There are two facets to this scandal - those convicted who are innocent and those who buy licences which are not needed because they fear a knock at the door.
They were hounding my Mum for years, FULL ON regular intimidation, when my Mother turned 75 four years ago '' I Tried'' taking the proper route, trust me it wasn't easy / simple. I filled in all the online form and attached a LOT more than what what requested, they replied after about 5 weeks asking about tax credits, my mother is on DLA - Direct Living Allowance, WE KNOW OF NOTHING ELSE. When filling in the online form I attached - Various medical information that contained her DOB, a copy of her passport, National Insurance info, her full original Birth certificate and they reply asking about tax credits. I done all the stuff online that SHE CAN'T!!!! The reason SHE CAN'T is because she's an old lady in her 70's How dare she not be tech-savvy, what a disgrace that she doesn't know how to operate a PC or Tablet / Smartphone and Upload all the info they require. If only THEY COULD SEND someone that would chap the door and come in for a brew or coffee and we could PRESENT all the info THEY NEED! They'd would also see on that visit they have been HARASSING an Old lady who worked all her days, an old lady who's now retired and lives in sheltered accommodation, an old lady who just wants SOME FK'N PEACE and left alone. Thankfully just a few weeks ago a family member went on the phone and lost the lost the plot with them AND WAS VERY VERY Persistent, my mother finally got her letter acknowledging she now doesn't have to pay. BUT! People of age shouldn't have to go through ANY of that repetitive nonsense, it's not bloody on.
Three. "How do i PROVE that i HAVEN'T done something?" That's why the law in united kingdom is to prove the allegation. Which TV licensing is seemingly removed and operates how it wants. With full impunity, it seems.
I refuse to accept that I should be expected to declare that I don’t need a TV licence at any time let alone repeatedly every two years. Nobody is expected to declare they don’t need any other licence.
I believe that there us no such provision in law to declare that you do not need one such thatd is no provision to even engage with these salespeople. No contact and ignorance is your best friend unless they actually catch you or can formulate their reasonable suspicion that you are indeed breaking the law. Their letters go straight into my shredder, provided bedding for my guinea pigs lol! Take a win 😂 I have never entered into a contract or even uttered a word to TV licensing I've just ignored them and never had a visit. I still get about 2 letters a month addressed to someone called legal occupier. Living in the Scottish highlands I do not think they will pay me a visit... I'll set my live haggis on them! That's the Scottish removal of implied rights lol! 😅
@@Captivename original infrastructure doesn’t exist (get used) anymore and all the new infrastructure was funded by all the broadcasters so the question remains.
Captivename no after ww2 the bbc was broke so they created the licence scheme its a scam to keep a seevice rhats been dhing for almost 100 years now alive
I don't have a TV licence, a fishing licence, a forklift license, an alcohol sales license, a pilots license or a shotgun license, and yet only one of these employs goons to threaten me, automatically assumes I need one, and demands I tell them that I don't 🤔
I do not believe there is such a thing as a "forklift licence", merely a requirement that those who employ people to operate forklift trucks ensure those operators are appropriately trained.
Yes! I'm a pastoral care-giver in my free time and last year (2023), a 68 year old parishioner showed me documents, indicating that not only had he been *convicted* based on false and misleading information, the "investigator" had effectively not only lied to him, but the court too and evidently none of his superiors - or the court - had an issue with this. As part of his cost-cutting measures (like a lot of pensioners, he is feeling the financial pinch), my parishioner decided he could save money by only watching pre-recorded films and programs. So his grandson set up a media server for him, on which he stored all of his grandfathers DVD collection. The TV licencing goon showed up and convinced him that in actual fact what he was doing was "watching live TV" (since when are DVDs "live TV?!!) and got my parishioner to sign a "confession" of sorts, which states that he was watching live TV. My parishioner is not able to watch "live TV" as he sold his Sky TV box and dish (for a shockingly paltry sum. I might add - but he desperately needed the money...) - the equipment he used to receive live TV when he had a sky subscription. This whole thing stank to high heaven and so I've been canvassing my parishioners to see if anyone else has found themselves in this position. When I discovered that two others had been "made an example of", I widened the net and since November last year (2023) I have put the feelers out on social media and through other pastoral care-givers. To date, *hundreds* of people have said that they were either threatened to the point that they signed "confessions" on the doorstep or were *convinced by the TV licencing goon* that they had done something wrong, when in fact they had not. One lady even did so because her neighbours were watching and she wanted the tv licencing goon - who told her that she could go to prison if she did not confess - to simply "go away" because she was so ashamed and embarrassed. She was - understandably - in tears and utterly ashamed. The shocking thing: *She does not possess a TV at all and her "confession" was wrangled out of her on the basis that she listens to the radio on occasion.* Yet the form that she was coerced into signing on the doorstep (of which she has a copy that I have seen) clearly states that she was to be prosecuted for watching "live TV". I am in the process of working out how to get these individuals "convictions" overturned. I have a feeling that it is going to cost quite a lot of money through private solicitors since I have been unsuccessful in getting help from Citizens Advice. Regardless, I simply cannot addord to do this for everyone and *someone* needs to take up the case for the hundreds or - I'm pretty certain - thousands of others who have been coerced, mis-informed or just outright lied to or about regarding their guilt. These ridiculous private prosecutions are going on at a rate - I'm informed - of 130 per *day* and from what I've seen already, checks, balances and appropriate standards are completely absent. I don't care one bit about the argument regarding the "unique way the BBC is funded" because it is criminalising not only the poorest in society, but it is doing it dishonestly and it is my absolute belief that we are far past the reasonable threshold at which point we can say: prosecutions done this way by that organisation are just unsafe and reparations for distress and additional financial burden - mostly on those who could already ill afford their living costs *before* the BBC decided (through their goons) - to victimise these people - should be paid by the BBC. I would just like to add that it is utterly perverse that the BBC has the audacity to make news items about the dishonest way in which postmasters were treated when in fact it is the BBC themselves who have been - and continue to be - guilty of the largest number of spurious private prosecutions.
I have just pulled up another case from my notes. This one I had to post because it is very similar to the first one I mentioned in my comment. On this occasion though, it is a parisioners daughter. Again, she was prosecuted on the basis of a coerced "confession" whereby the TV licencing goon informed her that owning an Android TV Box is in fact "watching live TV". The only apps installed on the Android TV box are: Netflix and two games for her young daughter. She bought the Android TV box because her TV is not a smart TV, she does not have a digital aerial or sky dish and this was the only way of her being able to watch films (via the Android TV box which is connected to her neighbours wireless: which they very kindly share as she is a single mother). This was the second time I had seen the BBCs operatives abuse those who are not very "tech savvy" and bring private prosecutions against them. This has to stop.
@BlackBeltBarrister PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS - surely this is a seed conversation to a class action starter? I suggest a crowdfunded online petition to action this form. The money to claim back would be in the millions. Thank you to the pastoral carer, your a good man and a light in the darkness.
Being expected to confirm I do not need to pay the TV tax every two years IS onerous ! Am I expected to notify every supplier on the planet that I do not require their services !?!
Don't bother... I stopped after doing it a few times... if you come off their 'no licence needed' list they also seem to forget your name....I'm now legal occupier!
When I cancelled mine, they requested a visit because they said most people actually end up needing one. I told them to visit those idiots & not me. There does seem to be an inference they think you have to prove to them you're not a criminal!!!
Write back to them telling that you are not obligated to reply and if they send another letter they are agreeing to pay £50.00 for you to reply. They will never send letters to your address again!
Have they even overturned the conviction of the down syndrome person who wasn't even in control of his own finances? I doubt it. His direct debit stopped and it was entirely the council's responsibility to deal with it, but incredibly they pleaded guilty on his behalf and he was falsely convicted without the court even bothering to read about the circumstances that were submitted which should have thrown it straight out, they don't even usually read mitigation evidence and they convict behind closed doors without the defendant present, how can this be justice in the UK?
@robredz Magistrates can't quash previous convictions. It requires a long drawn out procedure. I actually have doubts that this particular conviction will be quashed. Sad.
Well, the council should be footing the bill. Now look at Starmer. Triumphant that he had, when in charge of the CPS prosecuted 4 million cases. What's the error rate there? When the detection rate is so low, how many cases of crime are there? What's the society that government has created that has crime on that scale? Or is it that they have manufactured crimes as a means of raising cash, and turning the population into criminals as an excuse for a social credit system, denying people services, increasing their current 30% gross profit margin? @@timg1246
They gave me a visit on Wednesday. I am being investigated apparently. I don't watch any TV so they can get stuffed. All because I engaged with them previously and declared I didn't require one. Better not to engage at all other than "Who are you?" , "Not today thank you." and close the door. Why do you find 2 years acceptable? If I stop shopping at Tesco or cancel a subscription the company doesn't contact me every 2 years to see why and if I had changed my mind. It's Bullshite!
when i moved in to my first flat, never signed up to one and never needed to cancel, think i had one letter and no visit. best to never contact them if you do not plan on watching live tv just keep quite even just to tll them you just moved in and do not require better ignore from day one and never allow them in and if knock door never answer
Do you submit an annual self-assessment to HMRC for income tax? Every time I pick up a prescription, I have to sign the back confirming I'm exempt from paying the prescription charge. Having periodically to engage with the various tax-raising bodies in the country is a commonplace. The TV tax people are no different.
exactly right. Trouble is many people still think we live in a Britain which is fair, just and institutions are benevolent. This has not been the case for years but people still think we live in a green and pleasant land where youngsters respect the police, your postman knows your name and if he doesn't see you for a couple of days would sound the alarm and doctors who your whole family and treat them without the need to force them into taking dangerous unwanted and unnecessary medications or injections. We are living NOW in a dystopia but as yet the illusion of "everything is normal" is still shimmering in the background. Don't worry, this is soon to drop and the true horror of reality in 21st century Britain is going to reveal itself in all it's hideous glory.
I have a blackmail letter from TVL telling me that I can't make the problem go away by ignoring it, and it will get worse if I do. But I can make the problem go away if I contact them and agree to re pay them what I owe. Only I didn't owe them anything, I canceled my licence which I used to pay in full. The police took my complaint as blackmail until they realised the blackmail letter was from TVL !
Sounds like you need to make a complaint to the Police as blackmail is blackmail irrespective who is making the threat. Capita/TVL/BBC are NOT above the law!
Making a threat that something bad will happen if you don't do something, something that you have no legal or moral obligation to do, is a unjustified threat.
@@TheSadButMadLad I reported it as malicious communication first but the police decided it was blackmail until they later realised it was actually the real TVL. The video is on my channel BBC playlist, number 8 in the list I think.
It's scare tactics. I used to get warning letters which sounded very threatening, but when i cut through the hyperbole it was empty. What I would like to know if stats on why people were prosecuted. All i hear, from this channel included, is “10,000's get prosecuted”. I paid for a license for 2 years even though i watched no tv (broken antenna) just because I thought I'd be prosecuted on fake evidence. We need actual data on this - how many were prosecuted because A, because B, and so on. How many were based on what was said verbally to them, how many because they were invited inside. What exactly did they find that they classed as breaking the law? We need data, anecdotal evidence, and not vague “lots get prosecuted, not sure why, but dont risk it”. I'm fed up with the tactics - dystopian schemes only work because of lack of transparency.
