Use code BlackBelt at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/blackbelt It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
You've got a fake account pretending to be you and asking people to text them, I've just reported it but it will probably need more than just me to do so in order to deal with it.
@TheJpf79 I've just received a notification of a "reply" with a link to your post above. Your post does not actually identify who it addressed to (or who it is a reply to). Is your post addressed to me? If so, where exactly do you think I've asked people to text me? If not, I apologise for any misunderstanding (but that is due to YT notifying me that you "replied").
The justification for the 3rd party 'Sagacity solutions' doesn't make much sense - if the email addresses they provide have been used to access BBC iPlayer, why does the BBC need another company to provide those email addresses that will already be logged via iPlayer?
@@robbomax1143 If you read what I said again, properly this time, you will see that I say "You have a fake account pretending to be you" which was too the channel owner whose post we are all replying too, you are not a fake account pretending to be the op, you don't have their name with a couple of numbers attached to it and obviously having actually read your own reply, you are not asking people to text you. Not sure why its notifying you that I've replied as I never clicked reply. The fake account I am reffering to is underneath my own comment on here, I was informing the channel owner in case they were not aware of it, as its something I am sure they don't want.
The BBC is granted exclusion from prosecution with regards to the letters it sends out. They are very careful worded to remain legal and the Government oblige the BBC to contact those not licensed regularly as part of the charter. You can test this by taking the letters to the police - they will be interested ...... until they see who sent them.
I bought a property that was empty for over 1 year. In the first week I got a letter stating it was "under investigation for watching TV" despite there not being a single electronic appliance in the house yet. Why is it even legal for the BBC to send out false and threatening letters? Any other business would be buried under millions of pounds of legal fees for such behaviour.
it means they don't have a person registered for that address and assume someone is living thee, if they don't have your name, they can't do anything, so if you move...don't tell them
My brother moved into a brand new house, a new build and inside was a pile of tv licence letters. “We believe this house is now occupied and therefore you have until x date to buy a licence to avoid a visit from enforcement officers” absolutely fcking disgusting. What a nice welcome for a first time buyer, to have anxiety inducing letters waiting for you. Each letter had a new date. Scumbags they are. Absolute cretinous vile people. But all perfectly legal!?!?!
The problem I see with this is that EVERY website you visit presents you with a 'Cookie Question'. If you delve into the cookie settings, you will see something called LEGITIMATE INTEREST. Even if you select 'No' to the question about cookies, the permission button for 'legitimate interest' remains as 'Yes'. On average, you can spend 10 minutes going through every category to select No. It is infuriating!!!!
Depends on the page used to select the options. Legit interest is down to data protection and used for those parties aligned with the webpage viewed to access information of yours.its all rubbish anyway
It's what they count on. The websites in question don't care about you, they only care about how much money they can get for passing on your personal information.
@gurglejug627 one can actually. If it's for something unimportant that you're looking at more out of curiosity that necessity then you can proverbially shoot your curiosity in the head and close any page that doesn't make it easy to reject all. And most pages like that are the ones you'd use out of curiosity.
Brilliant video sir . I know 2 women that have had domestic violence in their past and pay the TV license just so they dont have someone knocking on their doors.. They dont watch or access live TV but they would rather pay the fee than having some stranger knock on their door.. Ive tried to help them but they have just told me to leave the subject alone because they are happy to pay it, this cannot be right, it drives me mad.. Great video sir
Their past trauma is not the responsibility of tv licensing. Don’t get me wrong: knocking on doors etc is bad practice. But what you are saying is tv licensing shouldn’t knock on doors because of occupants trauma! So the same would apply to post men/women etc. You clearly ain’t thinking properly
Im sorry but such women are encouraged to stay victims. Its like a badge for some of them. They only knock on your door if you dont fill in the form saying you dont need a licence. Tell them if they are ever going to recover they MUST stop letting their abuser run their lives. Also, I NEVER answer my door unless I know who it is. Thats what doors are for! Keeping people out!!
I understand this completely. It's not just about having strangers knocking the door, it's about being trapped in a situation that might go on and on indefinitely. It's about having to hide. After all, this stranger is an 'official', and knows more about the legalities of it all than you do. So there's the fear that you will be out of your depth and cornered if he 'catches' you. The old fear never leaves you, whatever type of violence you suffer.
We do. Just stop buying a TV licence. Half a million people didn't renew last year. That's not all the people who don't have a TV licence, it's the new people opting out...
I used to declare the Licence not needed but after the way they felt fit to harass me to redeclare it every 12 months I stopped that quite quickly, if I declare I don't need something then they need to stop harassing me because I'll tell them when I do need it and telling me that its not harassment doesn't change the fact they're wrong. I tried to do things by the books and they still tried to throw the book at me so now I've decided the book can burn.
We really need to take the BBC to court for the tactics of their contractors. They should have been upfront in the letters that the email address they were using for the data could have been associated with a previous occupant, rather than scare people into buying a licence.
I have said it for several years now that Auntie may well have some pretty spicy stuff safely tucked in her drawers collected over the years about the rich and famous, including those in and previously in Government. If the Government don't revoke or amend their charter whose terms the BBC seem to overide almost daily then my suspicions will remain.
The System says do this and I do the opposite. Really getting hard when everything from Work to Life is hounding you none stop, as if you're a robot to consume !!!
I’ve just paid for a full year in fear of being prosecuted. When I went online to say I don’t need a licence I noticed that it included watching foreign channels online ie aljazeera. I don’t knock what it going to pop up online and automatically play so I wanted to ensure not being prosecuted. Very confusing. I don’t even have bbc iplayer on my devices but what about all these other channels. 😢
The problem is the mere existence of these "data brokers". The very concept of companies who's sole purpose is to process and trade people's personal data needs to be abolished.
Yes, these companies should be closed down. Why would anyone want all their private information to be spread far and wide around the world.. Hackers must think they are in dream land with all this information being freely available to them..
@@billbhein2949and the point of this video is showing that the information can be well out of date in regard to using addresses as the main reason for acting on it.
Gotta love how their process also completely glosses over the fact that anyone who knows your email can literally punch that email into iplayer and watch stuff on there despite said person not having any connection to you or your home address. Doesn't even need to be a previous occupant.
Not really, they also need the password too access the BBC account, so unless they that too, they can't use it. Unless they have access to that "old" email account, which is possible, but it probably was that that person wanted to watch the football and thought he wouldn't get caught. Also the iplayer logs the IP address as was shown in a recent case where a woman was prosecuted because her niece logged into her own account at her aunties to watch it and her auntie didn't have a licence.
@@sarahferguson2876 I think the point I meant is being missed. You yourself don't need to have an iplayer account, someone can just create one themselves using your email.
If you do NOT want your data shared tick the box, but if you DO want your data shared tick the box... No matter what you do they WILL share your data. Something needs to be done that any company collecting your data should inform you exactly what they have about you without you asking.
Glad you guys are fielding this topic. I think the whole chasing letters is a form of harassment. Nevertheless I do like to collect and file every letter. Still waiting for a visit 10 years on.
Indeed you did, CJ. That was an excellent video too. Memo to both of you; though, "Sagacity" is pronounced "suh·ga·suh·tee". The main lesson to be drawn from this excellent video is NEVER to give permission to anyone, with whom one deals on line, permission to share your data. There will be far more egregious cases of the use of such data out there. Prima facie, this practice, including the example given here, may fall foul of GDPR and merits further enquiries.
I had a positive experience with the tv license letters recently. I ran out of toilet paper in the middle of the night and was about to panic. Then, i remembered the BBC sent me a handy letter the day prior and it was most useful!
When buying an item, Pay with cash, if asked for email, say do not have email, If asked for address, Say, I do not share that information unless it is a law, if the shop refuses to sell the item unless you give your information, boycott the shop.
Which shops are asking for your address when you buy something?! 😬 I've been asked for my email for an "E-receipt" but I just say "I'd like a paper one please" and they always happily oblige. Giving your address seems 🤯
I'd rather pay by card, there's thieving scumbags where I live. If you want GOOD advice, use a smartphone to pay. Avoid cards unless you have a damn good RF-blocking wallet. Remember - cash can be stolen. Cards can be skimmed (all new credit/debit cards these days in Britain are contactless), but smartphone apps like Apple pay or Google/Samsung pay will NOT respond unless unlocked, plus they mask your real card details with pseudo-ones.
@@mandrakejakewe need a legal system that stops overreach like this. They’re a broadcaster and have common approaches to these problems. They don’t need to go buying 3rd party data and trying to match emails of people to addresses etc.
Yes, live streaming. However, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what you buy when you purchase a Sky or Virgin package...because you still get adverts. Seriously, I don't understand it. You're paying to get TV...but have to watch ads. You don't have to pay (apart from a licence) to watch ITV, CH4 (though why would you?), CH5, etc. So why do Sky and Virgin charge, yet still run ads?
It wouldn't matter, if you watch any other live TV from any one else you need to buy a licence. Answer is to not watch any of it at all. It is all brain rot anyway.
@@barryfoster453 Virgin charge you for access to the channels via their hardware, they in turn pay those channels for the right to broadcast them. The channels themselves run the adverts. Are you really so dumb you don't understand how this works?
If it were propaganda then why didn't its output change from being hard-right before July to being hard-left after July? Surely if it were government propaganda its editorial policy wouldn't have remained consistent even though governments have changed.
