be construed as self serving verbal evidence
What I was surprised at is how tv licensing got a warrant on the fact that the goon looked through the window and presumed the resident was watching live TV!
Must’ve been an honest goon
Surely that's like being a peeping Tom the goon should be arrested.
@@paulbuckley5748 I would be saying I’m naked in my house and why is the tv license guy being a peeping Tom on me and being a pervert
Surely looking through a window isn't evidence plus it can lead to other issues ie if you walk around naked in your house etc
@@quagmirewaserewell if some mentally retarded tv license goon staring in the window they be lucky if don't find something blunt and heavy coming from the upstairs window.
trust me im a police officer is the biggest joke on the planet
He wasn't too bad, all things considered.
Didn't Wayne cousins used use that line.
No one trusts you
I understand that the TV licensing applied for, and were granted a warrant to gain entry to the property which does not need to be accepted by the author. However, TV licensing nor the police decided to pursue entry and even if they did, this would not assist them in deciding whether the author had indeed watched live TV at the time contained within, and read out by the TV licensing officer. What would forced entry have gained, had they made entry? They withdrew prior to enforcing entry.
I think the householder was absolutely brilliant !
I thought it was mentioned in a video a while back that it wouldn't be acceptable to look through someone's window as it would be a breach of privacy so how do they get around that to collect evidence?
@D-Bunker surely this is covered by privacy laws and by doing this would be an invasion of your privacy and in breach of those laws?
@D-Bunker interesting because the guy turned up with a warrant meaning he got that through evidence that was obtained by breach of privacy laws as the statement suggested the inspector saw evidence of watching tv through the window. then that evidence for the warrant would have been obtained illegally. Then the guy would have a case against the inspector I guess or his employer for the breach. I'd be interested to know what BBB's opinion is on it.
It's perfectly legal to look through someone's window. Evidence of watching live TV can therefore be got that way, provided the looking took place from a point where the public have normal access, such as the street or the garden path.
Actually they can. When I walk down the road, there are plenty of people with clear windows. My neighbour doesn't like curtains but also doesn't like people looking in. I pointed out that it is up to him to obstruct the view, however it is done (e.g. by privet hedge), not for people to not look in from the street. Now if someone comes on your property to look, you can ask they leave, and refusal, or coming back onto the property is now trespass, a criminal offence. There is no law against people looking in an open window. Trespass on your property, yes, but not looking through a window.
@@jamesw5584 "inspector saw evidence of watching tv through the window."
And if the window in question was visible from the street, there was no breach of privacy. Keep your windows curtained.
When the copper said "trust me i'm a police officer" I nearly spat my tea out.
Here in the US of A , thankfully a judge would not issue a warrant for something this petty, essentially a civil matter. However, issuing a warrant in the US and I assume the UK, would require probable cause, without which the warrant would not be issued, nor would one be valid if issued erroneously or fraudulently. If the resident does go to court and the TV "police" fail to convince the court that they have a credible witness to the owner watching BBC, would that not make the warrant moot, unenforceable?
I can’t believe that someone thought that you, as a professional barista was still learning how to do your job lol, thanks, great video
There's a reason it's a job and you can't really just wing it.
Barista = coffee.
Barrister = law.
I just can't believe that TV licensing still exists. It's so far behind the times and useless. Just another form of Tax basically.
Your right it is a tax and it’s a tax that’s not going to go away, if not in this form I am sure they will tag it on to something else.
It is not a tax. It is a subscription fee if you are inclined to watch their crap. I dont. I do not own a TV and stopped watching commercial TV back in 2010.
There is no such thing as free TV.
If you think otherwise you clearly don't understand the system.
The average cost of advertising per household in the UK is £4.700 per year, even if they don't watch TV.
If you're concerned about the cost of TV you would be better off complaining about that.
The standards of the BBC programmes are admired throughout the world.
If you want to waste more of your life watching adverts put them on the BBC.
The standard of the programmes would crash to the American level.
Commercial TV has to compete with the high standards of the BBC.