I am ready to take them to court if I needed to. I have every letter from the date I cancelled my licence. On,y 1 visit though in 12 years. I abide by the law yet they write to me like a criminal.
ATTENTION! When I cancelled my TV license I very specifically asked multiple times "Will I be issued a refund? (for the remainder of the license that was paid for), I was told a simple yes. I received a cheque for a small amount, I can't remember how much, or the wording of the letter (maybe it said it was a refund for the payment card itself). I called back up and they said I had to initiate a refund for the remaining license. Obviously dodgy games trying to catch out the naïve and vulnerable and keep their money. DO NOT TRUST THE BBC OR TV LICENSING!
Its sad that you needed to say to not trust them. Like why are people paying BBC for basically no adds on BBC yet still need it for every other channel. Should just be a subscription on BBC channels but they wont do that because they know no one will watch it
Same happened to me. When I tried to initiate the refund, I was going around a loop and no one to actually talk to get it sorted. I am still due my refund. I paid by direct debit
According to the law, any monies received for the licence ("TV Licence") can be retained by the BBC. They do not have to give you a penny back - even if "overpaid". To be fair to them (BBC), if you follow their process (run by Capita), you should get a partial, or even a complete refund of any "unused" licenced time, as whole months, but they won't make it easy. If you are asking for a retrospective refund, then they will make it very difficult. But as most people pay six months ahead (or 12 months ahead), you should get a pro rated refund of "future" licence that you do not want. Make sure you keep a record of your requests.
Tesco is getting a warrant from the courts to get the police to kick my door In because i stopped buying their food and now shop at Aldi 😂 it’s no difference what the BBC are doing 😂
They used to threaten my dying dad after we'd cancelled his TV license, by simply cancelling his direct debit. Last letter that he received read "if you don't want a visit from us, pay your TV licence." I subsequently took over his property, and the mail keeps coming. They keep threatening me with a visit now, and you know what I'm hoping that they do visit.
The problem with TV licensing is that they are the judge and jury. They are able to prosecute on the word of one of their so called inspectors without any proof.
@gerry20p but you can get arrested and put in prison for edgy jokes in Scotland too due to their disgusting and human rights violating hate speech laws Awful trade wouldn't you say hahahahaha, Scotland is so so so much worse than the UK right now it makes me so sad how far it's fallen, it's like "China Lite " at this point, political corruption and theft included with the police used as a private military for the SNP
Most of the news channels only show recorded segments from the days shows never watch live news no need to,i watch GB news Talk tv on youtube anyway the time of the live broadcast is on screen so it's not live if you are watch a gbnews at 10 o'clock at night which was broadcast at 7 am that day
If they want to send a sales letter (which is all it is) then fine, but they write it in a way that makes it appear you are obligated to respond when you are not and then if you don't you start getting their threatening letters and harassment.
@@PastPresented - I know why it’s done but I don’t consider it reasonable. As noted in another reply (i.e. Pizza place) what other business would get away with adopting a similar approach?
The simplest way for BBC/TV Licensing to stop any confusion is to require you to need a TV licence to watch or record any BBC programme or use BBC iplayer. No other company or service benefits from the licence fee and therefore should not require a TV licence to watch or record. Problem solved.
But they are saying it's ANY LIVE TV SERVICES and that includes ITV, 4 and 5. This is all such nonsense. We used to understand that it was only BBC so when did all this happen.
It's always been the case since the license is for using the equipment not for receiving BBC transmissions specifically. This goes all the way back to the 1920s when radio receiver licenses were introduced. @@lsmith992
They know very well that if the law said that then nobody would watch BBC. By including all the other companies within the licensing requirement, then BBC won't lose viewers. The only reason the Government allows this to continue is because license fees fund the BBC and they don't need to. In Australia our ABC is funded directly by the Government, and depending on which party is in power they either get more or less funding. BBC funding depends on how hard they push people to get licenses, and the companies employed to do this probably get bonuses for pushing hard, hence the dirty tactics being used.
I cancelled mine today & called to confirm all that I needed to know legally and the RUclips section she read me only included the first line of those guidelines! I queried this as I couldn’t believe I would need a tv licence to watch people I follow building lego live 🤷🏼♀️ I was advised ‘probably best to keep to your licence’! Seeing as it took me so many years to get the courage to cancel it I said no & am now very pleased to have found your content that’s I’m not streaming live 🙄😂😂 xx Thanks for the info 👍🏼
TV licensing took me to court a few years back. They told me l needed a TV licence because l had bought a TV. I was watching an old film on Netflix when they came they said because of this l needed a licence. I plead not guilty the TV prosecutor guy laughed at me . He wasn't laughing when l produced proof from Netflix that l didn't need a licence to stream their films etc . I beat TV licensing 😅
@@DiamondCake2 A long time ago, I bought my mother a TV because hers had broken. The man in Currys asked for my address! I said 'no thanks, I don't want any marketing'. But he said - "oh, we're actually required to record it for TV licensing, but I can opt you out of our marketing that's fine" So, I gave him my home address as he asked (not the installation address) because I don't watch TV and, to be honest, I love dealing with the harassment }:¬) Now, I don't know if he was correct. But it does seem as though details given when you purchase a TV in person or online, may have once resulted in a notification to TV Licensing. On TVLA's shady website of misinformation... *By law, dealers must notify TV Licensing of sales of TV sets, DVD, video and digital video recorders, digital set-top boxes, PCs and laptops with TV cards and TV cards sold separately. TV Licensing will then contact people, where appropriate, to confirm whether they need to purchase a licence.* ... so, I suspect that it does happen. Legal requirement or not : /
The RSPCA absolutely should have the power of prosecution. It's weird you find that an issue. I can only assume you abuse animals regularly but don't see it as abuse
Is it a surprise to anyone that the villain investigator Bradshaw in the Post Office scandal used to work on TV licensing 😮 I agree, this could be the next big scandal , and the goons the BBC employ had better watch out ( or better still get out)
After TV it could be Council Tax. Apparently it goes to Central Gov and they dish out the money as they see fit. This is not how they tell us it works and explains why the Council ignore the local population and do what the government wants, the Gov control the money.
Understanding what you can and cannot watch without a TV license is not overly complex. One might expect that the BBC, given its abundant resources, could create a webpage to clearly convey this information to the general public.
Just watch what’s available, I didn’t sign no contract or ask for any business, if anything they have infiltrated my home and attempting to programme my mind to watch their shows, sky movies won’t let me watch unless I pay for it, so if they don’t like it block the service to my home.
If they did that, created a webpage to clearly convey this information to the general public, what you can and can't watch, millions would stop paying for a licence and they would likely lose billions in revenue .. this is why they don't
it is not in their interest to do this. To cast doubt in the mind of non tech-savvy people in particular is a means to secure funding through fear/threat of prosecution. They are acutely aware that the uninformed older generation are dying off, and the younger generation simultaneously watch less traditional TV, and have a better grasp of TV licensing ... but they are too stuck in their ways to pivot their business model into one that actually suits the 21st Century.
I applied on there web site to say I don’t need one and answered all there question no I don’t watch any TV from the BBC and they said I still need a TV licence. It’s tuning into a scam in my mind.
There’s one or two trick questions you have to answer Yes to mean No, go and read it again; it almost caught me out. Edit: Like “can you confirm you DON’T something or other” and you have to say “yes”.
Dan, you innocent summer child, it's obvious that keeping the wording vague allows them to fit up more people. That's why the only way to deal with them is to bin any letters, and if they visit just say 'no thanks' and shut the door. It's that simple. Don't engage with them, don't give them your name, don't answer any questions.
Don't talk to them & don't let them in. The problem regarding watching live TV is that the BBC seem to be presuming that if you're able to, then you obviously do and are therefore guilty. My daughter has no tv a was told she has to purchase a TV licence because she could watch on her daughters tablet. She doesn't 🤷
I had TV people turn up to my home with two bruisers demanding that they be let in to check if I was using a TV w/o a license. They forced themselves in, even after I told them that the person they are looking for no longer lives at this address.. they then saw a TV in the living room, and a pc attached to it.. and told me to prove to them i wasnt watching TV.. they saw an Ariel on the roof, and they see a tv in the room.. so i must be lying to them.. So i turned it on and it was just static.. as i explained to them that I just use the TV to play games off my PC.. so yet again demanded to see what I was watching and flick through channels.. I told them that the remote was by his foot and he could do it himself.. I saw him try to access BBC and press the red button a few times.. you know trying to make the tv work and "catch me red handed".. Meanwhile, on my phone i had gone to porn hub, and queued up a hardcore gay orgy video and had connected to the chromecast.. just waiting for the dude to change it to check if i had iplayer.. so lo and behold he clicks the button, and out blares the loudest moans of porn that could be heard.. and he threw the remote across the room in shock.. I just said.. so you dont like that I am pansexual as well as not watching tv? Him and his 2 thugs ran out like they were heard the ice cream van drive past.. Never heard back from them
Daniel, I’m license free and have been for several years. When explaining to friends who are considering doing the same, I tell them you only need a license if you watch programs that can be looked up in TV guide/schedule, or the BBC I player or some news channels (sky news for example) who put out a live news feed on RUclips. I agree the wording in the “no licence needed” declaration is vague and confusing (deliberately so) so that people who do NOT need a licence are put under pressure to get one. Yet another reason to NOT fund the BBC !!!
I find it absolutely outrageous that a private organisation is able to transmit an unprotected signal and then demand EVERYONE who could POSSIBLY intercept that signal with civilian equipment to provide this private organisation with their name name and address. Imagine any other business in the world did the equivalent of this, it's ludicrous.
We used to own a property in a deep valley in Wales where there was no TV signal available. None, yet we kept receiving these threatening letters. I actually enjoyed replying to say that if they would provide a TV signal in the valley so that I could watch TV, I would happily pay. Eventually someone replied to say that they had noted that I did not need a licence - but they would write again in 2 years to check if I needed one again. There is still no TV in the valley.
I think this confusion is a symptom of bigger problems - the world has changed since the creation of the BBC and the creation of the TV licence, and it's no longer clear what those two things are for.
They are sales representatives and chancers at that, using intimidation tactics to garner compliance. That's it. Any and all correspondence I get goes straight in the bin. Should they knock on the door, and I answer it, my response will be "I don't answer questions". They also will not be getting into the property without a warrant. I repeat again. Chancers. All they are hoping is that either you admit you've been watching live TV without a license or you're dumb enough to let them in and give them hard evidence you have been. Neither of those two scenarios can happen if you keep your mouth shut and close the door, or don't even open the door in the first place.
Alistair Bonnington, previously a lawyer for bbc Scotland is suing Capita apparently and I feel would be a useful addition to the evidence of wrong doing by said company. Thanks for all You do, all the best to You and your Family.
A bit off topic but relevant, when I stopped paying for a licence 12 years ago, within the first month I got a call from a marketing company claiming to be a survey. I played along as I was bored. The third question was... What's your favourite TV show. I said I don't watch TV, the person on the phone said... what? everybody watches tv, you must watch it sometimes. I scolded him for presuming to know more about my life than I do and hung up. Make of that what you will. In the 12 years I've had one TV licence visit, told the foreign lad that I don't entertain cold callers, and to write and make an appointment. That was about 6 years ago. I have an old shoe box that is almost full of unopened TV licence letters.