This exact thing happened to me but for a slightly different reason. I don’t have a TV license but my elderly mother, does as she watches and records live broadcast television. Fine, whatever. As she is elderly, she’s quite the technophobe. She has barely any idea of how to use certain applications and she wouldn’t know how to send an email if you stuck it right under her nose, so innocently, I set up a BBC iPlayer account so that she could access those services from her home. I, however only having one email address at the time, used this to declare my no license needed declaration and had this exact same issue. I think it’s an absolute cheek that they contact you like this as I have never and will never watch anything relating to the BBC and do not watch or record any other live broadcast media. I’ve now learned my lesson and created an account with a bespoke email address for her, but still I think it’s rather cheeky that they do this to people and scare them into submission.
Yep, and I reckon that figure will be much higher for this year. Huw Edwards, who they decided to give a pension to - played a massive part in people cancelling (especially with his pathetic sentencing). So the Blackmailing B Corp shot themselves in the foot for their actions...
@@YT-channel42 The US Presidential Election. 5 November 2024. I believe, the early hour coverage of 6 November, in relation to the above, the respective and collective disgraceful and shameful conduct, of the Presenters, will prove a "further nail in The BBC cxffin"
I live in Spain and am unlikely ever to return to the UK. If I did I would not buy a licence, I literally hate the BBC, home of state propaganda and nonces.
There's also 2 situations where you can use BBC iPlayer without a licence: - at another person's address on your mobile device if you plug your mobile device in to charge it up. - if you are in a vehicle or vessel (like a car, boat, or train) This activity by TV licensing would also implicate people in the above two situations where they would say you are using it at your home address rather than watching iPlayer lawfully.
I repeatedly get threatening letters from them about an empty property I have and they will not listen. My partner has paid hers for years when she doesn’t need one because if she is prosecuted it could affect her job. They are a disgrace. The letters get more threatening every time and they did the same to me 14 years ago at a different property I had that was empty so this is clearly just how they operate and not a mistake.
Same here, we don't use the BBC at all, haven't for over 15 years, but GF has a pretty high up job in which squeaky clean integrity is vital (obviously that means she's not a politician, MSM journalist, religious leader or police employee)... So we pay the bribe under duress to protect our livelihoods. They should have this absurd draconian power removed, people should be able to choose to subscribe or not, and all of us should be able to sue for that money back, interest and the stress it has caused. But propagandists gotta propagandise.
For me, it is the now biased manner in which they present The News. 9 January 2024. Times of Israel. "BBC apologizes for report accusing of IDF "summary executions" in The Gaza Strip. THIS is not an isolated incident.
I sign the online declaration approx every 2 years to say I do not watch - I still get letters - I don't watch it - I deny to pay legally - There is plenty of alternatives (I remember Currys once asked me for my address when buying a TV - I refused and walked out)
I stopped paying my TV licence and I even contacted them to tell them why and they cancelled and accepted it accordingly. Couple months later I was bombarded by threatening letters and they even sent a few so called officers to my house. I ignored them for a while until I decided to ring them one day super angry asking why they are acting as if I never told them I was cancelling. They agreed to back down and not heard anything from them since then. I am expecting them to resurface again soon. It seems to be their playbook.
We want the BBC to send out those letters. Every letter sent costs them money, not to mention the actual 'enforcement' visits, so every time a letter is sent the BBC loses money.
Ducking £1.20 to send a letter these days. I wonder how much the BBC pay??? I must have cost them hundreds over the last 15 years, I never paid for the licence.
It’s time that happened - I have only recently realised that the BBC is the most Biased Broadcasting Corporation. But now I believe they should be renamed the BBCC - the most Biased, Blasphemous Corrupt Corporation!
the tv licencing authority blatantly lie about the need for a licence I recently made a new declaration about not needing a licence on their own web site even though I had declared I did not watch or record any live tv on any platforms they they still insisted that I need a licence when I rang to confirm they still said I needed a licence and their justification for stating I needed a licence was "I needed a licence IF it watched live tv" I told them I didn't watch live broadcast and their response was "but if you do watch you need a licence"
Ooh, that stopped my heart for a moment. That partial email address you read out sounds scarily similar to mine. And we don't pay the tv licence, because we don't watch any tv of any sort, in any format whatsoever, and haven't done for around 3 years now. Longer in my husband's case. And yes, despite frequently telling them that this is the case, we are still getting letters demanding payment.
It's interesting that when you innocently purchase something, and the cookies ask to keep your data, this information is then used for investigation into an offence of "No TV licence". Maybe if the cookies explained that it can be used by the BBC for prosecution, then the person about to tick the "yes I consent" box will be better informed and press "No I decline". I feel that by not engaging at the doorstep or responding to any letters leaves them frustrated, and that's a good thing.
@@foxstrangler I experienced that before. There must be an algorithm that can block out the BBC gaining details? It still feels wrong that's the way the operate.
Best thing to do with any TV Licensing agent, or individual acting on their behalf, who contacts you, is to avoid any and all communication with them. Do not respond to their letters, do not answer the door, nothing. Leave them no opportunity to get any data about you. They have no case if they have no data. If they have no data they can’t do anything.
Of course he does, he's a Barrister working for Shitun,Gods law is cause no harm cause no loss, Barristers ignore this meaning they belong to Shitun who controls the banks and BAR he works for.@@Lindys
I stopped getting contacted after I said I'd charge them a fee for any further letters I received from them and a further fee for every minute wasted on the phone. Been nearly 4 years now
So the lesson learnt is to use an email account with iPlayer that you dont use for anything else, and more importantly one you don't use to pay your tv license!
BBC's initial correspondence should have disclosed the email address and the uncertainty and given a path forward other than getting a licence for those mismatches. Also the unlawful data use should be investigated.
The mistake here is in contacting the bbc grifters and their subsidiarity money grabbers. The more they have to spend on sending out their threatening letters and goons, the less they have in their paycheques and pensions. Treat every letter as a victory. And if they send you a non- prepaid envelope for reply it is a godsend. Make sure it weighs plenty for maximum return payer cost. I recommend soaked lasagne sheets.
@@kuzukuzu2615 even if you want to do it by the book so to speak you can do it online and notify them you no longer watch any live tv on any platform and no bbc player content, every 2 year you notify them, simples
Last few months you have been on fire Daniel! Honestly, you're touching on topics that could get you cancelled, this internet place is absolute backwards but you are an amazing person with a lot of love and justice, i have been following you for a few years now, thanks for your channels bud, take care and please be careful
Connected but not, I went to Bradfords Building Supplies on Saturday to buy 2 pieces of downpipe. Certainly not the cheapest but for ease it was a justified upcharge. Anyway, when I went to the till, they wanted my name, address and email to complete my sale. When I asked why they said it was ‘for their system’ I refused. They wouldn’t sell me without it. I left. What a crazy world we now live in
Same at Curries, drives me insane and I've walked out more than once. Their defence is they need it for "proof of sale" and I explained that I will have proof of sale with my credit card even if they refuse to give me a paper receipt (which they were going to give). The manager said I may lose the receipt, I explained I was a grown up perfectly capable of looking after a piece of paper for a couple of years. I managed to look after my birth certificate for 44 years so I think I'm OK. Would love to see @blackbeltbarrister buy from Curries and make some comment!
What is needed is a law that every company holding personal data has to notify every person on their lists of what data is held, and why it is held, at least once a year, with a simple link for people to say they no longer want their data held by that company. The same with cookies on computers.
Link to agree they are allowed to keep it at least else they'll send them to the void. But there are thousands that share and duplicate your data, and they can make more. You'd be spammed to death.
The very postcode, exact locstion. What you search for, who you are nearby to. What you search for. With AI only get worse. Oh they get permission to your microphone and camera too. 😁 Big brother
Actually incorrect. Whenever you register for, say, car insurance or home insurance, or provide your details to your bank etc you are asserting that those details are not just yours, but also the means of contacting you at that address. Similarly subscription services, delivery services and so on all require verifying your contact details against an address. This is why they clearly state it may be associated with a previous resident AT THAT address who have used it in such a manner.
Yeah i latched onto that as well. It only works for them if you have your details listed with the email address and they can cross reference it. Otherwise they dont have a leg to stand on in court if they are relying on an email address alone to verify identity.
just curious how it works... if you dont have "old tv" home and but you have smart tv what you watch basically over interent... I dont know youtube, netflix, pureflix what ever.... you dont have to pay?
exactly..... streaming services record it all for you to watch licence free whenever you want.... or you can be old fashioned and record it yourself and have to have a TV licence...... no brainer surely???? (excluding iplayer from this but who watches that anyway!)
Fear of prosecution seems to be a theme in the Uk lately . What has happened to this country. Seems like our grandfathers fight for freedom has a cell by date.
The BBC emailed me a couple of years ago informing me they would be deleting my account because I wasn't using iplayer, but the threatening letters keep coming even though I don't watch or record live tv. I watch cooking channels, property development, etc, and definitely not iplayer
It's the threat contained within that letter that will have many genuinely innocent people buying a license whether they need to or not. Disgusting behaviour. I hope someone takes the BBC to court for what appears to be the abuse of the GDPR.
@@johnristheanswerthere are more exceptions to that rule than adherents to it. Granted, received isn't one of those exceptions. But why focus on that and not the overall point?
So who is going to sue the BBC (and maybe others in the chain) under the DPA for misusing personal information? Speciofically "processing it in a manner incompaible with the reason for which it was collected" ... because obviously no sane person gives their personal information so that they can later be harrassed by some organisation or other.
Stopped paying for bias broadcasting corporations “propaganda” 7 years ago in the process saved money and was not complicit in spreading lies and hatred.
Pay willingly or receive increasingly threatening letters, and, as had been demonstrated, not exactly clear or misleading letters. Not to mention the ‘fast-track’ SJP.
The real insult is the fact you need to pay for the biased broadcasting company just because you watch rival channels. It’s like paying a fee to Tesco in order to shop at Morrisons . De fund the BBC, don’t pay the tax on viewing.