If the BBC takes a large chunk of the advertising revenue, commcial TV will loose revenue and not be able to maintain their current performance.
You will have to subscribe to pay to view and you will see how much more expensive that is compaird to what we have at present.
High quality TV and Radio for the whole family for a week for the price of a cup of coffee, you won't find a better deal.
Parasitic behaviour based on old ideals...
@@mstables3185
Admired throughout the world!? 😂
I live in Norway and most people here, and in Sweden and Denmark thi k it's a absolute joke now! 😂👍🇳🇴
I wonder what would happen if everyone refused to pay for a tv licence? The system would be swamped for sure.
Most likely the BBC would get the government to make it a mandatory payment that everyone has to pay. 😑
This guy is an absolute hero, he stood his ground and ultimately backed off the unlawful corporate reps, and the police. He is a sovereign man following Common Natural laws, he committed no crime. Sorry BBB doesn't see it that way.
So in Australia we done away with lic in the early 70s. My question is however what give a person that is a private person even with a warrant the right to enter you house etc. Now a police officers or as such yes but this is a private person under a company employed by the BBC ffs that a tv station. How dose the BBC have this power ?
Next question if i may how is that lic $ distributed amongst the stations in the UK ?
I would have no problem letting the copper in but iwould not be letting a private citizen into my place.
THANK YOU for clarifying what a “signed” warrant is. There is a lot of confusion about that phrase.
"Trust me, I'm a police officer" 😂 That's a good reason not to trust him ffs!
Right of the bat, he's being open and honest 🤭
And aving seen this a few times, it's 1 of the best examples of this, he never does show i.d. does he, Mr clipboard, and that pencil monitor orificer looks sick don't he. He's pretty far from perfectly reasonable, immediately tries to shoo him inside
When I had a shop about 5 years ago I had the BBC sending me letters insisting I need a TV license. I called them and told them I do not watch TV, I do not have a TV in the shop nor do I watch any live BBC content on my computers. I asked them about customers bringing in their personal devices and watching live TV whilst waiting. They responded that if the device was plugged into the mains power supply I would need a license however if was run on battery power I would not need a license.
The basic advice to not talk to them, not even open the door to them still applies. However, you gotta know how far you can take things. By the time there is a warrant, the jig is up, and coming out with nonsense like "it's not a valid warrant because it's not signed by a judge" and other sovcit nonsense is just going to make matters worse. There is so much misinformation out there as to what are a citizen's rights and duties under the law in these circumstances that a lot of people get themselves in unnecessary trouble. You do a great job dispelling myths and explaining things as plainly as possible. Thank you!
What do you mean the jig is up. You don’t need a license if you’re not watching live tv. What do they think they will find if they go inside and inspect the tv. The tv is obviously able to receive live tv but they can’t tell whether you are watching it or not. What if they break the tv or damage something inside
Unfortunately, this video only encourages sovcit behaviour. They will hear the sovcit talk, see the sovcit behaviour and start frothing at the mouth when they see that it finally worked! All it does is sets a dangerous precedent.
@@twistedsister2568 the judge was so easily convinced they had a suspicious, the judge will also be easily convinced you are watching due to something like iplayer being installed.
@@twistedsister2568 lol, are you trying to mansplain? "The jig is up" means that a warrant gives them right of entry end of. Deny them at that point at your own peril.
@@Locutus Exactly!
"Trust me im a Police Officer" hmm
Well dissected sir, thank you for sorting this out factually.
Its great to see such level headed analysis of the video
Given that we live in a digital age, I am surprised the tv licensing officer failed to video this alleged viewing of live tv.
But would that then leave them open to peeping tom prosecutions?
Would go against your right to privacy if they tried to film the inside of your house without your knowledge or consent.
Because it's bs, I would expect a hand signed warrant from the judge, because this is a warrant based on hearsay.
It's against ICO regulations
Why did they not knock on his window and door then tell him who they were and that they have just seen the tv on with live sports programme playing. Surely if he knew that they had seen his tv on how can the tv owner deny it? They have just seen it from outside his house.