TV licencing is a total joke / con / nightmare, I am so glad I live on a boat and don't need to worry about them..... oh I do, they still send letters / men to my yard to check it out BUT always say, oh don't worry and drive away as soon as they see the 5 circus trucks lol.
Thank you I worked all this out by myself. So glad you as a professional have proven it. There's so many people that won't listen. TV licensing are a powerful Monopoly trying to keep power. A case of old money gone bad.
I have received a threatening letter from TV licencing every month for the last 18 months. I await a visit from the 'goons'. I do not watch or record any live TV from any broadcast channel and certainly never watch anything from the BBC on any platform. I have uninstalled BBC I-Player from my TV. So why the threats? Netflix, Sky etc don't demand to inspect my equipment, as I don't subscribe to them either.
I told the BBC to "get stuffed" more than ten years ago at a different address. I have heard nothing from them. They did send a "detector" van when I first did this, but when I went out with a camcorder trying to catch them out, they slammed the doors and drove off at high speed.
@lifehackervideos5442 Yes! IT IS a scam! This is how it was explained to me years ago. The light from the screen bounces off walls, doors, etcetera, and hits the window. The detector van equipment then decodes the light information from the window. From this, they can tell exactly what you are watching. Two words - Horse Shite! 🤣
Its always baffled me how a private company can have so much power and can get away with breaking the law by putting out fraudulent information and not even be bothered when they're proven wrong. The whole company should have been disolved and half of them charged just for what they did over the saville business
Thank you for clarifying,I was getting a bit apprehensive about watching non tv channels live on youtube and yes its extremely vague which leads to people paying for a licence they dont need.
I'm glad someone is taking an interest in this. The TV licensing people basically act like a protection racket. I'm convinced this stuff is worded to confuse the vulnerable. I don't see why I should give them any information about myself. Jumped up sales people masquerading as law enforcement.
My female cousin who I was living with at the time got really bothered by those letters even though she only watched Netflix, she ended up paying it against my advice. I bet you a large chunk of people who pay don't even use the service.
I canceled my TV license a few weeks ago, since then, I received 3 letters from them, the 1st letter was to confirm the cancellation, 2nd letter was the refund letter with a £50.00 cheque, and the 3rd one today was to say that an enforcement agent may come to visit my house as 1 in 8 people cancel by mistake and are illegally watching live TV.
i get the same one turning up at the door each year. each year he gets the same answer, nope, and if you come back with police, make sure he's sexy. Door shut. this year he got me on the close in my block and I thought, "I've got time...." held him up for half an hour ranting about fruit fly infestations. he did slip in "On did you see that on the telly?" and I replied, "BOOKS. I READ." Then I started ranting about council cutbacks to libraries and he couldn't get away fast enough. Still not got my sexy police officer.
Write back and advise them that you are removing any implied right of access to your property, and their visits would constitute trespass. They will acknowledge that, and then not bother you for 2 years.
I just think it's hilarious and yet terrifying that these people are making their "guidance" so confusing and contradictory to try and scare people onto paying this idiotic fee. So glad I don't have a TV license
I had a letter from them that seemed to say that if I watched any kind of video on any kind of device I may need a TV licence. I know the law but if I were relying on their letter I'd be worried.
@@rattylol It's not a tax it's an indulgence fee. You don't have to watch TV but it is illegal to do so. To absolve you of the crime you pay a fee for a licence to watch TV.
If they are lying in their wording pamphlet then why don't we get them with a Class Action Lawsuit? If we win then the TV licence gets abolished......forever!
I told them early last year that I am not watching live TV. Not a week has gone by when I do not receive a threatening letter. I always drop them straight in the shredder. This, in anyone's book is harassment and from any other company would not be tolerated.
There's an ex-BBC lawyer in Glasgow now taking TV Licensing/Capita to court over the way he has been personally treated regarding his licence fee. Maybe the BBC can start to regain our trust by getting rid of Capita and trying a different company?
and you would allow them to regain trust?!?!?!?!?! And this is why the British public are doomed Bunch of fools letting the wolves back in ffs, open your damn eyes The BBC protected monsters for years and still do, including one of the world's most prolific child predators Did you forget about that??
Thanks for the great advice once again I cancelled my TV licence about 5-4 years ago when they wanted 2 years payments upfront when everyone was cancelling, about £250 they wanted. I cancelled it on the spot!
That letter saying they need to check on you every two years sounds like you need to prove your innocence. Where else does this happen in a free society? Why do you need to prove you're not watching TV? They are presuming you are watching TV and need to check on you so you can prove you're not a criminal. Thousands convicted every year over watching TV? This is straight out a dystopian nightmare.
Where else does it happen in a free society? Do you do an annual self-assessment tax return? There else. It's a Live TV tax. They have a legal obligation to collect it and to ensure non-payers are legitimately not paying, just as HMRC are obligated to collect the correct tax revenue from tax payers.
@@dizwell Yes I do a yearly tax assessment, however I work under a PAYG system so tax is taken from every pay every fortnight. Therefore the government is aware of my taxable income, I only have to include other income and any deductions. The government already know I have an income, and if I don't or it's under the taxable threshold I don't have to prove it I simply make a declaration on a form. Rather poor example. You say they have a legal right, but you have to prove your innocence. You can defend it all you like but it remains an unjust system. But I guess keep up the good fight! Keep defending your tyranny!
@@bilko991 Most people are PAYG and do the self-assessment for allowable expenses and other income. That's what it's for! The point is not what it is or what it's for, but that you have no problem keeping the HMRC tax authorities informed about your situation. Yet many of those same people seem to think it's an entirely egregious matter to keep the TV tax authorities informed about their situation. Indeed, as you say, HMRC already knows about much of your income and tax payments -yet you do an annual return anyway. TV Licensing knows practically nothing about what equipment you have or what you use it for, yet them enquiring about it is a symptom of a totalitarian society?! The cognitive dissonance involved in thinking like that is just astounding to me. So no, I think it a very good example of how we all are happy to share information to the authorities when it suits us, but somehow the TV people (Gary Linneker...Jimmy Saville...mutter...woke...bias...mutter) are completely off-piste. They're not, was my point. And by the way, if I claim expenses on my tax return, I have to be prepared to submit receipts. Is that "proving my innocence", or is it merely demonstrating the veracity of the things I'm stating?
@@dizwell Oh I agree, the cognitive dissonance on display here is astounding! But no need to get worked up, you enjoy your tyranny and having the government intrude into your life!
@@bilko991 You're the one merrily sharing information with the government when it suits. Me? I filled in the no TV licence required declaration 3 or 4 years ago and haven't heard from them since. I suspect the government intrudes rather more into your life than it does into mine. Nice deflection on the "worked up" business though. It meant you didn't have to deal with the point about needing receipts for deductions you claim... you know, having to "prove your innocence". As it happens, I'm not in the least worked up. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency, which I get you don't like.
As a barrister, Daniel has the opportunity here to coordinate a class action and challenge these unfair convictions based on TVL's unclear and clearly contradictor bguidance. This is on par with the Post Office scandal. My heart goes out to the Down's Syndrome lady who was convicted even though her finances were controlled by Greenwich Council. Absolute negligence on the part of the council and a safeguarding investigation should be instigated. Go on Daniel, you and Al could right this wrong 💪
Not to mention I might "enjoy" watching BBC content on iPlayer at a friend or relative's house who DOES have a license. Does that make me liable because I enjoyed watching BBC content on iPlayer (all be it not at my own home) ?
@@stevemason4753 you will have to have a TV licence man move in with you to monitor any non-licensed quests experiencing Joy in the house at any BBC programming.
To clarify as you asked: Primarily people stream content using bbc iplayer like netflix. They (bbc) utilise the akamai content delivery (CDN) network to host their content. Prime video has hosted tennis which was live. ITV and Channel 4 apps do have a live TV section but primarily are used for catch up services. It does mean you're just a click away from breaking the law of you accidentally press live tv on any of those apps. Capita who run the TV licencing agency are a joke.
I'd have to say that if it does turn into another prosecution scandal, it's been too long coming. This Single Justice Procedure thing sounds very sketchy to me.
My partner was prosecuted by TVL back when BBC iPlayer wasn't part of the licence, she was asked by the enforcement officer what's going on Eastenders, she told him what was going on, that was enough for him to read her rights and sent to court and made a criminal. He did not ask where she watched it, he never entered or checked the equipment, though apparently he checked the tv and stated he could tune into BBC1 2, ITV, 4 and Five, on a Sony TV. First off, how, we had no aerial connected, and secondly we didn't have a Sony TV. Yet when at court the magistrates sitting believed that broadband internet access alone equates to needing a licence.
I have recently thought about it like a driving license. Or the lack of. If you didn't drive a car and had never applied for a license, do the DVLA harass you every year with "In case you were thinking about driving without a license!!!!!!" letters? I have never had such letters. I did get a license to drive. I STILL don't get letters every year threatening with court to pay for that privilege. I do get threatening letters from TVL telling me that I may be breaking the law if this and that. "Great", thanks for letting me know, now go away.
The difference between TVL and DVLA is that TVL have a private company desperate to make money so will do anything to get it, including acting unlawfully. DVLA is just a bureaucracy and has to follow the law which means that they can only act after the fact when someone has been found to be breaking the law. TVL don't care and act as if someone has broken the law.
Why do you need to declare whether you need a TV licence or not? Does one need to declare to the DVLA when one becomes of legal age to drive whether a driving licence is needed or not?
You dont need to declare whether you need a TV licence or not, in fact it is better not to as the declaration requires you to make statements about other people over whom you have no control.
Imagine trying to explain to your kids that there are a subset of RUclips channels that they can’t watch because they qualify as TV providers. Let’s be honest it’s vague on purpose. And that means it is the next false conviction scandal.
I've always thought watching any RUclips wasn't a reason for needing a licence? The lives arn't the BBC. Content creators arn't obligated to be owned by the government but are self employed. I knew they would go after people who watch anything but BBC (You Tube, Netflix) and don't want a tv licence! Are they gonna go after people who watch TikTok and Instagram next!?
@@asumazillayeah but it’s rarely if never the case…they would need to persecute the false channel stealing their content to « live stream it » on RUclips which happens sometimes
@@naminakamura5290 The Sky News channel on RUclips gives you the exact same content that you would get from watching Sky News via a Sky satellite dish. I don't think there is any doubt that you would need a licence for that.
Surely anything that doesn't touch the UK broadcasting network should not be subject to a licence fee otherwise it is just them piggybacking on other services that we pay for separately and that in my view is theft.
For years BBC have broken the law so many times its unbelievable, they also at one time told people they had to pay TV licence if they have a PC, because apparently if you have any device that is "capable" of using live TV. I personally haven't watched live TV for over 12 years since my partner died and every 2 years get bombarded with TV licensing junk mail, as well as visits from them until they send me a mail telling me I won't be bothered by them for 2 years. Any other company trying this would be taken to court for harassment.
Oddly enough, received this exact same letter in the post this morning, so I can confirm this is indeed a genuine letter with the same wording. Honestly the sooner they switch to an ad-based model rather than a license fee the better - maybe then they'd actually have a good reason to be competitive and I'd have a reason to watch.