This is why I can't watch GBNews live. It baffles me that it's legal for the BBC to hold their competitors services to ransom, but the only way I can keep legally not paying the BBC is by not watching GBNews.
I recently declared no license needed because I wasn't watching the BBC, my wife wasn't keen but with continued cost of living we decided we were wasting money . I de registered my BBC account before we declared. So I don't watch any BBC or I player content I don't even watch live You tube output or from anywhere else. However I'm still awaiting a visit from enforcement. About a decade ago after being homeless we ,moved into an address my wife contacted the BBC to say we didn't need a license at the time we had no internet and our phones weren't smart, however we then had a constant supply of threat letters. It's outrageous the BBC can claim over a live broadcast anywhere in the world. Defund the BBC.
@@robtheplod My wife did because she thought it was the right thing to do. Most people consider that if you make a declaration that's that. I have told her repeatedly that if they roll up not to talk to them.
I used to work for one of the largest banks in the UK. A lot of the time that box you tick about sharing your data with 3rd parties, is sinply ignored. So ticking it doesn't necessarily protect you.
I got an email saying my email address had been used to access iPlayer. "Oops" the email said. I applied to the BBC for the viewing data. It showed views of shows I'd never seen, from locations I'd never been to, on devices I've never used. There's more than one way those claims can be wrong!
NEVER, EVER, EVER contact BBC/TVL to tell them you dont need a licence and hence automatically go on the 'No licence needed' database. Simply cancel your direct debit, that is ALL you need to do - you do not need to contact anyone or fill in any online forms, regardless of what the BBC website 'implies'.
@robtheplod. It’s as simple as that. I don’t get it why people get their underwear in a twist over tv licensing. As you said, cancel your direct debits, bin their threatening letters and close the door in their faces silently if they decide to visit.
Exactly what I have done , letters monthly go in the bin , I don’t watch live tv , this is my choice , I’m not obliged to tell anyone that I don’t watch live tv . The best course of action is to not have any correspondence with these people in any way , they try to mislead you and trip you up and catch you out ,
It would be helpful if an M.P. Would raise this aspect of the licence fee scam in parliament (if they truly wish to represent fair treatment of their constituents).
@@robtheplod You can't even get them to discuss why we are pissing billions away in foreign wars that have nothing to do with us. Or why we pay france to ferry illegal criminals into our waters to be picked up by the coast guard. Or why the coast guard doesn't guard the coast.
No business is required to do that now. They will only "need" your name and address for marketing. Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, TVL know every address that is not registered and it's not an offence to own a TV.
GDPR 1d. As well. They have not attempted to keep data up to date. They have admitted it may not actually be your email address, so they knew it could be innaccurate, but made no effort to verify. They have not taken "every reasonable step"
I haven't needed nor purchased a license for twenty to twenty five years now, but feel for the venerable who must also receive the frightening and threatening letters I have been receiving over those years... its way past intimidation and is akin to sending thugs round with baseball bats leaving me to wonder how many are forced through fear to purchase a license needlessly. Its as close to being a protection racket without actually being one.
My parents empty house got the same letter. It has an email address for the security system and cameras. We just ignored it as they had no way of proving anyone lived there let alone watching live TV.
No licence for 10 years now. I regularly had guests who stayed and used their phones or computers here. Some watched BBC. I checked and I was not responsible for them. Just thought I would add this as others may be concerned as I was.
In Australia, our Gov ABC is equivalent to the BBC, and we don't get a say in the funding. Gov just takes our money if we watch it or not ! We don't get a say, and it costs billions each year for a quickly dwindling audience.
Excellent video Daniel, as always 👍 Couple of points: (1) What everybody should do now is make a GDPR data request to Sagacity solutions. (2) A lot of people say that they don't need a TV licence to try to stop the letters arriving. However this is a clear example of when making a declaration either way is actually used against people. I think sometimes giving no information whatsoever is quite often the best course of action, as whatever answer you give cannot then be used against you. What do you think?
Thank you. This is clearly a VERY serious issue for the many people who live in rented or multiple occupancy houses/apartments and frequently move for career reasons. Very useful advice. The BBC should not be financed thru taxation. That’s an anachronism.
People who watch live non-BBC content do not have a choice. A practical admin compromise in the days of BBC1, BBC2 and one independent channel is now outdated and unfair. Since 1982 that is no longer the situation. BBC content is no longer the major source of entertainment etc that it once was.
I have received the same letters and made subject access request under GDPR. I've also asked for my BBC iPlayer activity specifically. The activity log shows when I have scanned BBC iPlayer to judge whether the programmes on offer are worth paying the licence fee. This is the activity for which they are pursuing me. I have neither watched nor recorded any live TV, nor have I watched any BBC iPlayer content. But I have visited their home page. So, beware!
I had TV Licencing agents came to my door. They insisted that I did not have a TV licence and put their foot in the door to prevent me from closing the door. The fun started when I told them I have a TV licence, but they kept on saying that I did not and I need to show them proof, otherwise I would have to let them in to check my equipment under enforcement. They showed me a warrant which was signed but they would not allow me to read the warrant. I basically told them to go away, but they started to get a little pushy in the sense of preventing the door from being shut on them. I could not provide them with a copy if my TV licence, and if I walked away from the door they would have just walked in. A little back story. I live in a block of flats. To access those private flats you have to gain access through a steel locked security door that has to be buzzed though, meaning you must ring the door of the flat to gain access. Clearly they did not do this and had gained access via deception, saying they were the postman or a delivery guy. Once in they went to my door and knocked. once the door was open a feet prevented it from being closed. So with this in mind, and these two men were twice the size of me, and were trying to intimidate me with no success's, I asked them to recheck the address as I knew I had a valid licence. They then said "Yes your address does not have a TV licence and hasn't had one for a few years." then they said that I must let them in to check my equipment or they will force entrance. Now I am disabled but I also know my rights. and I told them that if they force entrance I will defend myself as they are trying to use force to break into my home. They said that they will call the police and I will be arrested if I touched them. After a stand off of about 2 minutes they read out my address, which they had not done from the start, just shoved a paper document which they said was a warrant to search my home. I used some colourful language telling them they can go away and call the police, which they said they would, and I said they once the police arrive they will be the ones being charged or escorted out of the building without gaining access. They called the Police and a standoff began. I asked them to read off the address they had, which they refused to give, but when the police arrived and they stated that they had a warrant to see my equipment I asked the officed to look at the warrant. The officer looked at me and asked me for my address, and for me to prove my address and name, which the TV guys had not asked for. A few words were spoken to the thug TV people and they were told to leave the building. The outcome was these TV licencing thugs had gone to my Street and a building by the same name, but not the correct address. Once they checked my actual address they found I did have a TV licence but I did not get an apology from them, only the police. The TV people should have gone to a House at the other end of the street about 1/2 a mile down the road. After all the threats of force and possible violence to a disabled person and they had the wrong address. It pays to be right, also it pays to listen to the people that know the Law. They had no right to enter my home with a warrant which was not linked to my address and was not in my name.
I could quite legally have (and use) an I-Player account, without holding a TV Licence, if I only use it at a licenced location, such as a friend/relative's address, my works canteen, a hotel I'm staying at on holiday, etc.
they tried to do my cousin for no tv license. we're kiwis, he was new to the UK on his OE and watching the All Blacks v Wallabies live, on the internet. hed already paid for it with his taxes, but somehow the british govt thought they deserved a cut.
I cancelled my TV licence and ignored all their letters. Eventually they came to my door and I let them in to prove that I don’t watch the BBC. I’ve since been told I didn’t have to let them in, but I don’t regret it. All I have is a firestick and he could see I never tune in. It was very satisfying. I’ve not heard from them since
This was interesting and useful. BB says that a customer might agree to 3rd party sharing of personal data. Improper use of that data is then against DPDR rules. OK but when I do my internet shopping i have to agree in to a complete package of T&Cs which often include data sharing. I am (in those instances) given no choice. I am wondering if that gets the online form off the hook and no longer obliged to protect my privacy? It's a murky business and this video does so well to throw light on it. ❤
Third parties are selling our details one just has to count the amount of scam calls we get on a daily basis,that’s what sharing our details with 3rd parties does,we get scammed others just get scam calls all the time think about that one??? My mum was scammed this way,what’s the law doing about that???? I find it disgusting that companies sell our details and a stop should be brought to this. Informative video Blackbelt 👍
Why you didn't know this as you clocked when looking at web pages etc. Thru you agreeing to those terms, you give access to most all your privacy. Camera, files photos, postcode, who you are near to. 😂
So many times the check boxes are hundreds of them in length... i went to look at an online tide table and thier partners wanted permission, hundreds of partners on a tidetable. I don't mind a cookie that tracks where and what I am looking for, but when they want to track anything and everything else I am doing that is an invasion of my privacy. Beyond any further information told to others is illegal, SOLD to others is a damm criminal act...
Very good.Two things. 1 - The licence is only associated with a physical address, and iPlayer is only associated with an email address. That is fraught with problems. For instance I could be watching iPlayer on my sister's TV at her house as she has a licence and I do not and they would chase me if it was me that logged on. 2 - BBC shows video clips on its website such as the Valencia floods and a good many on the sports page too. If you click on a video ( logging in with email is not required) on the sports page it does not say this is iPlayer do you have a licence? as it does if you log on through iPlayer. However, when I watched a video without accessing iPlayer they chased me saying I had used iPlayer when I had not. This tells me their iPlayer record system or their website video display system is incorrectly set up. It also tells me that they have recorded my IP address, is this legal? Another thing that tells me they are accessing IP addresses is that you cannot log on to iPlayer using a VPN even when it's located in the UK. So if I get myself another email address not linked to my current address the BBC have no way of tracing me even using Sagacity. The unscrupulous could also illegally log on to iPlayer using someone else's email address.