If the tv licence inspector was looking through the window doesn’t this make him a peeping Tom ie an illegal act ?
Voyeurism is only a crime if the person was doing it for sexual gratification. Invasion of privacy may come into it.
@@ZooumbergI don't think you have expectation of privacy for breaking the law!
@@Zooumberg so who decides what the peeping Tom is doing ? Could be casing the home for burglary,watching a couple, looking for a dog or a thousand different reasons. !!
@@Zooumberg stalking and spying wouldn’t apply then? Thin end of the wedge..
@@joetodd4351 Blair was the one who gave everyone from MI5 to (somewhat famously) bin men the right to spy on you. And that bit of legislation has never been repealed.
Yes just watched the video, thats why im now watching your verdict on the issue , Thank you B B B .😊
Only just watching this now in November 2023. I only pay my tv licence so that I can watch live sports that are RARELY on anyway. I don't have an aerial at my house so it's all digital, it would be nice if they offered a digital licence at a reduced cost. My argument for that is that the quality is nowhere near the same as live aerial tv
It can't get to that stage if you just never interact with them, he must have opened the door and spoken to them at some point, big mistake.
Update: I wrote this half way through the vid (never do that!) he had spoken to them before and claimed that the tv licence law was in question. If they saw him through the window they couldn't just use that but when he spoke to them he gave them probable cause, NEVER SPEAK TO THEM.
Agree. And unfortunately, that will convict him.
Did you actually read the act or watch the video? The warrant gives authority to use force to search the property - they're allowed to break the door down if that's the only way to carry out the warrant, and anyone on the premises would then have committed an offence by not giving reasonable assistance by opening the door. The only reason they don't break the door down is that it's their policy not to.
@@digitig I think Mike's point is that the 'author' must have said something on an earlier occasion that justified the granting of a warrant.
Or they lied most likely
They're finally pursuing me, currently they don't have my name, simply a letter to ask me to identify myself for their records. In truth I don't watch any live TV, it's not my thing and I won't pay a TV license. I'm going to be applying reflective window material amongst other additions but I'm barely ever home.... I work a lot. I'm home only 2 days a week so I doubt I'll actually see the tv license people
Thank you BBB for your professional opinion on this.
I am surprised and a little concerned that forceful entry could be used based on the words of a single capita employee. The thought of returning home to find my home full of strangers and my front door smashed in is just awful.
As I don't need or pay for a TV license I will now ensure I record any encounter I have with these capita goons and make sure they are aware I am recording them to discourage any potential falsifying of evidence by a rouge type employee, rouge types that even the police seem to have a fair few of nowadays.
Thanks again and make sure you continue to "practice" at being a barrister :)
But obviously it now seems that they can walk up to your window and peer through it to see if you're illicitly watching anything, and if they notice a rectangular screen showing video (could be a monitor with TH-cam), that seems to be justification for a warrant to be issued. Despicable.
It's almost like the courts are god and give people power to do anything and only a higher court can overrule them. Which of course is the only way a society could function.
On the streets, the police are the law even when wrong, you can take it to court and then the judge is the law regardless, don't like it appeal to another judge. Don't like that tough you opinion on the law is irrelevant
@@EE12CSVT I heard there are only around 300 warrants issued a year of this type, so this likely won't be a massive problem
@@EE12CSVT They're not allowed to trespass, however if your TV is visible from somewhere within their (presumed) right of access - in the video the officer states it was seen from the door - then it would be no different from someone opening the door to them with Coronation Street blaring away in the background. It's reasonable grounds to suspect you own a TV, that's sufficient to get a warrant to search the premises. Obviously we'd never dream of breaking the law, but if we hypothetically were to do so it should be obvious the first step to not getting caught would be to make sure it isn't bleeding obvious we were doing so in the first place.
This is exactly the point I tried and failed to make to Triple B a while back. Exactly. I absolutely do not need a TV license but I am not sure that means much if you have just a bit of bad luck and the wrong person turns up at your door. 'reasonable suspicion' - HMMMMMMMMMMM
It seems to be a further waste of taxpayer money to go to the address and NOT to carry out the warrant. Why do it unless you mean to go through with it.