Many moons ago, I had a black and white TV which we used to watch, So i had a Black and white TVL, They come around my home, I let them in to show them my B&W tv and he pointed out i had a Video recorder that picks up colour TV. I got fined £180 which back then was almost two weeks take home where i was working.
Unfortunately, the government is quite happy writing laws with terms no one has defined. So it is unclear if live streaming from small creators count, and that is a situation capita choose to exploit.
So Disney Junior is a channel on RUclips. Mostly plays the Kid show Bluey. Seems odd that we'd have to pay the BBC for a show broadcast by Disney. Same applies to Amazon Prime, if they decided to make a live broadcast, this despite being an amazon subscriber. Doesn't seem right.
@@jackcunningham3401 it says 'watch or stream live content' So literally watching Oxford Street CCTV/webcam streamed live on RUclips requires you to pay a license to BBC.
I got an email with the "tv licensing" banner saying I needed to give my debit card details to update my licence, with a link. After some careful technical digging I could see it was a phishing email. Be careful. Be vigilant.
I’ve been saying this for weeks now, Capita use the same tactics, the same bullying approach and undoubtedly the same sloped forehead thugs. You would think someone in the company would be asking some serious questions after Horizon; but more likely they are doing some serious shredding!
We keep getting threatening letters . We live in the Remote Scottish Highlands , no TV signal, no wi-fi, no land line. Why would we need a TV licence when they don't provide us with a TV signal up here. Surely they must know where the "Black Spots" are where they don't provide any signal. It's terrible receiving these menacing letters.
Ask them to stop contacting you. If they ignore you twice, then report them. Strictly speaking though, you could still make use of a TV Licence (to protect yourself from the prohibition), for example, if you used Starlink to access the internet, and then used that internet connection to access iPlayer, or receive a "television programme service".
That letter is real. I got one myself this weekend. Luckily, I knew the wording was misleading and incorrect regarding RUclips "content." The real problem is the scaremongering of the wording to force people to pay for a licence they don't need. Keep up the good work 👍
I read their guidance as we don't know what we class as a live TV programme until we prosecute you and we are the ones who make the distinction between what is classed a TV programme or content depending on some variables and how we feel. I mean how as a rational person are you supposed to respond to that? Its no wonder people get cross about it.
The thing that really rips my knitting is that if you only watch programmes on sky, virgin, etc, they're making you pay twice for the 'pleasure'. Don't watch, don't pay!
Thanks to your other video, I felt sufficiently confident to cancel my TV licence today and those disclaimer questions do seem very clumsily worded probably in an effort to dissuade people from going through with it. They didn't dissuade me. I honestly don't watch ANY live TV or even scheduled programming, so I probably could've cancelled my licence a long time ago!
Sooo... have I got this right: British people living in the UK have to pay to watch the BBC, but if I'm a foreigner _in any other country_ I can watch it all for FREE?!
We have become accustomed to paying it and most British people just do as they are told. I don't think the BBC have enough resources to go after foreign viewers.
@@matty_mcmattface They wouldn't have to go after anyone if it was a Subscription Only service, like Netflix. Then the people who watched it would be the people who paid, no matter where they lived. Instead of trying to charge innocent Brits for a service that they're providing free to everyone else. Problem solved.
@@dereklh Honestly, you're not missing out on anything. The 'news' content is the same as your major channels and the creative content is reducing in quality all the time. You could probably get it with some VPN - I live in the UK and a lot of Russian / Eastern channels are blocked here because our government wants to control the media narrative. Just to be balanced and objective - the BBC (many years ago) was very good and highly respected here; but that has changed a lot. Aside from people not wanting to pay the license on principle they had issues with inaccurate / biased reporting - and worse than that 'cover up' scandals surrounding high profile employees like Jimmy Savile (read for yourself).
I don’t know why they don’t just abolish the Tv licence and make BBC SELF fund, they already make billions from reruns of popular programs from years ago, but this is put into another BBC company and we as licence payers do not ever see that money. Even though it was our licence monies that paid to have the original programmes made. So where has our money gone 🤔
One point that concerns is that there may actually be convictions under the 'Single Justice Procedure' whereby the convicted person is never notified, either of the prosecution, or the resulting conviction. A relatively minor address error, or some other administrative problem, could easily lead to that.
You're absolutely right,many people have been to scared to show up at court and challenge this,as such got prosecuted in there absence ending in a fine and criminal record.. these people in there thousands possibly need to be justified because this smells of a money making cover up or corruption..Ian
I’ve just found your stream on parking and tv licensing and by god it puts a spin on these subjects, keep up the good work , I will make a point of viewing more content 👍
I still don't understand how the government knows a person is watching TV without a license unless there is some sort of confession. It seems to me that this situaton has become a house of cards and it's just a matter of time before it collapses, either because of the proliferation of streaming, basic non-compliance, or some other reason. By the way, I'm an American, but I greatly enjoy these videos. There's nothing finer than an obviously competent person explaining the law so clearly and intelligently. This subject doesn't affect me directly in the least, but it still interests me greatly.
The bottom line is, unfortunately it's the law, whether or not you agree with it. It does however also fund other BBC output e.g. BBC news, sports, etc which I am certain pretty much every person in the UK uses at some point (it would be very hard not to). Personally I really appreciate the BBC BUT I do think there is a more progressive way to fund it than this nonsense. I certainly don't want it to become a hellscape of advertising and product placement like a lot of other outlets though...
@@SBBUK they are charging you to watch anything live on the TV ,this includes RUclips. No part of the TV licence goes to these companies or people that are producing live TV, the bias broadcasting company gets it all . People spouting BBC propaganda are therefore part of this problem. "Plagiarism" is against the law. Buy charging you to watch ANY live TV the BBC are making money out of other people's productions . Simple 😉
Yes, a scandal. I cannot watch you live in my own home and I have heard that they take live to be longer than the programme or still prosecutable if you just watch part of the programme transmitted.
I don't drive and have therefore never needed a driving licence but somehow if the BBC ran the scheme I would need to prove I don't own a car, have never sat in the drivers seat with the engine running nor have I polished or cleaned a car or repaired one. And I would need to prove it every 2 years and sign to prove it and then worry that as a passenger in the front seat I could be assumed to be using the vehicle without said licence.
There are two facets to this scandal - those convicted who are innocent and those who buy licences which are not needed because they fear a knock at the door.
They were hounding my Mum for years, FULL ON regular intimidation, when my Mother turned 75 four years ago '' I Tried'' taking the proper route, trust me it wasn't easy / simple.
I filled in all the online form and attached a LOT more than what what requested, they replied after about 5 weeks asking about tax credits, my mother is on DLA - Direct Living Allowance, WE KNOW OF NOTHING ELSE.
When filling in the online form I attached - Various medical information that contained her DOB, a copy of her passport, National Insurance info, her full original Birth certificate and they reply asking about tax credits.
I done all the stuff online that SHE CAN'T!!!! The reason SHE CAN'T is because she's an old lady in her 70's
How dare she not be tech-savvy, what a disgrace that she doesn't know how to operate a PC or Tablet / Smartphone and Upload all the info they require.
If only THEY COULD SEND someone that would chap the door and come in for a brew or coffee and we could PRESENT all the info THEY NEED! They'd would also see on that visit they have been HARASSING an Old lady who worked all her days, an old lady who's now retired and lives in sheltered accommodation, an old lady who just wants SOME FK'N PEACE and left alone.
Thankfully just a few weeks ago a family member went on the phone and lost the lost the plot with them AND WAS VERY VERY Persistent, my mother finally got her letter acknowledging she now doesn't have to pay.
BUT! People of age shouldn't have to go through ANY of that repetitive nonsense, it's not bloody on.
Three. "How do i PROVE that i HAVEN'T done something?" That's why the law in united kingdom is to prove the allegation. Which TV licensing is seemingly removed and operates how it wants. With full impunity, it seems.
Absolutely!
@@LemonScreech wouldn't be any sillier than the window tax, and we did that, so please, don't go giving them ideas like that 😁
Some people believe just owning a TV requires a licence. Smh
I refuse to accept that I should be expected to declare that I don’t need a TV licence at any time let alone repeatedly every two years. Nobody is expected to declare they don’t need any other licence.
Is it even a law to demand such !!! It's such a ball **** after decades of doing it lol especially these days as the years just slip by so quickly!
I took myself off the 'no licence needed' list as I couldn't be bothered to answer ever 2 years....
I believe that there us no such provision in law to declare that you do not need one such thatd is no provision to even engage with these salespeople. No contact and ignorance is your best friend unless they actually catch you or can formulate their reasonable suspicion that you are indeed breaking the law. Their letters go straight into my shredder, provided bedding for my guinea pigs lol! Take a win 😂 I have never entered into a contract or even uttered a word to TV licensing I've just ignored them and never had a visit. I still get about 2 letters a month addressed to someone called legal occupier. Living in the Scottish highlands I do not think they will pay me a visit... I'll set my live haggis on them! That's the Scottish removal of implied rights lol! 😅
Blimey
A live Haggis
Now that is scary 😁
I think you are unreasonable! I go to the police station every week to let them know I have not committed any crimes
Why do I have to pay the BBC to watch a live programme that wasn’t funded by them! This doesn’t make any sense at all.
It's for the infrastructure that allows TV to be broadcast if I remember correctly.
@@Captivename original infrastructure doesn’t exist (get used) anymore and all the new infrastructure was funded by all the broadcasters so the question remains.
Because the UK is a ripoff.
Almost all of that infrastructure is privately owned
Captivename no after ww2 the bbc was broke so they created the licence scheme its a scam to keep a seevice rhats been dhing for almost 100 years now alive
I don't have a TV licence, a fishing licence, a forklift license, an alcohol sales license, a pilots license or a shotgun license, and yet only one of these employs goons to threaten me, automatically assumes I need one, and demands I tell them that I don't 🤔
You Don t have a forklift truck licence ??? Shame on you...l hope they throw the book at you😂😂😂❤
I've got an old pilot's license, you can have it for free if you want?
Years ago if you had a metal detector you needed a pipe finders license 😂
Spot on. It's government and BBC harrassment plain and simple.
I do not believe there is such a thing as a "forklift licence", merely a requirement that those who employ people to operate forklift trucks ensure those operators are appropriately trained.
Yes!
I'm a pastoral care-giver in my free time and last year (2023), a 68 year old parishioner showed me documents, indicating that not only had he been *convicted* based on false and misleading information, the "investigator" had effectively not only lied to him, but the court too and evidently none of his superiors - or the court - had an issue with this.
As part of his cost-cutting measures (like a lot of pensioners, he is feeling the financial pinch), my parishioner decided he could save money by only watching pre-recorded films and programs. So his grandson set up a media server for him, on which he stored all of his grandfathers DVD collection. The TV licencing goon showed up and convinced him that in actual fact what he was doing was "watching live TV" (since when are DVDs "live TV?!!) and got my parishioner to sign a "confession" of sorts, which states that he was watching live TV. My parishioner is not able to watch "live TV" as he sold his Sky TV box and dish (for a shockingly paltry sum. I might add - but he desperately needed the money...) - the equipment he used to receive live TV when he had a sky subscription.