I am a pensioner and am afraid to cancel my licence although I rarely watch tv I do watch utube, amazon prime and netflix I dont watch live videos on utube but I watch those programs after they been recorded,so am not sure if thats ok, it scares me with all the threats that I see other people get from bbc.
I cancelled my 92 year old fathers licence. They send loads of letters but if you’re genuinely not watching live TV you really shouldn’t have anything to fear. I dread to think how many are still paying purely out of fear though, tens of thousands definitely, maybe more. So bad is it now they resort to try to scare many into paying. All stick, no carrot.
Cancel it. Tell them you don’t watch live tv. If they ever send anyone to your door do not engage with them. Do not talk to them, just politely say no thanks and close the door.
In Ireland, just owning a TV requires a TV Licence, even if it doesn’t work! Moved to a new property, and for a few years didn’t have a Licence and didn’t get any hassle. Bought a TV from big electronics store, and while Harvey was helping me get the new TV in my Car, his colleague, Norman, convinced my Brother to give my home address ( i had no intention of giving and details ). A week later a letter notifying me i needed a license! Either Harvey or Norman must have given my details to the License Authority.
What actually constitutes 'TV', if you (BBB) do a 'live' podcast is that 'live TV'? If Mahyar Tousi puts out a live podcast on his channel 'Tousi TV' is that 'Live TV'? Any clarity would be muchly appreciated.
BBB and Mahyar do not class as a TV broadcaster. Its only TV broadcasters that you need a licence for to watch live... like Sky/BBC/ITV.... people on RUclips are not classed as broadcasters
my understanding is: the "broadcast" part is to do with the licenced RF spectrum. If something streaming is ALSO live on the licenced RF spectrum used for UK TV, the stream is classed as a broadcast even if the particular stream you are watching is via the internet.
When I move into a new property, I send a letter to the BBC withholding my name, just giving the address, I notify them that I do not require their services, and I withdraw their "implied right of access" to this property, and failure to abide by this will open them to prosecution for trespass. Yours sincerely the occupier. I get a standard response saying they will check again in 4 years time. Then I never hear from them again.
@@Tailssonic1999x Do you have a path and a doorbell? there is an implied right of access to the property right there for some one to ring your door bell and indicently look through your frount windows to see if your there (or have a TV). This right is upheld by the law, you can however revoke the implied right of access verbaly or preferably in writeing. at which point they cant step on your property at all with out risk of prosecution for trespass
Use code BlackBelt at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/blackbelt
It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
6.44 Got it👌
You've got a fake account pretending to be you and asking people to text them, I've just reported it but it will probably need more than just me to do so in order to deal with it.
@TheJpf79 I've just received a notification of a "reply" with a link to your post above.
Your post does not actually identify who it addressed to (or who it is a reply to).
Is your post addressed to me? If so, where exactly do you think I've asked people to text me?
If not, I apologise for any misunderstanding (but that is due to YT notifying me that you "replied").
The justification for the 3rd party 'Sagacity solutions' doesn't make much sense - if the email addresses they provide have been used to access BBC iPlayer, why does the BBC need another company to provide those email addresses that will already be logged via iPlayer?
@@robbomax1143 If you read what I said again, properly this time, you will see that I say "You have a fake account pretending to be you" which was too the channel owner whose post we are all replying too, you are not a fake account pretending to be the op, you don't have their name with a couple of numbers attached to it and obviously having actually read your own reply, you are not asking people to text you. Not sure why its notifying you that I've replied as I never clicked reply. The fake account I am reffering to is underneath my own comment on here, I was informing the channel owner in case they were not aware of it, as its something I am sure they don't want.
This sort of intimidation should be illegal!
Backed by the UK Government......
The BBC is granted exclusion from prosecution with regards to the letters it sends out. They are very careful worded to remain legal and the Government oblige the BBC to contact those not licensed regularly as part of the charter. You can test this by taking the letters to the police - they will be interested ...... until they see who sent them.
How is it intimidation?
It is harrassment........
If the BBC offered a ubscription service we would not have deal with this bullying….
Dirty scumbags. I cancelled mine ages ago. I'm not paying for bad tv or to watch PDFiles giving us the news nightly.
Propaganda not news!
Well said
Exactly
The people that knew about Savile, Edwards etc are just as guilty and not deserving of TAXPAYER money !
They should be in prison
@@Liberty_Freedom_Brotherhood All part of the Government and corruption if you ask me.
In America, I threw my TV out of house years ago and gave TV to a thrift shop. I don't miss it. Felt liberating.
I bought a property that was empty for over 1 year. In the first week I got a letter stating it was "under investigation for watching TV" despite there not being a single electronic appliance in the house yet.
Why is it even legal for the BBC to send out false and threatening letters? Any other business would be buried under millions of pounds of legal fees for such behaviour.
true.
it means they don't have a person registered for that address and assume someone is living thee, if they don't have your name, they can't do anything, so if you move...don't tell them
YES THIS. I never thought about how your data could have been sold unlawfully to Sega and then to TV Licence Gestapo.
My brother moved into a brand new house, a new build and inside was a pile of tv licence letters. “We believe this house is now occupied and therefore you have until x date to buy a licence to avoid a visit from enforcement officers” absolutely fcking disgusting. What a nice welcome for a first time buyer, to have anxiety inducing letters waiting for you. Each letter had a new date. Scumbags they are. Absolute cretinous vile people. But all perfectly legal!?!?!
The problem I see with this is that EVERY website you visit presents you with a 'Cookie Question'. If you delve into the cookie settings, you will see something called LEGITIMATE INTEREST. Even if you select 'No' to the question about cookies, the permission button for 'legitimate interest' remains as 'Yes'. On average, you can spend 10 minutes going through every category to select No. It is infuriating!!!!
You can select legitimate interest and click them all off too.
I give up if it is more than a few clicks.
Depends on the page used to select the options. Legit interest is down to data protection and used for those parties aligned with the webpage viewed to access information of yours.its all rubbish anyway
It's what they count on. The websites in question don't care about you, they only care about how much money they can get for passing on your personal information.
@@Threadbow most often one cannot do that.
@gurglejug627 one can actually. If it's for something unimportant that you're looking at more out of curiosity that necessity then you can proverbially shoot your curiosity in the head and close any page that doesn't make it easy to reject all. And most pages like that are the ones you'd use out of curiosity.
Brilliant video sir . I know 2 women that have had domestic violence in their past and pay the TV license just so they dont have someone knocking on their doors.. They dont watch or access live TV but they would rather pay the fee than having some stranger knock on their door.. Ive tried to help them but they have just told me to leave the subject alone because they are happy to pay it, this cannot be right, it drives me mad.. Great video sir
Their past trauma is not the responsibility of tv licensing. Don’t get me wrong: knocking on doors etc is bad practice. But what you are saying is tv licensing shouldn’t knock on doors because of occupants trauma! So the same would apply to post men/women etc. You clearly ain’t thinking properly
@@jonyboyjpk when we expect parcels we check who's knocking. If not we just ignore it.
all friends and relatives have our mobiles.
Im sorry but such women are encouraged to stay victims. Its like a badge for some of them. They only knock on your door if you dont fill in the form saying you dont need a licence. Tell them if they are ever going to recover they MUST stop letting their abuser run their lives. Also, I NEVER answer my door unless I know who it is. Thats what doors are for! Keeping people out!!
@@LusciousTwinklethey will always be victims. Not everyone can come out from abuse as superheroes.
I understand this completely.
It's not just about having strangers knocking the door, it's about being trapped in a situation that might go on and on indefinitely. It's about having to hide.
After all, this stranger is an 'official', and knows more about the legalities of it all than you do. So there's the fear that you will be out of your depth and cornered if he 'catches' you.
The old fear never leaves you, whatever type of violence you suffer.
Ignore all letters and avoid the iplayer and all live TV in the same way as one would avoid the Archbishop of Canterbury .
AofC - haha love it! 🤣
😂😂
😂 good one!
Top comment, how is he still in place?
😂😂😂
I will NEVER buy a TV license ,,, I just bin the letters...
I report them as harrrasment and file them.
My real name is Mr Occupier. I'm on the hook for millions in fines.
@@adenwellsmith6908I've been after you for a while. Pay up!
@@adenwellsmith6908 Mine's Legal Occupier, I wonder if we are related
LicenCe.
It's time the citizens had a say on the BBC.
We do. Just stop buying a TV licence. Half a million people didn't renew last year. That's not all the people who don't have a TV licence, it's the new people opting out...
💯
Issue is, government will subsidise them, because they need the propaganda tube. So we will pay it, directly or not, even when all quit paying.
You are a slave,not a citizen-welcome to the real world ✌️
Start by stop becoming a citizen
I used to declare the Licence not needed but after the way they felt fit to harass me to redeclare it every 12 months I stopped that quite quickly, if I declare I don't need something then they need to stop harassing me because I'll tell them when I do need it and telling me that its not harassment doesn't change the fact they're wrong. I tried to do things by the books and they still tried to throw the book at me so now I've decided the book can burn.
Its one email/ form every year or so, fill it in ,your done,
@TheDigger06 I declared once, needing me to declare every year is just pathetic, you bootlick the bbc if you like.
@@TheDigger06bootlicker. If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Am I right, comrade?
Screw your BBC. The book is going to burn.
@@TheDigger06yeah it's 1 email/form...but they still use the threatening language to get you to do that.