Having said that, I have received a threatening letter from Capita every three weeks for the last five years. Had the first letter not been written in aggressive language and with the assumption that I was guilty, I would have answered and explained that I do not watch live t.v. (and still don’t) because most of it is moronic rubbish, and that if they wanted to visit and check, they could do so.
Should have texted the mrs to remove all the TVs while he was stalking them in the front garden then he should let them in lol would be funny af as they ain’t gonna get another warrant after that lol
Years ago as a manger of an Advice Centre I encountered a situation whereby the TV Licencing Officer had looked through a window and seen children watching TV. The person looking after them was either a family member or a neighbour and did not live at the address, but she answered the door to the Licencing Officer and was duly prosecuted by TV Licencing and received a fine.
It is quite common for TV Licencing Officials to look through windows and why they target houses during school holidays for easy pickings. People living in blocks of flats frequently watch TV without licences and rarely if ever get prosecuted in my experience. Why, because it is difficult to ascertain if a person in a high-rise building is watching a TV.
If the agent gets caught looking through windows there is no longer any need for politness...they don't make it home. Leave their body where it falls and claim you were stopping a pervert from peeping in your windows.
Thank you for taking time to help and show care for ordinary people. Thank you for all you do to inform from a legal standpoint.
@@S.Tradesthat's how most services work. Doesn't undermine the service.
If your wife backs up your case and states that at the time of the first visit where an agent for BBC said he Heard or saw a live broadcast, would the 2 against 1 stand up in court.
The problem is a lot of these warrants aren't signed at all, they have photocopies of signatures, meaning no court representation ever signed that warrant making it illegal
When the licence officer read out the conversation the author had with the previous capita goon and the author said “this act is not a law” etc.
Just goes to show Chilli Jon’s correct when he states, don’t have a conversation just say no thank you and shut the door. That way they have no evidence of anything.
They just lie and say you had the conversation.
A warrant was issued because 'John' the enforcer says so ? This is madness.
Despite the quite obvious fact that he hands it over
The copy of the warrant was provided ... there is a police officer in uniform (with a warrant card) saying they are there to assist in the execution of the warrant - do you want a JP or Judge to accompany them ?
No, it was issued because the judge was given a compelling reason to issue one. This is done under oath, so it pretty serious.
@@gmo4250 People often lie under oath - especially if they stand to benefit (e.g. being paid a commission) and think the likelihood of being found out is little to none.
@@gmo4250 yes do you not think people lie under oath when there is a financial benefit?
Because the agency looked through his window and says that he was watching LIVE tv why do they need to gain entry? The tv doesn’t log what he was watching and when.
I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts on how this warrant was granted - a TV Licensing sales representative (or “enforcement officer” as they like to brand themselves as) invaded the author’s privacy?
Is trespassing and invading someone’s privacy (looking into their private home without their permission) not against the law?
Implied right of access, unless this right has been removed, they can walk up to your "front" (Door of initial entry to property usually with a door knocker or letterbox but not limited to) door and even look into your front window. no one can be trespassed on approaching a front door without prior indication of trespass or implied right of access removed.
Its the same right the post officer employees use to deliver your post, and delivery drivers to deliver items
One minor point-The TV inspector said that the agent saw the TV on "Through the Window" Now can that be classified as being a peeping tom and is that an offence?
How can entry to the premises possibly prove he was watching TV on whatever date the guy looked through a window? it's ridiculous you can be visited with a warrant on the word of somebody working for a corporation who is incentivised by bonuses on number of people paying.
That was my thoughts, I have a connected tv but it has not been turned on for best part of 3 years. If they were to come in what would it prove if they lied and said previously I was watching a live programme. As in previous comments they should have to provide digital evidence.
The warrant is likely to be to search the premises to see if a tv was there and is it capable of receiving live broadcasts.