This whole thing stank to high heaven and so I've been canvassing my parishioners to see if anyone else has found themselves in this position. When I discovered that two others had been "made an example of", I widened the net and since November last year (2023) I have put the feelers out on social media and through other pastoral care-givers. To date, *hundreds* of people have said that they were either threatened to the point that they signed "confessions" on the doorstep or were *convinced by the TV licencing goon* that they had done something wrong, when in fact they had not. One lady even did so because her neighbours were watching and she wanted the tv licencing goon - who told her that she could go to prison if she did not confess - to simply "go away" because she was so ashamed and embarrassed. She was - understandably - in tears and utterly ashamed. The shocking thing: *She does not possess a TV at all and her "confession" was wrangled out of her on the basis that she listens to the radio on occasion.* Yet the form that she was coerced into signing on the doorstep (of which she has a copy that I have seen) clearly states that she was to be prosecuted for watching "live TV".
I am in the process of working out how to get these individuals "convictions" overturned. I have a feeling that it is going to cost quite a lot of money through private solicitors since I have been unsuccessful in getting help from Citizens Advice. Regardless, I simply cannot addord to do this for everyone and *someone* needs to take up the case for the hundreds or - I'm pretty certain - thousands of others who have been coerced, mis-informed or just outright lied to or about regarding their guilt.
These ridiculous private prosecutions are going on at a rate - I'm informed - of 130 per *day* and from what I've seen already, checks, balances and appropriate standards are completely absent. I don't care one bit about the argument regarding the "unique way the BBC is funded" because it is criminalising not only the poorest in society, but it is doing it dishonestly and it is my absolute belief that we are far past the reasonable threshold at which point we can say: prosecutions done this way by that organisation are just unsafe and reparations for distress and additional financial burden - mostly on those who could already ill afford their living costs *before* the BBC decided (through their goons) - to victimise these people - should be paid by the BBC.
I would just like to add that it is utterly perverse that the BBC has the audacity to make news items about the dishonest way in which postmasters were treated when in fact it is the BBC themselves who have been - and continue to be - guilty of the largest number of spurious private prosecutions.
I have just pulled up another case from my notes. This one I had to post because it is very similar to the first one I mentioned in my comment. On this occasion though, it is a parisioners daughter. Again, she was prosecuted on the basis of a coerced "confession" whereby the TV licencing goon informed her that owning an Android TV Box is in fact "watching live TV". The only apps installed on the Android TV box are: Netflix and two games for her young daughter. She bought the Android TV box because her TV is not a smart TV, she does not have a digital aerial or sky dish and this was the only way of her being able to watch films (via the Android TV box which is connected to her neighbours wireless: which they very kindly share as she is a single mother).
This was the second time I had seen the BBCs operatives abuse those who are not very "tech savvy" and bring private prosecutions against them. This has to stop.
@BlackBeltBarrister PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS - surely this is a seed conversation to a class action starter? I suggest a crowdfunded online petition to action this form. The money to claim back would be in the millions. Thank you to the pastoral carer, your a good man and a light in the darkness.
@@YippeePlopFork They are Capita operatives, they are not directly overseen by the BBC, or any public body.
@@_panthera_uncia_ "They are Capita operatives"
The whole thing suddenly made sense to me the minute I read this. Privatisation is ruing this country.
I didn’t realise you could sell your sky box and dish. I believe they are property of sky and need to be returned
Being expected to confirm I do not need to pay the TV tax every two years IS onerous !
Am I expected to notify every supplier on the planet that I do not require their services !?!
It is onerous and more, it shows up an unmitigated arrogance with the idea we are answerable to them for not doing something!
Don't bother... I stopped after doing it a few times... if you come off their 'no licence needed' list they also seem to forget your name....I'm now legal occupier!
When I cancelled mine, they requested a visit because they said most people actually end up needing one. I told them to visit those idiots & not me. There does seem to be an inference they think you have to prove to them you're not a criminal!!!
Write back to them telling that you are not obligated to reply and if they send another letter they are agreeing to pay £50.00 for you to reply. They will never send letters to your address again!
I'm gonna tell Avon cosmetics tomorrow that I don't want anything from them. 😆
Have they even overturned the conviction of the down syndrome person who wasn't even in control of his own finances? I doubt it. His direct debit stopped and it was entirely the council's responsibility to deal with it, but incredibly they pleaded guilty on his behalf and he was falsely convicted without the court even bothering to read about the circumstances that were submitted which should have thrown it straight out, they don't even usually read mitigation evidence and they convict behind closed doors without the defendant present, how can this be justice in the UK?
They are industrialising the process as we speak.
It was a woman and the magistrates responsible should quosh it or the Council bod who pleaded guilty for her convicted for false representation.
@robredz Magistrates can't quash previous convictions. It requires a long drawn out procedure. I actually have doubts that this particular conviction will be quashed. Sad.
Well, the council should be footing the bill.
Now look at Starmer. Triumphant that he had, when in charge of the CPS prosecuted 4 million cases. What's the error rate there?
When the detection rate is so low, how many cases of crime are there? What's the society that government has created that has crime on that scale?
Or is it that they have manufactured crimes as a means of raising cash, and turning the population into criminals as an excuse for a social credit system, denying people services, increasing their current 30% gross profit margin?
@@timg1246
@@robredz The magistrate responsible should be removed from their position. They are clearly incompetent.
They gave me a visit on Wednesday.
I am being investigated apparently.
I don't watch any TV so they can get stuffed.
All because I engaged with them previously and declared I didn't require one.
Better not to engage at all other than "Who are you?" , "Not today thank you." and close the door.
Why do you find 2 years acceptable?
If I stop shopping at Tesco or cancel a subscription the company doesn't contact me every 2 years to see why and if I had changed my mind.
It's Bullshite!
when i moved in to my first flat, never signed up to one and never needed to cancel, think i had one letter and no visit. best to never contact them if you do not plan on watching live tv just keep quite even just to tll them you just moved in and do not require better ignore from day one and never allow them in and if knock door never answer
@@stevekenilworth agreed.
My mistake was engagement.
Lesson learned, Stephen.
Sorry "STEVEN" not Stephen.
Apologies mate.
100% Do not engage!!
Do you submit an annual self-assessment to HMRC for income tax?
Every time I pick up a prescription, I have to sign the back confirming I'm exempt from paying the prescription charge.
Having periodically to engage with the various tax-raising bodies in the country is a commonplace. The TV tax people are no different.
Tv license really need taking to court for harassment
They'll probably go the route of the TV services in Germany and declare that they are a "legal non-entity" and therefore can't be sued.
Nothing would happen because they're actimg within the law unless you can make a really compelling case that their letters are excessive
Yes, thousands of people doing something about this harassment, might make a small difference!
The point is that if they can scare you into a confession? They will!
Don't declare, do not speak, do not email, do not write.
Do not sign.
exactly right. Trouble is many people still think we live in a Britain which is fair, just and institutions are benevolent. This has not been the case for years but people still think we live in a green and pleasant land where youngsters respect the police, your postman knows your name and if he doesn't see you for a couple of days would sound the alarm and doctors who your whole family and treat them without the need to force them into taking dangerous unwanted and unnecessary medications or injections. We are living NOW in a dystopia but as yet the illusion of "everything is normal" is still shimmering in the background. Don't worry, this is soon to drop and the true horror of reality in 21st century Britain is going to reveal itself in all it's hideous glory.
I have a blackmail letter from TVL telling me that I can't make the problem go away by ignoring it, and it will get worse if I do. But I can make the problem go away if I contact them and agree to re pay them what I owe. Only I didn't owe them anything, I canceled my licence which I used to pay in full. The police took my complaint as blackmail until they realised the blackmail letter was from TVL !
Sounds like you need to make a complaint to the Police as blackmail is blackmail irrespective who is making the threat. Capita/TVL/BBC are NOT above the law!
Making a threat that something bad will happen if you don't do something, something that you have no legal or moral obligation to do, is a unjustified threat.
@@125brat The police took my complaint as blackmail until they realised the blackmail letter was from TVL
@@TheSadButMadLad I reported it as malicious communication first but the police decided it was blackmail until they later realised it was actually the real TVL. The video is on my channel BBC playlist, number 8 in the list I think.
@@PINACI Yes, I remember it.
It’s obvious they word things to make you think you need a TV license even when in fact you don’t. This needs to be challenged in court.
It's scare tactics. I used to get warning letters which sounded very threatening, but when i cut through the hyperbole it was empty. What I would like to know if stats on why people were prosecuted. All i hear, from this channel included, is “10,000's get prosecuted”. I paid for a license for 2 years even though i watched no tv (broken antenna) just because I thought I'd be prosecuted on fake evidence. We need actual data on this - how many were prosecuted because A, because B, and so on. How many were based on what was said verbally to them, how many because they were invited inside. What exactly did they find that they classed as breaking the law? We need data, anecdotal evidence, and not vague “lots get prosecuted, not sure why, but dont risk it”. I'm fed up with the tactics - dystopian schemes only work because of lack of transparency.
if thousands of people are incorrectly prosecuted AND CONVICTED, then the entire UK judicial system needs a major overhaul.
It's not scare tactics
It's physiological abuse
I am ready to take them to court if I needed to. I have every letter from the date I cancelled my licence. On,y 1 visit though in 12 years. I abide by the law yet they write to me like a criminal.
ATTENTION! When I cancelled my TV license I very specifically asked multiple times "Will I be issued a refund? (for the remainder of the license that was paid for), I was told a simple yes. I received a cheque for a small amount, I can't remember how much, or the wording of the letter (maybe it said it was a refund for the payment card itself). I called back up and they said I had to initiate a refund for the remaining license. Obviously dodgy games trying to catch out the naïve and vulnerable and keep their money. DO NOT TRUST THE BBC OR TV LICENSING!
Its sad that you needed to say to not trust them. Like why are people paying BBC for basically no adds on BBC yet still need it for every other channel. Should just be a subscription on BBC channels but they wont do that because they know no one will watch it
Same happened to me. When I tried to initiate the refund, I was going around a loop and no one to actually talk to get it sorted. I am still due my refund. I paid by direct debit
According to the law, any monies received for the licence ("TV Licence") can be retained by the BBC. They do not have to give you a penny back - even if "overpaid". To be fair to them (BBC), if you follow their process (run by Capita), you should get a partial, or even a complete refund of any "unused" licenced time, as whole months, but they won't make it easy. If you are asking for a retrospective refund, then they will make it very difficult. But as most people pay six months ahead (or 12 months ahead), you should get a pro rated refund of "future" licence that you do not want. Make sure you keep a record of your requests.
Keep on their backs, I did it by telephone@@shamieoo
It was easy to get a refund, but I felt some deception was going on. @@shiningshtarr3903
Tesco is getting a warrant from the courts to get the police to kick my door In because i stopped buying their food and now shop at Aldi 😂 it’s no difference what the BBC are doing 😂
They used to threaten my dying dad after we'd cancelled his TV license, by simply cancelling his direct debit.
Last letter that he received read "if you don't want a visit from us, pay your TV licence."
I subsequently took over his property, and the mail keeps coming.
They keep threatening me with a visit now, and you know what I'm hoping that they do visit.
The problem with TV licensing is that they are the judge and jury. They are able to prosecute on the word of one of their so called inspectors without any proof.
That's an apposite point!
Not in Scotland they can’t. Corroboration required.