We really need to take the BBC to court for the tactics of their contractors. They should have been upfront in the letters that the email address they were using for the data could have been associated with a previous occupant, rather than scare people into buying a licence.
Agreed - why is Ofcom sitting on its hands and letting them (BBC and Sagacity) seemingly flout the strict rules of GDPR.
This is why we need to keep cash and say no to digital ID.
Best comment 👌 👏
I work in a shop & always insist on cash & will tell every customer the reason why . I keep the msg short & sharp & hope it sinks in .
That’s just one reason. There are more important ones, too. Vitally important.
Defund BBC
Or just privatize it
@Queerz4Palestein I'd rather see it being shut off than someone taking over.
Make it a subscription service like netflix I bet it would fail. Bbc bastards buggering children
they funded by the small hats they ain't bothered bro!
I have said it for several years now that Auntie may well have some pretty spicy stuff safely tucked in her drawers collected over the years about the rich and famous, including those in and previously in Government. If the Government don't revoke or amend their charter whose terms the BBC seem to overide almost daily then my suspicions will remain.
If the state is involved ..... avoid like the plague.
Your house must be quiet. Cold too.
@@DrEmilSchaffhausenThe3rdWhat part of the state provides heating or electricity? Or the radio, or sound?
The System says do this and I do the opposite.
Really getting hard when everything from Work to Life is hounding you none stop, as if you're a robot to consume !!!
@@DrEmilSchaffhausenThe3rd do you get gas and entertainment from the government then? Jesus wept.
Admitting to something out of fear of the state punishing you more harshly if you don't. Sounds VERY familiar 😡
After 30 years of having one, I cancelled my license about 3 months ago and made them refund me in full for this year.
I’ve just paid for a full year in fear of being prosecuted. When I went online to say I don’t need a licence I noticed that it included watching foreign channels online ie aljazeera. I don’t knock what it going to pop up online and automatically play so I wanted to ensure not being prosecuted. Very confusing. I don’t even have bbc iplayer on my devices but what about all these other channels. 😢
If the BBC AND UK GOV , want a fairer a system would be to have a licence to have an IPaddress and get rid of tv licence altogether
Just get rid of the licence. No need to have a licence for an IP address.@jamesruan913
Stop funding the boy bothering corporation.
There does seem to be a lot of boy bothering kiddie fiddlers working there.
Huw better believe it!
Aye, the BBCP shouldn't be watched.
Mary Berry is on £1.75 mil a year, Linekar on £1.3mil a year and Big cash prizes on the wheel.
“Boy bumming corporation”.
The problem is the mere existence of these "data brokers". The very concept of companies who's sole purpose is to process and trade people's personal data needs to be abolished.
Yes, these companies should be closed down. Why would anyone want all their private information to be spread far and wide around the world.. Hackers must think they are in dream land with all this information being freely available to them..
What a very anti-capitalist stance. You must be a lefty-liberal type!
Oy, stop noticing that data brokers are evil. You better not notice that money brokers are even worse
@@billbhein2949and the point of this video is showing that the information can be well out of date in regard to using addresses as the main reason for acting on it.
Absolutely. I can’t believe such intrudion is legal😡
Sounds like a fishing excercise.
Gotta love how their process also completely glosses over the fact that anyone who knows your email can literally punch that email into iplayer and watch stuff on there despite said person not having any connection to you or your home address. Doesn't even need to be a previous occupant.
Don’t they need a password?
@@sarahferguson2876 They create a login with any random email and set a password themselves.
@@sarahferguson2876 Yes. @AlaiaSkyhawk's assertion is nonsense.
Not really, they also need the password too access the BBC account, so unless they that too, they can't use it. Unless they have access to that "old" email account, which is possible, but it probably was that that person wanted to watch the football and thought he wouldn't get caught.
Also the iplayer logs the IP address as was shown in a recent case where a woman was prosecuted because her niece logged into her own account at her aunties to watch it and her auntie didn't have a licence.
@@sarahferguson2876 I think the point I meant is being missed. You yourself don't need to have an iplayer account, someone can just create one themselves using your email.
If you do NOT want your data shared tick the box, but if you DO want your data shared tick the box...
No matter what you do they WILL share your data. Something needs to be done that any company collecting your data should inform you exactly what they have about you without you asking.
Glad you looked at this. I talked about this the other and mentioned hoping you would.
Indeed! I’ll grab the link for the description
Legend.
Glad you guys are fielding this topic. I think the whole chasing letters is a form of harassment. Nevertheless I do like to collect and file every letter. Still waiting for a visit 10 years on.
>someone mentions TV licensing
>rustling noises from nearby bushes
>chillijoncarne has entered the chat
Indeed you did, CJ. That was an excellent video too. Memo to both of you; though, "Sagacity" is pronounced "suh·ga·suh·tee".
The main lesson to be drawn from this excellent video is NEVER to give permission to anyone, with whom one deals on line, permission to share your data. There will be far more egregious cases of the use of such data out there. Prima facie, this practice, including the example given here, may fall foul of GDPR and merits further enquiries.
I had a positive experience with the tv license letters recently. I ran out of toilet paper in the middle of the night and was about to panic. Then, i remembered the BBC sent me a handy letter the day prior and it was most useful!
I have a solid fuel fire. They make great fire lighters.
😂 😂
@@STORMDAME the best bit is no matter what you can trust that they'll send another
😂😂😂
Classic top tip!!! Plus they are great for lining the cat tray when youre out of newspaper!
When buying an item, Pay with cash, if asked for email, say do not have email, If asked for address, Say, I do not share that information unless it is a law, if the shop refuses to sell the item unless you give your information, boycott the shop.
Convert savings to gold and dig a big hole.
Which shops are asking for your address when you buy something?! 😬
I've been asked for my email for an "E-receipt" but I just say "I'd like a paper one please" and they always happily oblige.
Giving your address seems 🤯
Ok
@@Puddleduck1some do but only if you're opting in to their loyalty scheme.
I'd rather pay by card, there's thieving scumbags where I live. If you want GOOD advice, use a smartphone to pay. Avoid cards unless you have a damn good RF-blocking wallet.
Remember - cash can be stolen. Cards can be skimmed (all new credit/debit cards these days in Britain are contactless), but smartphone apps like Apple pay or Google/Samsung pay will NOT respond unless unlocked, plus they mask your real card details with pseudo-ones.
Perhaps someone should take them to court for transmitting data to their property without permission?
Time we started a Go Fund Me and took the BBC TO COURT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PUBLIC
The BBC are very well versed in making legal action against them phyrically expensive
They need investigation and taking to court.
Yes, but this practice is probably allowed under the small print of the contract with BBC you make when creating an account. I assume.
It wasn't back when I created an account.
@@growlinggrowler-c2v but it's very likely you've accepted a updated terms of service.
@@mandrakejakewe need a legal system that stops overreach like this. They’re a broadcaster and have common approaches to these problems. They don’t need to go buying 3rd party data and trying to match emails of people to addresses etc.
@@deldia I totally agree with you, I was merely pointing out that this is probably currently allowed (even though it shouldn't)
companies like Sky and Virgin need to give their customers opting out of BBC and live content on there TV packages
Yes, live streaming. However, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what you buy when you purchase a Sky or Virgin package...because you still get adverts. Seriously, I don't understand it. You're paying to get TV...but have to watch ads. You don't have to pay (apart from a licence) to watch ITV, CH4 (though why would you?), CH5, etc. So why do Sky and Virgin charge, yet still run ads?
It wouldn't matter, if you watch any other live TV from any one else you need to buy a licence. Answer is to not watch any of it at all. It is all brain rot anyway.
@@barryfoster453 Virgin charge you for access to the channels via their hardware, they in turn pay those channels for the right to broadcast them. The channels themselves run the adverts. Are you really so dumb you don't understand how this works?
@@Tommi-C Or maybe people should just watch television and not pay the licence and the BBC can just go fuck itself 🤷♂️
Use a diff email address for every account
The BBC should be a subscription service. But there again how will the government deliver their constant propaganda?
Excellent point. Why isn’t it? The time has come for this.
Funny how everything has gone up in price, except for TVs.
If it were propaganda then why didn't its output change from being hard-right before July to being hard-left after July? Surely if it were government propaganda its editorial policy wouldn't have remained consistent even though governments have changed.
@@20quid hard-right and BBC should never be put in the same sentence.
@@20quidDid you watch Brexit and Trump outcomes? They were choking on it.
This exact thing happened to me but for a slightly different reason. I don’t have a TV license but my elderly mother, does as she watches and records live broadcast television. Fine, whatever. As she is elderly, she’s quite the technophobe. She has barely any idea of how to use certain applications and she wouldn’t know how to send an email if you stuck it right under her nose, so innocently, I set up a BBC iPlayer account so that she could access those services from her home. I, however only having one email address at the time, used this to declare my no license needed declaration and had this exact same issue. I think it’s an absolute cheek that they contact you like this as I have never and will never watch anything relating to the BBC and do not watch or record any other live broadcast media. I’ve now learned my lesson and created an account with a bespoke email address for her, but still I think it’s rather cheeky that they do this to people and scare them into submission.
Thank you , just shows how contempt and disgusting this organisation is , it is long past it's useful time, and all involved should be disbanded.
23 July 2024. The Guardian reported,
"Half a million households cancelled BBC Licence fee last year"
Yep, and I reckon that figure will be much higher for this year. Huw Edwards, who they decided to give a pension to - played a massive part in people cancelling (especially with his pathetic sentencing). So the Blackmailing B Corp shot themselves in the foot for their actions...
@@DefCon12345after seeing the number of posts that flooded X after the bias Chris Kaba documentary I'm sure there will be more.