@@stevehaynes2857any tv that has access to TH-cam is capable of receiving live broadcasts, doesn’t mean that’s evidence. 😒
If he has a tv connected an aerial or the internet , that's enough for them , and I guess the magistrate will go with tv licensing every time . TV licensing don't play by the rules . Can he demand a trial by jury ? That's his only chance .
@@alanwhitham4 I agree and I guess the magistrate could go with tv,....However I have fists and could kill a man but doesnt mean I have killed someone.....It should be mandatory they provide proof.
I'm from a different part of the world than this place....you get police to your house for watching TV... illegally....crazy. I must be missing something
many years ago being unemployed with no licence,a game ensued over some months where they perused and i evaded. the two best evasions were an officer explaining a detector van had recorded my set running. i lived in a ground floor flat and asked if they were willing to give evidence in court to the effect that the vans dont work i 3d. some weeks later they turn up with a police officer and a warrant. nope not entering my property on that warrant. they had arrived at 10:35 pm. 5 mins beyond the scope of the warrant. the police officer said i was spot on, smiled, turned and walked off, i smiled turned and went indoors. dont know how long the licencing officer stood there looking perplexed
The main thing that worries me is that the reason for granting the warrant seems a bit weak. Firstly, it is based off on the word of the TVL officer, who can’t be impartial because they have a cash incentive to say you were watching, and such situations do breed abuse even though they shouldn’t. The second thing is that having an image on the screen doesn’t confirm anything without any supporting facts, like he saw a bbc logo in the corner or a wire to an aerial socket. This may be fair enough, I would have just liked to find that more was needed to obtain the warrant. Capita could literally put that they saw what may, or may not, have been live tv through a window on every address they visit. Instant warrant! Maybe they should be fined for every time they obtain a warrant and fail to prove anything…
Although it depends on the issuing magistrate, generally they seem to be receptive to *very* weak evidence.
To add to this, it's mostly automated so each case isn't really given merit. Just like the prepay meter warrants
This is what they actually DO....they lie that they have seen live tv being played on the tv and the magistrates take it as fact....seeing as the goon makes ££ for everyone he catches or persuades to buy a licence surely make any charge illegal??? has anyone challenged this in court??
Surely that is the whole point of the warrant. Prosecution based solely on the word of the TV licensing officer is obviously dangerous, so the warrant provides for the testing of the householder's equipment to see if it is being used to watch live TV. The evidence collected during testing will be used in court if prosecution is deemed necessary. The warrant itself doesn't imply guilt, merely a suspicion.
@@stephengraham1153 To a great extent that is the reason for a warrant. The point is that it is not supposed to be so easy to get one, if all they have to say is that they saw something through a window then that can be abused. This is not an impartial witness reporting a wrong doing, it is someone getting paid for hitting a certain target, and salespeople like that go to many lengths to hit that target. My point is that seeing a tv in use alone should not be enough, there should be more to suggest that it was indeed live tv. Being granted the right to enter your home, private place, should be harder to obtain, especially when that access is to a private company such as Capita. When the police use a warrant it usually involves more evidence and is done so for the benefit of the public, when Capita do it, it is for profit. I may well be on a losing battle and the author may well have been doing something wrong, but he could just as easily been watching a dvd of a sport documentary. I would not mind so much if there was a penalty for capita getting it wrong. To go into someone’s home uninvited is a big thing, I would feel powerless and violated. If they get it right then fair play but if you totally show them up and prove that you have done nothing wrong, there should be consequences for that invasion, a big fine to them for example.
I believe you made an assumption that they backed down due to a policy but isn't it also possible that they knew there was an issue with the warrant if scrutinised further? Was it a coincidence that the other capita employee present was a very large person, possibly there to intimidate?
Just shows the level of trust in the police these days.
Excellent summation of the law regarding the content of this video; as usual I might add!
I enjoy your candor, together with the succinct delivery of the facts. I had to smile at the idiot who thought your were, "practicing".
It's a pity courts don't allow filming, I would certainly watch your series. Until then I'll continue enjoying your TH-cam channel.
Regards from a subscriber!