@gerry20p but you can get arrested and put in prison for edgy jokes in Scotland too due to their disgusting and human rights violating hate speech laws
Awful trade wouldn't you say hahahahaha, Scotland is so so so much worse than the UK right now it makes me so sad how far it's fallen, it's like "China Lite " at this point, political corruption and theft included with the police used as a private military for the SNP
@@gerry20pthis might very well explain why i've never been visited by their goons despite the frequent letters informing me that I need a license
Most of the news channels only show recorded segments from the days shows never watch live news no need to,i watch GB news Talk tv on youtube anyway the time of the live broadcast is on screen so it's not live if you are watch a gbnews at 10 o'clock at night which was broadcast at 7 am that day
I can’t imagine why having to reconfirm the lack of need for a licence at 2 year intervals should be considered reasonable.
It's because households sometimes change
If they want to send a sales letter (which is all it is) then fine, but they write it in a way that makes it appear you are obligated to respond when you are not and then if you don't you start getting their threatening letters and harassment.
@@amalekedomite Racist scumbag.
@@PastPresented - I know why it’s done but I don’t consider it reasonable. As noted in another reply (i.e. Pizza place) what other business would get away with adopting a similar approach?
@@amalekedomite Ask that to the electromagnetic spectrum
The simplest way for BBC/TV Licensing to stop any confusion is to require you to need a TV licence to watch or record any BBC programme or use BBC iplayer. No other company or service benefits from the licence fee and therefore should not require a TV licence to watch or record. Problem solved.
But they are saying it's ANY LIVE TV SERVICES and that includes ITV, 4 and 5. This is all such nonsense. We used to understand that it was only BBC so when did all this happen.
It's always been the case since the license is for using the equipment not for receiving BBC transmissions specifically. This goes all the way back to the 1920s when radio receiver licenses were introduced. @@lsmith992
Still confused about their Prime and RUclips thing and even their « from abroad » thing too wtf
They know very well that if the law said that then nobody would watch BBC. By including all the other companies within the licensing requirement, then BBC won't lose viewers. The only reason the Government allows this to continue is because license fees fund the BBC and they don't need to. In Australia our ABC is funded directly by the Government, and depending on which party is in power they either get more or less funding. BBC funding depends on how hard they push people to get licenses, and the companies employed to do this probably get bonuses for pushing hard, hence the dirty tactics being used.
The TV license also befits the Radio/TV transmitters used by other companies.
I cancelled mine today & called to confirm all that I needed to know legally and the RUclips section she read me only included the first line of those guidelines! I queried this as I couldn’t believe I would need a tv licence to watch people I follow building lego live 🤷🏼♀️ I was advised ‘probably best to keep to your licence’! Seeing as it took me so many years to get the courage to cancel it I said no & am now very pleased to have found your content that’s I’m not streaming live 🙄😂😂 xx Thanks for the info 👍🏼
TV licensing took me to court a few years back.
They told me l needed a TV licence because l had bought a TV.
I was watching an old film on Netflix when they came they said because of this l needed a licence.
I plead not guilty the TV prosecutor guy laughed at me .
He wasn't laughing when l produced proof from Netflix that l didn't need a licence to stream their films etc .
I beat TV licensing
😅
How did they know you bought a TV? This is disgraceful.
How TF did they know you were watching netflix?
@@DiamondCake2 A long time ago, I bought my mother a TV because hers had broken. The man in Currys asked for my address! I said 'no thanks, I don't want any marketing'. But he said - "oh, we're actually required to record it for TV licensing, but I can opt you out of our marketing that's fine"
So, I gave him my home address as he asked (not the installation address) because I don't watch TV and, to be honest, I love dealing with the harassment }:¬)
Now, I don't know if he was correct. But it does seem as though details given when you purchase a TV in person or online, may have once resulted in a notification to TV Licensing.
On TVLA's shady website of misinformation...
*By law, dealers must notify TV Licensing of sales of TV sets, DVD, video and digital video recorders, digital set-top boxes, PCs and laptops with TV cards and TV cards sold separately. TV Licensing will then contact people, where appropriate, to confirm whether they need to purchase a licence.*
... so, I suspect that it does happen. Legal requirement or not : /
TV Licensing, the Post Office, The RSPB etc need to have the power of prosecution removed
RSPB
I think you mean RSPCA not RSPB! But nevertheless you're quite right on the principle!!
RSPCA as well.
The RSPCA absolutely should have the power of prosecution. It's weird you find that an issue. I can only assume you abuse animals regularly but don't see it as abuse
Who would want animal abuse to go unpunished? You’re a freak
Is it a surprise to anyone that the villain investigator Bradshaw in the Post Office scandal used to work on TV licensing 😮
I agree, this could be the next big scandal , and the goons the BBC employ had better watch out ( or better still get out)
😳 blimey.! *That's* not *going away!*
After TV it could be Council Tax. Apparently it goes to Central Gov and they dish out the money as they see fit. This is not how they tell us it works and explains why the Council ignore the local population and do what the government wants, the Gov control the money.
Lol Bradshaw who signs court statements and dies not read them or understand them lol
Understanding what you can and cannot watch without a TV license is not overly complex. One might expect that the BBC, given its abundant resources, could create a webpage to clearly convey this information to the general public.
Just watch what’s available, I didn’t sign no contract or ask for any business, if anything they have infiltrated my home and attempting to programme my mind to watch their shows, sky movies won’t let me watch unless I pay for it, so if they don’t like it block the service to my home.
government should be running an ad campaign informing people of exactly what you can and can't watch
@@mrpugster They are more than happy to let the bbc cause stress to their law abiding tax paying citizens.
If they did that, created a webpage to clearly convey this information to the general public, what you can and can't watch, millions would stop paying for a licence and they would likely lose billions in revenue .. this is why they don't
it is not in their interest to do this. To cast doubt in the mind of non tech-savvy people in particular is a means to secure funding through fear/threat of prosecution. They are acutely aware that the uninformed older generation are dying off, and the younger generation simultaneously watch less traditional TV, and have a better grasp of TV licensing ... but they are too stuck in their ways to pivot their business model into one that actually suits the 21st Century.
Also, there is no legal requirement to inform them you don't need a TV licence, as regularly stated by Chilli Jon Carne.
There no is requirement, legal or otherwise too
I applied on there web site to say I don’t need one and answered all there question no I don’t watch any TV from the BBC and they said I still need a TV licence. It’s tuning into a scam in my mind.
There’s one or two trick questions you have to answer Yes to mean No, go and read it again; it almost caught me out.
Edit: Like “can you confirm you DON’T something or other” and you have to say “yes”.
Dan, you innocent summer child, it's obvious that keeping the wording vague allows them to fit up more people.
That's why the only way to deal with them is to bin any letters, and if they visit just say 'no thanks' and shut the door. It's that simple. Don't engage with them, don't give them your name, don't answer any questions.
And don't sign anything they ask you to.
There isn't a single letter, let alone sentence on those letters that hasn't been thought out for months to achieve exactly what you described!!!
Don't talk to them & don't let them in.
The problem regarding watching live TV is that the BBC seem to be presuming that if you're able to, then you obviously do and are therefore guilty.
My daughter has no tv a was told she has to purchase a TV licence because she could watch on her daughters tablet. She doesn't 🤷
Absolutely disgusting. They're acting like thugs. Have zero tolerance and report them to the police like I did.
I had TV people turn up to my home with two bruisers demanding that they be let in to check if I was using a TV w/o a license.
They forced themselves in, even after I told them that the person they are looking for no longer lives at this address.. they then saw a TV in the living room, and a pc attached to it.. and told me to prove to them i wasnt watching TV.. they saw an Ariel on the roof, and they see a tv in the room.. so i must be lying to them..
So i turned it on and it was just static.. as i explained to them that I just use the TV to play games off my PC.. so yet again demanded to see what I was watching and flick through channels..
I told them that the remote was by his foot and he could do it himself.. I saw him try to access BBC and press the red button a few times.. you know trying to make the tv work and "catch me red handed"..
Meanwhile, on my phone i had gone to porn hub, and queued up a hardcore gay orgy video and had connected to the chromecast.. just waiting for the dude to change it to check if i had iplayer..
so lo and behold he clicks the button, and out blares the loudest moans of porn that could be heard.. and he threw the remote across the room in shock.. I just said.. so you dont like that I am pansexual as well as not watching tv?
Him and his 2 thugs ran out like they were heard the ice cream van drive past..
Never heard back from them
@@MarkOfTzeentch Brilliant! That is hilarious. :)🤣
@@MarkOfTzeentchthey’re not allowed to enter your property unless you allow/invite them in. They should be charged.
Daniel,
I’m license free and have been for several years.
When explaining to friends who are considering doing the same, I tell them you only need a license if you watch programs that can be looked up in TV guide/schedule, or the BBC I player or some news channels (sky news for example) who put out a live news feed on RUclips.
I agree the wording in the “no licence needed” declaration is vague and confusing (deliberately so) so that people who do NOT need a licence are put under pressure to get one.
Yet another reason to NOT fund the BBC !!!
I find it absolutely outrageous that a private organisation is able to transmit an unprotected signal and then demand EVERYONE who could POSSIBLY intercept that signal with civilian equipment to provide this private organisation with their name name and address.
Imagine any other business in the world did the equivalent of this, it's ludicrous.
They provided a free BBC world channel for other countries in the world.
@@TheJpf79 so? we arent "other countries in the world"
@@lordsirmoist1594 It's not hard to figure out Maurice.
They are called "Programs" for a reason.
@@daddylonglegs2010 ???
Why the hell do we even need a licence to watch live, non-bbc broadcasts anyway? ITV uses adverts as well as RUclips etc. It is absolutely baffling.
We used to own a property in a deep valley in Wales where there was no TV signal available. None, yet we kept receiving these threatening letters. I actually enjoyed replying to say that if they would provide a TV signal in the valley so that I could watch TV, I would happily pay. Eventually someone replied to say that they had noted that I did not need a licence - but they would write again in 2 years to check if I needed one again. There is still no TV in the valley.
Were they hoping the valley floor had risen due to volcanic activity?🤣
Maybe they thought enough BS could spew from the Welsh Senedd to level out the valley:)
Maybe they thought enough BS could spew from the Welsh Senedd to level out the valley:)
Maybe they thought enough BS could spew from the Welsh Senedd to level out the valley:)
Maybe they thought enough BS could spew from the Welsh Senedd to level out the valley:)
I think this confusion is a symptom of bigger problems - the world has changed since the creation of the BBC and the creation of the TV licence, and it's no longer clear what those two things are for.
They are for state propoganda. It's bloody crystal clear.
They are sales representatives and chancers at that, using intimidation tactics to garner compliance. That's it. Any and all correspondence I get goes straight in the bin. Should they knock on the door, and I answer it, my response will be "I don't answer questions". They also will not be getting into the property without a warrant. I repeat again. Chancers. All they are hoping is that either you admit you've been watching live TV without a license or you're dumb enough to let them in and give them hard evidence you have been. Neither of those two scenarios can happen if you keep your mouth shut and close the door, or don't even open the door in the first place.
Alistair Bonnington, previously a lawyer for bbc Scotland is suing Capita apparently and I feel would be a useful addition to the evidence of wrong doing by said company. Thanks for all You do, all the best to You and your Family.