@@YT-channel42
The US Presidential Election. 5 November 2024.
I believe, the early hour coverage of 6 November, in relation to the above,
the respective and collective disgraceful and shameful conduct, of the Presenters, will prove a "further nail in The BBC cxffin"
Hey I'm a statistic 👍
I have just stopped! I can no longer in all consciousness continue to give them my money!
In Spain you don't pay for a tv licence and get all the english channels and many more we get
I live in Spain and am unlikely ever to return to the UK.
If I did I would not buy a licence, I literally hate the BBC, home of state propaganda and nonces.
Portugal is the same
I wonder if the channel may pay BBC something and that's why you don't pay independently?
@jwheeler9991 I believe folks in Eire watch it free of charge too.
Is that via normal aerials or satellite?
Time for a 'class' action on the BBC.
no chance... the BBC is a Government protected body...
And we know just the lawyer to head it up!
Illegal communications under the Telecommunications Act.
Best of luck with that!
I think you’re right here. Thank you for calling it out. Outrageous.
There's also 2 situations where you can use BBC iPlayer without a licence:
- at another person's address on your mobile device if you plug your mobile device in to charge it up.
- if you are in a vehicle or vessel (like a car, boat, or train)
This activity by TV licensing would also implicate people in the above two situations where they would say you are using it at your home address rather than watching iPlayer lawfully.
Welcome to the UK!
The UK where things are not ok lol
I repeatedly get threatening letters from them about an empty property I have and they will not listen. My partner has paid hers for years when she doesn’t need one because if she is prosecuted it could affect her job. They are a disgrace. The letters get more threatening every time and they did the same to me 14 years ago at a different property I had that was empty so this is clearly just how they operate and not a mistake.
They put the mafia to shame. This is nothing more than protection money.
Same here, we don't use the BBC at all, haven't for over 15 years, but GF has a pretty high up job in which squeaky clean integrity is vital (obviously that means she's not a politician, MSM journalist, religious leader or police employee)...
So we pay the bribe under duress to protect our livelihoods.
They should have this absurd draconian power removed, people should be able to choose to subscribe or not, and all of us should be able to sue for that money back, interest and the stress it has caused.
But propagandists gotta propagandise.
I'm BBC intolerant and cannot digest any BBC content without feeling sick. 🤢🤮
Pro Palestine and anti semetic BBC are more a reason they are trash.
Ditto 🤮
And me! It’s long lasting too! 🤮🤢
Me too
For me,
it is the now biased manner in which they
present The News.
9 January 2024. Times of Israel.
"BBC apologizes for report accusing of IDF
"summary executions" in The Gaza Strip.
THIS is not an isolated incident.
I sign the online declaration approx every 2 years to say I do not watch - I still get letters - I don't watch it - I deny to pay legally - There is plenty of alternatives (I remember Currys once asked me for my address when buying a TV - I refused and walked out)
I stopped paying my TV licence and I even contacted them to tell them why and they cancelled and accepted it accordingly. Couple months later I was bombarded by threatening letters and they even sent a few so called officers to my house. I ignored them for a while until I decided to ring them one day super angry asking why they are acting as if I never told them I was cancelling.
They agreed to back down and not heard anything from them since then. I am expecting them to resurface again soon. It seems to be their playbook.
We want the BBC to send out those letters. Every letter sent costs them money, not to mention the actual 'enforcement' visits, so every time a letter is sent the BBC loses money.
not a problem as enough ill informed people still subscribe....
Ducking £1.20 to send a letter these days. I wonder how much the BBC pay???
I must have cost them hundreds over the last 15 years, I never paid for the licence.
Our money 🖐
@@cakehole53more fool you for giving them your money 😂
@@cakehole53 your money........ i dont subscribe...
Dear BB Barrister. Thanks for all you do.
If everyone just stops paying the licence, it wouldn't exist!
there are too many frightened and ill informed people who will always pay...... the BBC depend on them
24 yrs and counting and no bullshit "license"
It’s time that happened - I have only recently realised that the BBC is the most Biased Broadcasting Corporation. But now I believe they should be renamed the BBCC - the most Biased, Blasphemous Corrupt Corporation!
The government will just introduce a new tax to cover their propaganda machine.
The Aussies tried to introduce a TV licence, nobody paid it.
the tv licencing authority blatantly lie about the need for a licence I recently made a new declaration about not needing a licence on their own web site even though I had declared I did not watch or record any live tv on any platforms they they still insisted that I need a licence when I rang to confirm they still said I needed a licence and their justification for stating I needed a licence was "I needed a licence IF it watched live tv" I told them I didn't watch live broadcast and their response was "but if you do watch you need a licence"
Ooh, that stopped my heart for a moment. That partial email address you read out sounds scarily similar to mine. And we don't pay the tv licence, because we don't watch any tv of any sort, in any format whatsoever, and haven't done for around 3 years now. Longer in my husband's case. And yes, despite frequently telling them that this is the case, we are still getting letters demanding payment.
It's interesting that when you innocently purchase something, and the cookies ask to keep your data, this information is then used for investigation into an offence of "No TV licence". Maybe if the cookies explained that it can be used by the BBC for prosecution, then the person about to tick the "yes I consent" box will be better informed and press "No I decline". I feel that by not engaging at the doorstep or responding to any letters leaves them frustrated, and that's a good thing.
Some of the cookies, purportedly giving the opt out, will not process your request further until you agree to all options.
@@foxstrangler I experienced that before. There must be an algorithm that can block out the BBC gaining details? It still feels wrong that's the way the operate.
Best thing to do with any TV Licensing agent, or individual acting on their behalf, who contacts you, is to avoid any and all communication with them. Do not respond to their letters, do not answer the door, nothing. Leave them no opportunity to get any data about you. They have no case if they have no data. If they have no data they can’t do anything.
BBB always says …don’t ignore letters. 🤔🤔
Of course he does, he's a Barrister working for Shitun,Gods law is cause no harm cause no loss, Barristers ignore this meaning they belong to Shitun who controls the banks and BAR he works for.@@Lindys
@@Lindys What would happen? Clue: nothing
@@Lindysdo not engage with them.
@@MikeEves thank you for your reply
I just reported all the letters via a police website. The result was the letters stopped.
Reference number and date written on the letter, filled away
I stopped getting contacted after I said I'd charge them a fee for any further letters I received from them and a further fee for every minute wasted on the phone. Been nearly 4 years now
So the lesson learnt is to use an email account with iPlayer that you dont use for anything else, and more importantly one you don't use to pay your tv license!
BBC's initial correspondence should have disclosed the email address and the uncertainty and given a path forward other than getting a licence for those mismatches.
Also the unlawful data use should be investigated.
The mistake here is in contacting the bbc grifters and their subsidiarity money grabbers. The more they have to spend on sending out their threatening letters and goons, the less they have in their paycheques and pensions. Treat every letter as a victory. And if they send you a non- prepaid envelope for reply it is a godsend. Make sure it weighs plenty for maximum return payer cost. I recommend soaked lasagne sheets.
Like your way of thinking!
Oh now THAT, has brought me a smile thank you.
Haha, thanks for a good laugh. What s brilliant idea soothe the return letter.
Thank you! I laughed out loud at this!
Yep. Either ignore or out petty them.
Legally TV License Free Since 2007.
Since 2014.
👍
@@barryfoster453 How, please tell us?
He’s not saying TV licences are free. He is saying he has been free of a TV licence. In that he doesn’t have one. Just like me.
@@kuzukuzu2615 even if you want to do it by the book so to speak you can do it online and notify them you no longer watch any live tv on any platform and no bbc player content, every 2 year you notify them, simples
@@kuzukuzu2615 it's pretty simple. You stop watching live TV and don't pay the licence
Last few months you have been on fire Daniel! Honestly, you're touching on topics that could get you cancelled, this internet place is absolute backwards but you are an amazing person with a lot of love and justice, i have been following you for a few years now, thanks for your channels bud, take care and please be careful
Connected but not, I went to Bradfords Building Supplies on Saturday to buy 2 pieces of downpipe. Certainly not the cheapest but for ease it was a justified upcharge. Anyway, when I went to the till, they wanted my name, address and email to complete my sale. When I asked why they said it was ‘for their system’ I refused. They wouldn’t sell me without it. I left. What a crazy world we now live in
Same at Curries, drives me insane and I've walked out more than once. Their defence is they need it for "proof of sale" and I explained that I will have proof of sale with my credit card even if they refuse to give me a paper receipt (which they were going to give). The manager said I may lose the receipt, I explained I was a grown up perfectly capable of looking after a piece of paper for a couple of years. I managed to look after my birth certificate for 44 years so I think I'm OK.
Would love to see @blackbeltbarrister buy from Curries and make some comment!
Give fake one
What is needed is a law that every company holding personal data has to notify every person on their lists of what data is held, and why it is held, at least once a year, with a simple link for people to say they no longer want their data held by that company. The same with cookies on computers.
Just delete cookies
@@Threadbowthere’s a lot more data out there than cookies.
@@berneysharp3940 cakes?
Link to agree they are allowed to keep it at least else they'll send them to the void. But there are thousands that share and duplicate your data, and they can make more. You'd be spammed to death.
@@WhoAmEye_WhoAreEwe
Yeah, crumpets and scones, too! 🫤
The notion that an email address can be linked to a property is quite bizarre. An email address is linked to an individual. Not a property.
The very postcode, exact locstion.
What you search for, who you are nearby to.
What you search for.
With AI only get worse.
Oh they get permission to your microphone and camera too.
😁
Big brother
When you purchase online you provide your physical address and email address. It's good enough for them to send a letter.