It's rediculous that in this day and age they can go to these lengths to find out if you are watching a television . Almost comical
This whole tv license thing seems way over the top and invasive. I'm not from UK so none of this applies where I live but I'm actually shocked this happens to anyone!
Where do you live?
@@cplcabs Canada
So welcome to Great Britain!
I'm in Australia and this looks appalling...like something I'd expect to see in a communist country.
@@Brightangel55 Australia part funds ABC via government grants.
-You ARE a barrister? It looks like they had a 'blanket' warrant, and when challenged they realised the evidence presented to the court didn't reach the level required for a warrant, this happens all the time because of 'stamp and go' courts like the Northampton parking fine centre.
If they had continued with a camera rolling, the implications of showing that the warrant was a scam, could have had consiquences for other
Warrents. If the court actually looked at the evidence, half the warrents would not get issued.
isn’t it insane that you can be fined for watching tv in 2024 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It's insane a private company can just be racketeering, with the full backing of the law on their side.
I don't understand how it can be acceptable, and therefore admissible in court to look through someone's window when children or other family members may be getting dressed/undressed. That, in itself, is surely - at best, potentially immoral.
We have these things called curtains. If you want privacy, you need to create it.
Licensing agents are not allowed to intrusively invade your privacy looking for grounds for suspicion, but if he or she can glance through a half-closed blind or curtain whilst attempting to talk to you on your doorstep, that's entirely fine. And anything he or she sees when doing that, be it a live football match on TV or your children undressing... Well, that's down to you and the way you choose to let those things be visible.
Also, it's pretty bad form to reach for the "child undressing" defence when discussing this sort of thing. The agent casually saw the guy watching a football match on TV. No children were harmed or abused by him doing so, and it's childish to throw that into the mix as some kind of defence. It's right up there with "won't someone think of the children" and mentioning Hitler during any sort of political debate (ie, Godwin's Law).
@@dizwell You obviously don’t understand the concept of giving examples, which is all I was doing. I wasn’t suggesting making a child predation accusation.
Furthermore, your (sarcasm-infused) suggestion of keeping the curtains closed, although effective, is impractical. Keep them closed all day, just in case a visit should become manifest and despite broad daylight?
However, although I don’t appreciate your somewhat snotty, unnecessary sarcasm, I appreciate the general info.
@@BlueShadow777 You gave an "example" which is the one right-wing moral-panic loons reach for whenever they can't find a good one to illustrate their point.
Before you lecture people about not understanding how to use examples, I suggest you learn to use better ones that aren't so wildly out of disproportion to the point you're trying to make.
The fact remains: if you want privacy, learn how to create it.
@@dizwell I'd just like to ask you why you respond so vociferously and arrogantly? I made a simple comment with an innocent (and justifiable, considering the circumstances referred to) example and you immediately felt the need to insultingly label me a "right wing loon".
Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, in my experience, the reaching for the 'child predation' thing transcends right and left-wing politics.
You're obviously so insecure, obnoxious and of a bullying nature so as to pick up on the meanest issue to create ire.
I won't entertain you with any more 'tit-for-tat' over some inane, pointless and ridiculous nothing, so go on and have the last word.
Enjoy the pettiness of your innate superiority complex, good luck with the rest of your life and... kindest regards.
Happend to me and my two little boys in the 90s the judge was on my side thank God ok I got a small fine and told to get a licence
To play Devil's Advocate, you said around the 21 minute mark, that the author of the video was guilty of an off ence because "the person on the premises must assist in executing the warrant (paraphrased). The author wasn't on the premises and refused to enter the premises. I would be interested to hear your view on this.
The author stated that they were on his property. If they were, he was also by definition. If he were considered not to be there, then they could just force entry anyhow.
That's actually a good point. S366(7)(a) does specifically make reference to persons on the premises, which he may not be. That would be an interesting defence to raise at court.
@@chrisburns2172 Thank you. I might consider a change of profession, lol.
You're probably right. The guy filming could have been anyone at the end of the day lol.
Nice work
No wonder criminals feel emboldened to assault police.
Idk how these guys sleep at night knowing everyone hates them tho😂