After working for them, I always tell people on a No License Needed to ring up and apply for a WOIRA Request
A bit off topic but relevant, when I stopped paying for a licence 12 years ago, within the first month I got a call from a marketing company claiming to be a survey. I played along as I was bored. The third question was... What's your favourite TV show. I said I don't watch TV, the person on the phone said... what? everybody watches tv, you must watch it sometimes. I scolded him for presuming to know more about my life than I do and hung up.
Make of that what you will.
In the 12 years I've had one TV licence visit, told the foreign lad that I don't entertain cold callers, and to write and make an appointment. That was about 6 years ago. I have an old shoe box that is almost full of unopened TV licence letters.
The beeb has become a tick. Latching on and drawing the life blood of something they don't care about other than its own need.
The clock is ticking on the licence fee
Oh, I thought you were talking about the monachy.....
TV licencing is a total joke / con / nightmare, I am so glad I live on a boat and don't need to worry about them..... oh I do, they still send letters / men to my yard to check it out BUT always say, oh don't worry and drive away as soon as they see the 5 circus trucks lol.
We need this content. Because its helping people. 😊
Thank you I worked all this out by myself. So glad you as a professional have proven it. There's so many people that won't listen. TV licensing are a powerful Monopoly trying to keep power. A case of old money gone bad.
I have received a threatening letter from TV licencing every month for the last 18 months. I await a visit from the 'goons'. I do not watch or record any live TV from any broadcast channel and certainly never watch anything from the BBC on any platform. I have uninstalled BBC I-Player from my TV. So why the threats? Netflix, Sky etc don't demand to inspect my equipment, as I don't subscribe to them either.
If you watch live content on sky you still need a licence
Every property in the U.K. is on a database. The law states that each must be correctly licensed. HM Gov has outsourced the checks to Capita.
@@joejl8729 He just said he's not subscribed to Sky.
I told the BBC to "get stuffed" more than ten years ago at a different address. I have heard nothing from them. They did send a "detector" van when I first did this, but when I went out with a camcorder trying to catch them out, they slammed the doors and drove off at high speed.
The 'detector vans' were another bullshit ploy to con people into believing they could accurately pinpoint where a tv set was being used.
That's because they can't detect anything, it's just fear mongering propaganda, to terrorise you in to buying a TV licence!
There’s no such thing as a detector van it was a scam ???
@lifehackervideos5442 Yes! IT IS a scam! This is how it was explained to me years ago. The light from the screen bounces off walls, doors, etcetera, and hits the window. The detector van equipment then decodes the light information from the window. From this, they can tell exactly what you are watching. Two words - Horse Shite! 🤣
@@earthisslunaranomaliesandb3809 no bloody way 😂😂😂 "decodes the light", so what? Just how eyes work???
Its always baffled me how a private company can have so much power and can get away with breaking the law by putting out fraudulent information and not even be bothered when they're proven wrong. The whole company should have been disolved and half of them charged just for what they did over the saville business
Maybe they were set up by the intelligence service back in the 30's.
Thank you for clarifying,I was getting a bit apprehensive about watching non tv channels live on youtube and yes its extremely vague which leads to people paying for a licence they dont need.
I'm glad someone is taking an interest in this. The TV licensing people basically act like a protection racket. I'm convinced this stuff is worded to confuse the vulnerable. I don't see why I should give them any information about myself. Jumped up sales people masquerading as law enforcement.
My female cousin who I was living with at the time got really bothered by those letters even though she only watched Netflix, she ended up paying it against my advice. I bet you a large chunk of people who pay don't even use the service.
I canceled my TV license a few weeks ago, since then, I received 3 letters from them, the 1st letter was to confirm the cancellation, 2nd letter was the refund letter with a £50.00 cheque, and the 3rd one today was to say that an enforcement agent may come to visit my house as 1 in 8 people cancel by mistake and are illegally watching live TV.
Send a letter back telling them not to bother as 7 out of 8 visits after cancellation are pointless.
They wanted to visit me too, so I cancelled their implied right access!!!
It's a cheque, not a check.
i get the same one turning up at the door each year. each year he gets the same answer, nope, and if you come back with police, make sure he's sexy. Door shut. this year he got me on the close in my block and I thought, "I've got time...." held him up for half an hour ranting about fruit fly infestations. he did slip in "On did you see that on the telly?" and I replied, "BOOKS. I READ."
Then I started ranting about council cutbacks to libraries and he couldn't get away fast enough.
Still not got my sexy police officer.
Write back and advise them that you are removing any implied right of access to your property, and their visits would constitute trespass. They will acknowledge that, and then not bother you for 2 years.
I just think it's hilarious and yet terrifying that these people are making their "guidance" so confusing and contradictory to try and scare people onto paying this idiotic fee. So glad I don't have a TV license
Exactly, they make it so convoluted and use scare tactics to get people to pay up.
I had a letter from them that seemed to say that if I watched any kind of video on any kind of device I may need a TV licence. I know the law but if I were relying on their letter I'd be worried.
It's not a fee it's a tax.
@@rattylol It's not a tax it's an indulgence fee. You don't have to watch TV but it is illegal to do so. To absolve you of the crime you pay a fee for a licence to watch TV.
The British government needs to get rid of the TV licence.
If the wording is not corrected it shouldn’t be enforceable.
If they are lying in their wording pamphlet then why don't we get them with a Class Action Lawsuit?
If we win then the TV licence gets abolished......forever!
I told them early last year that I am not watching live TV. Not a week has gone by when I do not receive a threatening letter. I always drop them straight in the shredder. This, in anyone's book is harassment and from any other company would not be tolerated.
There's an ex-BBC lawyer in Glasgow now taking TV Licensing/Capita to court over the way he has been personally treated regarding his licence fee. Maybe the BBC can start to regain our trust by getting rid of Capita and trying a different company?
It should be put out to tender. A cynic might conclude that brown envelopes change hands.
and you would allow them to regain trust?!?!?!?!?!
And this is why the British public are doomed
Bunch of fools letting the wolves back in ffs, open your damn eyes
The BBC protected monsters for years and still do, including one of the world's most prolific child predators
Did you forget about that??
Thanks for the great advice once again
I cancelled my TV licence about 5-4 years ago when they wanted 2 years payments upfront when everyone was cancelling, about £250 they wanted.
I cancelled it on the spot!
Same as post office scandal.
That letter saying they need to check on you every two years sounds like you need to prove your innocence. Where else does this happen in a free society? Why do you need to prove you're not watching TV? They are presuming you are watching TV and need to check on you so you can prove you're not a criminal. Thousands convicted every year over watching TV? This is straight out a dystopian nightmare.
Where else does it happen in a free society?
Do you do an annual self-assessment tax return?
There else.
It's a Live TV tax. They have a legal obligation to collect it and to ensure non-payers are legitimately not paying, just as HMRC are obligated to collect the correct tax revenue from tax payers.
@@dizwell Yes I do a yearly tax assessment, however I work under a PAYG system so tax is taken from every pay every fortnight. Therefore the government is aware of my taxable income, I only have to include other income and any deductions. The government already know I have an income, and if I don't or it's under the taxable threshold I don't have to prove it I simply make a declaration on a form.
Rather poor example. You say they have a legal right, but you have to prove your innocence. You can defend it all you like but it remains an unjust system. But I guess keep up the good fight! Keep defending your tyranny!
@@bilko991 Most people are PAYG and do the self-assessment for allowable expenses and other income. That's what it's for! The point is not what it is or what it's for, but that you have no problem keeping the HMRC tax authorities informed about your situation.
Yet many of those same people seem to think it's an entirely egregious matter to keep the TV tax authorities informed about their situation.
Indeed, as you say, HMRC already knows about much of your income and tax payments -yet you do an annual return anyway. TV Licensing knows practically nothing about what equipment you have or what you use it for, yet them enquiring about it is a symptom of a totalitarian society?! The cognitive dissonance involved in thinking like that is just astounding to me.
So no, I think it a very good example of how we all are happy to share information to the authorities when it suits us, but somehow the TV people (Gary Linneker...Jimmy Saville...mutter...woke...bias...mutter) are completely off-piste.
They're not, was my point.
And by the way, if I claim expenses on my tax return, I have to be prepared to submit receipts. Is that "proving my innocence", or is it merely demonstrating the veracity of the things I'm stating?
@@dizwell Oh I agree, the cognitive dissonance on display here is astounding! But no need to get worked up, you enjoy your tyranny and having the government intrude into your life!
@@bilko991 You're the one merrily sharing information with the government when it suits.
Me? I filled in the no TV licence required declaration 3 or 4 years ago and haven't heard from them since. I suspect the government intrudes rather more into your life than it does into mine.
Nice deflection on the "worked up" business though. It meant you didn't have to deal with the point about needing receipts for deductions you claim... you know, having to "prove your innocence".
As it happens, I'm not in the least worked up. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency, which I get you don't like.
As a barrister, Daniel has the opportunity here to coordinate a class action and challenge these unfair convictions based on TVL's unclear and clearly contradictor bguidance. This is on par with the Post Office scandal. My heart goes out to the Down's Syndrome lady who was convicted even though her finances were controlled by Greenwich Council. Absolute negligence on the part of the council and a safeguarding investigation should be instigated. Go on Daniel, you and Al could right this wrong 💪
There must be a reason Daniel makes so many vlogs on the TV licence yet chooses to not discuss or start any action?
He could but he won't.
I notice he never answers any pleas for help from his viewers.
He’s a Barrister. He takes instructions from solicitors, accountants etc, not Joe Public. You want to use a Barrister, instruct a solicitor first.
Why should you have to let them know you don't need a TV licence? BECAUSE YOU DON'T!
TV licences should be banished. Forever.
That “Enjoy” bit is 100% a poor attempt to guilt you into feeling bad for watching BBC without “paying” for the privilege by owning a TV licence.
Not to mention I might "enjoy" watching BBC content on iPlayer at a friend or relative's house who DOES have a license. Does that make me liable because I enjoyed watching BBC content on iPlayer (all be it not at my own home) ?
@@stevemason4753 you will have to have a TV licence man move in with you to monitor any non-licensed quests experiencing Joy in the house at any BBC programming.
To clarify as you asked: Primarily people stream content using bbc iplayer like netflix. They (bbc) utilise the akamai content delivery (CDN) network to host their content.
Prime video has hosted tennis which was live.
ITV and Channel 4 apps do have a live TV section but primarily are used for catch up services. It does mean you're just a click away from breaking the law of you accidentally press live tv on any of those apps.
Capita who run the TV licencing agency are a joke.
I'd have to say that if it does turn into another prosecution scandal, it's been too long coming. This Single Justice Procedure thing sounds very sketchy to me.
My partner was prosecuted by TVL back when BBC iPlayer wasn't part of the licence, she was asked by the enforcement officer what's going on Eastenders, she told him what was going on, that was enough for him to read her rights and sent to court and made a criminal. He did not ask where she watched it, he never entered or checked the equipment, though apparently he checked the tv and stated he could tune into BBC1 2, ITV, 4 and Five, on a Sony TV. First off, how, we had no aerial connected, and secondly we didn't have a Sony TV. Yet when at court the magistrates sitting believed that broadband internet access alone equates to needing a licence.