Not even that. Emails can be shared and generated easily. They are st most linked to other emails. They effectively are unique names or identifiers
Actually incorrect. Whenever you register for, say, car insurance or home insurance, or provide your details to your bank etc you are asserting that those details are not just yours, but also the means of contacting you at that address.
Similarly subscription services, delivery services and so on all require verifying your contact details against an address.
This is why they clearly state it may be associated with a previous resident AT THAT address who have used it in such a manner.
Yeah i latched onto that as well. It only works for them if you have your details listed with the email address and they can cross reference it. Otherwise they dont have a leg to stand on in court if they are relying on an email address alone to verify identity.
I don't watch any live TV, with the amount of streaming services there's no need to anymore.
And I certainly don't watch BBC content.
Same😊
just curious how it works... if you dont have "old tv" home and but you have smart tv what you watch basically over interent... I dont know youtube, netflix, pureflix what ever.... you dont have to pay?
@@mrsmerilyyou pay for your telly and the nexflix or whatever you like and the internet connection ......
exactly..... streaming services record it all for you to watch licence free whenever you want.... or you can be old fashioned and record it yourself and have to have a TV licence...... no brainer surely???? (excluding iplayer from this but who watches that anyway!)
@@lj4339that’s not what the bbc told me. They said if you watch Netflix, prime etc you are liable for the license
Fear of prosecution seems to be a theme in the Uk lately . What has happened to this country. Seems like our grandfathers fight for freedom has a cell by date.
Same for the last 15 years...
Where you been?
Cell by?
…
@@X9Zog , ye you’ll be in a cell by……
The BBC made one huge miscalculation when they started sending letters. The miscalculation was them thinking I fear prosecution 😂😂😂
The BBC emailed me a couple of years ago informing me they would be deleting my account because I wasn't using iplayer, but the threatening letters keep coming even though I don't watch or record live tv. I watch cooking channels, property development, etc, and definitely not iplayer
what's for dinner?
It's the threat contained within that letter that will have many genuinely innocent people buying a license whether they need to or not. Disgusting behaviour. I hope someone takes the BBC to court for what appears to be the abuse of the GDPR.
People need to wise up and and not be afraid.
Especially the elderly.
Remember that 'well-recieved' BBC licence threat advert "We know where you live."? Can't find a copy of that anywhere.
Remember that well known phrase " i before e, except after c "?
@@johnristheanswer - bane of my life that is.
@@johnristheanswerthere are more exceptions to that rule than adherents to it. Granted, received isn't one of those exceptions. But why focus on that and not the overall point?
So who is going to sue the BBC (and maybe others in the chain) under the DPA for misusing personal information? Speciofically "processing it in a manner incompaible with the reason for which it was collected" ... because obviously no sane person gives their personal information so that they can later be harrassed by some organisation or other.
Stopped paying for bias broadcasting corporations “propaganda” 7 years ago in the process saved money and was not complicit in spreading lies and hatred.
At what point does this become a mis-selling scandal like PPI and we get compensation?
How can you get compensation for something you pay willingly? Just cancel your direct debit.....
Pay willingly or receive increasingly threatening letters, and, as had been demonstrated, not exactly clear or misleading letters. Not to mention the ‘fast-track’ SJP.
its govt backed so never
@@gavinlee2742 just ignore these...
The real insult is the fact you need to pay for the biased broadcasting company just because you watch rival channels.
It’s like paying a fee to Tesco in order to shop at Morrisons .
De fund the BBC, don’t pay the tax on viewing.
Good point! I play by the rules and now I watch zero "terrestrial tv".
So Channel 4 and STV are suffering due to the rules imposed by the BBC.
This is why I can't watch GBNews live. It baffles me that it's legal for the BBC to hold their competitors services to ransom, but the only way I can keep legally not paying the BBC is by not watching GBNews.
Can someone explain that to me, it baffles that you need a license to watch rival TV channels.
@@LittleBallOfPurr GBNews is not a broadcast channel it's youtube so why can't you watch it?
@@tmog1000 It is a broadcast channel number 236. The keyword there is live , device is also irrelevant.
I recently declared no license needed because I wasn't watching the BBC, my wife wasn't keen but with continued cost of living we decided we were wasting money . I de registered my BBC account before we declared. So I don't watch any BBC or I player content I don't even watch live You tube output or from anywhere else. However I'm still awaiting a visit from enforcement. About a decade ago after being homeless we ,moved into an address my wife contacted the BBC to say we didn't need a license at the time we had no internet and our phones weren't smart, however we then had a constant supply of threat letters. It's outrageous the BBC can claim over a live broadcast anywhere in the world. Defund the BBC.
Dont waste your time contacting the BBC.... why do you keep informing them?
@@robtheplod My wife did because she thought it was the right thing to do. Most people consider that if you make a declaration that's that. I have told her repeatedly that if they roll up not to talk to them.
I used to work for one of the largest banks in the UK. A lot of the time that box you tick about sharing your data with 3rd parties, is sinply ignored. So ticking it doesn't necessarily protect you.
I got an email saying my email address had been used to access iPlayer. "Oops" the email said. I applied to the BBC for the viewing data. It showed views of shows I'd never seen, from locations I'd never been to, on devices I've never used. There's more than one way those claims can be wrong!
NEVER, EVER, EVER contact BBC/TVL to tell them you dont need a licence and hence automatically go on the 'No licence needed' database. Simply cancel your direct debit, that is ALL you need to do - you do not need to contact anyone or fill in any online forms, regardless of what the BBC website 'implies'.
This is the way.
@robtheplod. It’s as simple as that. I don’t get it why people get their underwear in a twist over tv licensing. As you said, cancel your direct debits, bin their threatening letters and close the door in their faces silently if they decide to visit.
Its alright living on a barge of no fixed abode, btw any room ?
@@SedriqMiers i dont....
Exactly what I have done , letters monthly go in the bin , I don’t watch live tv , this is my choice , I’m not obliged to tell anyone that I don’t watch live tv .
The best course of action is to not have any correspondence with these people in any way , they try to mislead you and trip you up and catch you out ,
Why should we pay any licence for BBC content already paid for by the license payer and sold abroad ?
Where is our share or rebate from the profits?
It would be helpful if an M.P. Would raise this aspect of the licence fee scam in parliament (if they truly wish to represent fair treatment of their constituents).
@@southerncomfortuk You wont get any MP to discuss the TV licence.
@@southerncomfortukStuff like this gets discussed in the CMS Select Committee - plus they drag in the people at the top of the BBC/C4 for a grilling.
You'll find the answer in the BBC annual report.
For what it's worth, the BBC lost £120 million last year.
@@robtheplod You can't even get them to discuss why we are pissing billions away in foreign wars that have nothing to do with us.
Or why we pay france to ferry illegal criminals into our waters to be picked up by the coast guard.
Or why the coast guard doesn't guard the coast.
BE CAREFUL when buying a new TV as well . The company I went to started requesting my personal info , when asked why they actually said for TV licence
thats odd, this practice/requirement ended years ago......
Give a fake email address and any postcode you can think of when buying a new TV 👍
No business is required to do that now. They will only "need" your name and address for marketing.
Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, TVL know every address that is not registered and it's not an offence to own a TV.
@@gmo4250 No offence in owning a TV to watch your Box Sets on….
GDPR 1d. As well. They have not attempted to keep data up to date. They have admitted it may not actually be your email address, so they knew it could be innaccurate, but made no effort to verify. They have not taken "every reasonable step"
I haven't needed nor purchased a license for twenty to twenty five years now, but feel for the venerable who must also receive the frightening and threatening letters I have been receiving over those years... its way past intimidation and is akin to sending thugs round with baseball bats leaving me to wonder how many are forced through fear to purchase a license needlessly. Its as close to being a protection racket without actually being one.
We imprison people who post on Facebook so what do you all expect??
I expect nothing and ignore fartbook.
@@MrSkeptik-z5r thank you for that contribution, short but pointless 😂
Only if they are white and native.
Yes,this geezers posse jails them so how can he be trusted, certainly not righteous is he.
@@tyronecox5976 Solicitors or Barristers cannot put anyone in prison.
My parents empty house got the same letter. It has an email address for the security system and cameras. We just ignored it as they had no way of proving anyone lived there let alone watching live TV.
No licence for 10 years now. I regularly had guests who stayed and used their phones or computers here. Some watched BBC. I checked and I was not responsible for them. Just thought I would add this as others may be concerned as I was.
In Australia, our Gov ABC is equivalent to the BBC, and we don't get a say in the funding. Gov just takes our money if we watch it or not !
We don't get a say, and it costs billions each year for a quickly dwindling audience.
Excellent video Daniel, as always 👍
Couple of points:
(1) What everybody should do now is make a GDPR data request to Sagacity solutions.
(2) A lot of people say that they don't need a TV licence to try to stop the letters arriving. However this is a clear example of when making a declaration either way is actually used against people. I think sometimes giving no information whatsoever is quite often the best course of action, as whatever answer you give cannot then be used against you. What do you think?
Thank you. This is clearly a VERY serious issue for the many people who live in rented or multiple occupancy houses/apartments and frequently move for career reasons. Very useful advice.
The BBC should not be financed thru taxation. That’s an anachronism.
Th BBC isnt funded by taxation. Its funded by people who keep paying.... we all have a choice.
People who watch live non-BBC content do not have a choice. A practical admin compromise in the days of BBC1, BBC2 and one independent channel is now outdated and unfair. Since 1982 that is no longer the situation. BBC content is no longer the major source of entertainment etc that it once was.
@@robtheplod but it has been like a tax with threat for non payment hence all the palaver.