Such a con. I’m so glad I ditched my TV licence. Glad you’ve highlighted what a scam it is.
Can't we have a program like mister bates and the post office to expose this scam
I have recently thought about it like a driving license. Or the lack of. If you didn't drive a car and had never applied for a license, do the DVLA harass you every year with "In case you were thinking about driving without a license!!!!!!" letters? I have never had such letters.
I did get a license to drive. I STILL don't get letters every year threatening with court to pay for that privilege.
I do get threatening letters from TVL telling me that I may be breaking the law if this and that. "Great", thanks for letting me know, now go away.
Good point
The difference between TVL and DVLA is that TVL have a private company desperate to make money so will do anything to get it, including acting unlawfully. DVLA is just a bureaucracy and has to follow the law which means that they can only act after the fact when someone has been found to be breaking the law. TVL don't care and act as if someone has broken the law.
Why do you need to declare whether you need a TV licence or not? Does one need to declare to the DVLA when one becomes of legal age to drive whether a driving licence is needed or not?
You dont need to declare whether you need a TV licence or not, in fact it is better not to as the declaration requires you to make statements about other people over whom you have no control.
You don't need to declare anything. They made that bit up, like most of it
Imagine trying to explain to your kids that there are a subset of RUclips channels that they can’t watch because they qualify as TV providers. Let’s be honest it’s vague on purpose. And that means it is the next false conviction scandal.
I've always thought watching any RUclips wasn't a reason for needing a licence? The lives arn't the BBC. Content creators arn't obligated to be owned by the government but are self employed.
I knew they would go after people who watch anything but BBC (You Tube, Netflix) and don't want a tv licence!
Are they gonna go after people who watch TikTok and Instagram next!?
I think it counts as live TV if its also broadcasted at the same time.
@@asumazillayeah but it’s rarely if never the case…they would need to persecute the false channel stealing their content to « live stream it » on RUclips which happens sometimes
@@naminakamura5290 The Sky News channel on RUclips gives you the exact same content that you would get from watching Sky News via a Sky satellite dish. I don't think there is any doubt that you would need a licence for that.
Surely anything that doesn't touch the UK broadcasting network should not be subject to a licence fee otherwise it is just them piggybacking on other services that we pay for separately and that in my view is theft.
For years BBC have broken the law so many times its unbelievable, they also at one time told people they had to pay TV licence if they have a PC, because apparently if you have any device that is "capable" of using live TV. I personally haven't watched live TV for over 12 years since my partner died and every 2 years get bombarded with TV licensing junk mail, as well as visits from them until they send me a mail telling me I won't be bothered by them for 2 years. Any other company trying this would be taken to court for harassment.
Well done Daniel, you make life so much better for a lot of people with your efforts to educate.. Thank you!
They have been getting away with this for years, glad people are catching on.
Scandalous, indeed!!!!
Oddly enough, received this exact same letter in the post this morning, so I can confirm this is indeed a genuine letter with the same wording. Honestly the sooner they switch to an ad-based model rather than a license fee the better - maybe then they'd actually have a good reason to be competitive and I'd have a reason to watch.
Many moons ago, I had a black and white TV which we used to watch, So i had a Black and white TVL, They come around my home, I let them in to show them my B&W tv and he pointed out i had a Video recorder that picks up colour TV. I got fined £180 which back then was almost two weeks take home where i was working.
TV LICENCE SHOULD BE SCRAPPED.
I’ve had similar letter twice. Letter claiming that watching any live shows, even RUclips, on any device, requires TV license.
Does this mean someones individual live stream, or a sky news live stream?
@@jackcunningham3401 I would guess, Sky live will be classed as 'live' TV, but people creating their own content - no.
Unfortunately, the government is quite happy writing laws with terms no one has defined. So it is unclear if live streaming from small creators count, and that is a situation capita choose to exploit.
So Disney Junior is a channel on RUclips. Mostly plays the Kid show Bluey. Seems odd that we'd have to pay the BBC for a show broadcast by Disney. Same applies to Amazon Prime, if they decided to make a live broadcast, this despite being an amazon subscriber. Doesn't seem right.
@@jackcunningham3401 it says 'watch or stream live content' So literally watching Oxford Street CCTV/webcam streamed live on RUclips requires you to pay a license to BBC.
I got an email with the "tv licensing" banner saying I needed to give my debit card details to update my licence, with a link. After some careful technical digging I could see it was a phishing email. Be careful. Be vigilant.
I’ve been saying this for weeks now, Capita use the same tactics, the same bullying approach and undoubtedly the same sloped forehead thugs. You would think someone in the company would be asking some serious questions after Horizon; but more likely they are doing some serious shredding!
We keep getting threatening letters . We live in the Remote Scottish Highlands , no TV signal, no wi-fi, no land line. Why would we need a TV licence when they don't provide us with a TV signal up here. Surely they must know where the "Black Spots" are where they don't provide any signal. It's terrible receiving these menacing letters.
Ask them to stop contacting you. If they ignore you twice, then report them. Strictly speaking though, you could still make use of a TV Licence (to protect yourself from the prohibition), for example, if you used Starlink to access the internet, and then used that internet connection to access iPlayer, or receive a "television programme service".
That letter is real. I got one myself this weekend. Luckily, I knew the wording was misleading and incorrect regarding RUclips "content."
The real problem is the scaremongering of the wording to force people to pay for a licence they don't need.
Keep up the good work 👍
It shocks me that a third of convictions of women in the UK are TV licencing related. A third!
At one time the commonest reason a woman would be in prison was for not paying for a to license
I read their guidance as we don't know what we class as a live TV programme until we prosecute you and we are the ones who make the distinction between what is classed a TV programme or content depending on some variables and how we feel. I mean how as a rational person are you supposed to respond to that? Its no wonder people get cross about it.
The thing that really rips my knitting is that if you only watch programmes on sky, virgin, etc, they're making you pay twice for the 'pleasure'. Don't watch, don't pay!
Thanks to your other video, I felt sufficiently confident to cancel my TV licence today and those disclaimer questions do seem very clumsily worded probably in an effort to dissuade people from going through with it. They didn't dissuade me. I honestly don't watch ANY live TV or even scheduled programming, so I probably could've cancelled my licence a long time ago!
The fact that we need a licence to watch ANY TV service, not just BBC TV services, is ridiculous in itself.
Imagine having to pay Google to use the internet
Why is it a criminal offence? If I don't pay my gas bill it isn't a criminal offence. Surely if anything should be a civil matter it should be this
Because it's a TAX, although the Govt and BBC like to pretend otherwise.
@@nickbrough8335 A woke indoctrination tax...for the record, I prefer my brainwashing to at least be free of charge.
@@nickbrough8335 It's a subscription not a tax. I don't subscribe so I pay nothing. Simple as that
@@MikeEves no it isnt. Thats the point
Sooo... have I got this right: British people living in the UK have to pay to watch the BBC, but if I'm a foreigner _in any other country_ I can watch it all for FREE?!
We have become accustomed to paying it and most British people just do as they are told. I don't think the BBC have enough resources to go after foreign viewers.
@@matty_mcmattface They wouldn't have to go after anyone if it was a Subscription Only service, like Netflix. Then the people who watched it would be the people who paid, no matter where they lived. Instead of trying to charge innocent Brits for a service that they're providing free to everyone else. Problem solved.
@@goldeneddie I agree with you fully. Pay for what you use - not for what others use in such small numbers that it needs to be subsidised.
I live in the USA and am blocked for that reason. I also tried using a VPN but they block VPN connections too.
@@dereklh Honestly, you're not missing out on anything. The 'news' content is the same as your major channels and the creative content is reducing in quality all the time. You could probably get it with some VPN - I live in the UK and a lot of Russian / Eastern channels are blocked here because our government wants to control the media narrative. Just to be balanced and objective - the BBC (many years ago) was very good and highly respected here; but that has changed a lot. Aside from people not wanting to pay the license on principle they had issues with inaccurate / biased reporting - and worse than that 'cover up' scandals surrounding high profile employees like Jimmy Savile (read for yourself).
I don’t know why they don’t just abolish the Tv licence and make BBC SELF fund, they already make billions from reruns of popular programs from years ago, but this is put into another BBC company and we as licence payers do not ever see that money. Even though it was our licence monies that paid to have the original programmes made.
So where has our money gone 🤔
Sports presenters and the likes
ITS GONE TO PAY GARY LINEKERS ,ONE MILLION POUND SALARY.
How long will it be that a streaming service can be offered with the USP that it can be viewed without needing to own a TV license?
You're fighting the good fight, thanks for sticking up for the common person! 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
One point that concerns is that there may actually be convictions under the 'Single Justice Procedure' whereby the convicted person is never notified, either of the prosecution, or the resulting conviction. A relatively minor address error, or some other administrative problem, could easily lead to that.
You're absolutely right,many people have been to scared to show up at court and challenge this,as such got prosecuted in there absence ending in a fine and criminal record.. these people in there thousands possibly need to be justified because this smells of a money making cover up or corruption..Ian
“10’s of thousands prosecuted each year”. This must mean they let the investigators into their homes?
Or their goon squads just lie about the evidence!
I’ve just found your stream on parking and tv licensing and by god it puts a spin on these subjects, keep up the good work , I will make a point of viewing more content 👍
I cancelled my tv license about 2 months ago and already had them at the door wanting to see 🙄
I still don't understand how the government knows a person is watching TV without a license unless there is some sort of confession. It seems to me that this situaton has become a house of cards and it's just a matter of time before it collapses, either because of the proliferation of streaming, basic non-compliance, or some other reason. By the way, I'm an American, but I greatly enjoy these videos. There's nothing finer than an obviously competent person explaining the law so clearly and intelligently. This subject doesn't affect me directly in the least, but it still interests me greatly.
They don't know, that's part of the larger grift
There are some practices regularly used by DWP that need a serious review.
My point is ......why should we pay the BBC to watch stuff that other people make and don't get part of the TV licence money for making 🤔
The bottom line is, unfortunately it's the law, whether or not you agree with it. It does however also fund other BBC output e.g. BBC news, sports, etc which I am certain pretty much every person in the UK uses at some point (it would be very hard not to). Personally I really appreciate the BBC BUT I do think there is a more progressive way to fund it than this nonsense. I certainly don't want it to become a hellscape of advertising and product placement like a lot of other outlets though...
@@SBBUK And that statement in itself kind of makes you part of the problem 🤔🙄
@@anyonecanroughit I'm not sure what you mean by that?
@@SBBUK they are charging you to watch anything live on the TV ,this includes RUclips. No part of the TV licence goes to these companies or people that are producing live TV, the bias broadcasting company gets it all . People spouting BBC propaganda are therefore part of this problem. "Plagiarism" is against the law. Buy charging you to watch ANY live TV the BBC are making money out of other people's productions . Simple 😉
Yes, a scandal. I cannot watch you live in my own home and I have heard that they take live to be longer than the programme or still prosecutable if you just watch part of the programme transmitted.
I don't drive and have therefore never needed a driving licence but somehow if the BBC ran the scheme I would need to prove I don't own a car, have never sat in the drivers seat with the engine running nor have I polished or cleaned a car or repaired one. And I would need to prove it every 2 years and sign to prove it and then worry that as a passenger in the front seat I could be assumed to be using the vehicle without said licence.