Two general principles then -
1.Remove your authority for your data to be used for commercial purposes.
2. Change your email address regularly.
I have received the same letters and made subject access request under GDPR. I've also asked for my BBC iPlayer activity specifically. The activity log shows when I have scanned BBC iPlayer to judge whether the programmes on offer are worth paying the licence fee. This is the activity for which they are pursuing me. I have neither watched nor recorded any live TV, nor have I watched any BBC iPlayer content. But I have visited their home page. So, beware!
I had TV Licencing agents came to my door. They insisted that I did not have a TV licence and put their foot in the door to prevent me from closing the door. The fun started when I told them I have a TV licence, but they kept on saying that I did not and I need to show them proof, otherwise I would have to let them in to check my equipment under enforcement. They showed me a warrant which was signed but they would not allow me to read the warrant.
I basically told them to go away, but they started to get a little pushy in the sense of preventing the door from being shut on them. I could not provide them with a copy if my TV licence, and if I walked away from the door they would have just walked in.
A little back story. I live in a block of flats. To access those private flats you have to gain access through a steel locked security door that has to be buzzed though, meaning you must ring the door of the flat to gain access. Clearly they did not do this and had gained access via deception, saying they were the postman or a delivery guy.
Once in they went to my door and knocked. once the door was open a feet prevented it from being closed.
So with this in mind, and these two men were twice the size of me, and were trying to intimidate me with no success's, I asked them to recheck the address as I knew I had a valid licence. They then said "Yes your address does not have a TV licence and hasn't had one for a few years." then they said that I must let them in to check my equipment or they will force entrance. Now I am disabled but I also know my rights. and I told them that if they force entrance I will defend myself as they are trying to use force to break into my home. They said that they will call the police and I will be arrested if I touched them. After a stand off of about 2 minutes they read out my address, which they had not done from the start, just shoved a paper document which they said was a warrant to search my home.
I used some colourful language telling them they can go away and call the police, which they said they would, and I said they once the police arrive they will be the ones being charged or escorted out of the building without gaining access. They called the Police and a standoff began. I asked them to read off the address they had, which they refused to give, but when the police arrived and they stated that they had a warrant to see my equipment I asked the officed to look at the warrant. The officer looked at me and asked me for my address, and for me to prove my address and name, which the TV guys had not asked for. A few words were spoken to the thug TV people and they were told to leave the building.
The outcome was these TV licencing thugs had gone to my Street and a building by the same name, but not the correct address. Once they checked my actual address they found I did have a TV licence but I did not get an apology from them, only the police. The TV people should have gone to a House at the other end of the street about 1/2 a mile down the road. After all the threats of force and possible violence to a disabled person and they had the wrong address. It pays to be right, also it pays to listen to the people that know the Law. They had no right to enter my home with a warrant which was not linked to my address and was not in my name.
I revoked their implied right of access from my property back in 2019. I've had no letters or visits since
I could quite legally have (and use) an I-Player account, without holding a TV Licence, if I only use it at a licenced location, such as a friend/relative's address, my works canteen, a hotel I'm staying at on holiday, etc.
they tried to do my cousin for no tv license. we're kiwis, he was new to the UK on his OE and watching the All Blacks v Wallabies live, on the internet. hed already paid for it with his taxes, but somehow the british govt thought they deserved a cut.
I cancelled my TV licence and ignored all their letters. Eventually they came to my door and I let them in to prove that I don’t watch the BBC. I’ve since been told I didn’t have to let them in, but I don’t regret it. All I have is a firestick and he could see I never tune in. It was very satisfying. I’ve not heard from them since
They have as much power to come in to your house as I do, would you let me just walk in and look inside you house. 😊
Let's hope you don't get burgled.
I don't agree with letting people in I don't know.
@DoktorLorenz Even the police need a warrant to enter your house uninvited.
I showed him my TV doesn't get any channels at all and that's been that. Got taken off the system for a year or so.
@@berniethekiwidragon4382true
This was interesting and useful.
BB says that a customer might agree to 3rd party sharing of personal data. Improper use of that data is then against DPDR rules.
OK but when I do my internet shopping i have to agree in to a complete package of T&Cs which often include data sharing. I am (in those instances) given no choice. I am wondering if that gets the online form off the hook and no longer obliged to protect my privacy?
It's a murky business and this video does so well to throw light on it. ❤
@BlackBeltBarristerTV Bots active on your channel.
@@causewaykayak You just replied to a spam email comment!
@@causewaykayak thanks, looking for it
@@goldeneddie Yes I know. Thanks amyway. These are all over the place.
Third parties are selling our details one just has to count the amount of scam calls we get on a daily basis,that’s what sharing our details with 3rd parties does,we get scammed others just get scam calls all the time think about that one??? My mum was scammed this way,what’s the law doing about that???? I find it disgusting that companies sell our details and a stop should be brought to this. Informative video Blackbelt 👍
Yeah but at least it's easy to ignore the scam calls.
Indian accent: scam call.
Why you didn't know this as you clocked when looking at web pages etc.
Thru you agreeing to those terms, you give access to most all your privacy. Camera, files photos, postcode, who you are near to.
😂
Why has nobody taken the BBC to task on this or any of the other letters sent to customers?
They do and the BBC cave in. Out of court settlements
So many times the check boxes are hundreds of them in length... i went to look at an online tide table and thier partners wanted permission, hundreds of partners on a tidetable. I don't mind a cookie that tracks where and what I am looking for, but when they want to track anything and everything else I am doing that is an invasion of my privacy. Beyond any further information told to others is illegal, SOLD to others is a damm criminal act...
Very good.Two things.
1 - The licence is only associated with a physical address, and iPlayer is only associated with an email address. That is fraught with problems. For instance I could be watching iPlayer on my sister's TV at her house as she has a licence and I do not and they would chase me if it was me that logged on.
2 - BBC shows video clips on its website such as the Valencia floods and a good many on the sports page too. If you click on a video ( logging in with email is not required) on the sports page it does not say this is iPlayer do you have a licence? as it does if you log on through iPlayer. However, when I watched a video without accessing iPlayer they chased me saying I had used iPlayer when I had not. This tells me their iPlayer record system or their website video display system is incorrectly set up. It also tells me that they have recorded my IP address, is this legal? Another thing that tells me they are accessing IP addresses is that you cannot log on to iPlayer using a VPN even when it's located in the UK.
So if I get myself another email address not linked to my current address the BBC have no way of tracing me even using Sagacity.
The unscrupulous could also illegally log on to iPlayer using someone else's email address.
I am a pensioner and am afraid to cancel my licence although I rarely watch tv I do watch utube, amazon prime and netflix I dont watch live videos on utube but I watch those programs after they been recorded,so am not sure if thats ok, it scares me with all the threats that I see other people get from bbc.
I do the same as you and do not need a licence.
I cancelled my 92 year old fathers licence. They send loads of letters but if you’re genuinely not watching live TV you really shouldn’t have anything to fear. I dread to think how many are still paying purely out of fear though, tens of thousands definitely, maybe more. So bad is it now they resort to try to scare many into paying. All stick, no carrot.
Please cancel it. You can watch anything on any channel as long as it is not LIVE.
Cancel it.
Tell them you don’t watch live tv.
If they ever send anyone to your door do not engage with them.
Do not talk to them, just politely say no thanks and close the door.
Don't waste your pension, they have to prove your watching their rubbish before they can do anything.
Will the Manchester Airport Two get charged?
Oohhh you can’t say that, you might hurt the accused feelings… two tier justice in this starmer broken country..
Labour are hoping this will go away. We nned to make sure it doesn't.
Stopped paying the TV licence when the Boris and the Three Stooges show was aired, worst program ever!
In Ireland, just owning a TV requires a TV Licence, even if it doesn’t work! Moved to a new property, and for a few years didn’t have a Licence and didn’t get any hassle. Bought a TV from big electronics store, and while Harvey was helping me get the new TV in my Car, his colleague, Norman, convinced my Brother to give my home address ( i had no intention of giving and details ). A week later a letter notifying me i needed a license! Either Harvey or Norman must have given my details to the License Authority.
What actually constitutes 'TV', if you (BBB) do a 'live' podcast is that 'live TV'? If Mahyar Tousi puts out a live podcast on his channel 'Tousi TV' is that 'Live TV'? Any clarity would be muchly appreciated.
BBB and Mahyar do not class as a TV broadcaster. Its only TV broadcasters that you need a licence for to watch live... like Sky/BBC/ITV.... people on RUclips are not classed as broadcasters
my understanding is: the "broadcast" part is to do with the licenced RF spectrum. If something streaming is ALSO live on the licenced RF spectrum used for UK TV, the stream is classed as a broadcast even if the particular stream you are watching is via the internet.
When I move into a new property, I send a letter to the BBC withholding my name, just giving the address, I notify them that I do not require their services, and I withdraw their "implied right of access" to this property, and failure to abide by this will open them to prosecution for trespass. Yours sincerely the occupier. I get a standard response saying they will check again in 4 years time. Then I never hear from them again.
That a great idea. Could we do this on a mass scale 'on behalf' of everyone in the UK?
Incredible! Glad it works for you! They do what they want with me, though. So do the police.
There is no implied right of access, and your threat of prosecution means absolutely nothing, nothing to either the police or the BBC
@@Tailssonic1999x you might want to check that mate.......
@@Tailssonic1999x Do you have a path and a doorbell? there is an implied right of access to the property right there for some one to ring your door bell and indicently look through your frount windows to see if your there (or have a TV). This right is upheld by the law, you can however revoke the implied right of access verbaly or preferably in writeing. at which point they cant step on your property at all with out risk of prosecution for trespass