BARRISTER EXPLAINS: Why TV Licensing Law is Flawed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лют 2023
- SUPPORT ME:
buy.stripe.com/14kdUS6gb4f26e...
Check out my exclusive content: www.blackbeltbarrister.com
Also me: ua-cam.com/users/blackbeltsecrets?...
My wife's cooking: ua-cam.com/users/easychinesecookin...
BlackBeltFLOOF: ua-cam.com/users/blackbeltfloof?su...
Address for PAID FORMAL ADVICE *ONLY*: clerks@ShenSmith.com
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it, as there is no contract between us and I am not instructed by you.
For formal advice, please contact clerks@ShenSmith.com.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
I honestly don't believe this will ever be tested in court. The last thing that TV licensing wants is to risk setting a legal precedent certain cases do not need a license.
Many times they drop the case if a person turns up with legal representation prepared to contest the charge. Especially if the case is dubious, ie lying goons or grey area like UA-cam.
TRUE! Though I do believe they did try once... And that case was dismissed!!!
Maybe, maybe not, the problem is increasing numbers of live UA-cam streamers are becoming ever more professional with regularly scheduled broadcasts, some are already very close to mainstream media quality and may have a team of people involved in their production, plus they could be making a significant profit along with sponsors on top, so the fine line between what is reasonably recognised as a television programme or not is getting thinner. If the BBC won a test case it would be a major victory and gamechanger for them. Don't get me wrong, I hate the BBC and I hope it never comes to this, no-one should be forced to pay for the BBC unless they choose to watch it.
@@pjcnet yep there's a news one called redacted on you tube, production value is easily on par with say lower end mainstream TV and regular as clockwork Monday to Friday
You could go further than this and say everything is unlawful, you have prisoners in thier cells 24/7 this is a human rights violation by the home office.
Surely any channel that doesn't benefit from the licence fee shouldn't require a licence? The whole law on TV Licencing needs to be reviewed. It may have been fit for purpose back when we had 3 channels, but in today's crowded market it doesn't make any sense. For example, if I needed a TV licence to watch your channel, it seems only fair that you would get a percentage of the licence fee.
Indeed that's how we all believe it should be... But the Laws are outdated and still function on the 1970's Premise that there are only 4 Channels a person could watch... The TV License Laws have barely been touched since TV Broadcasts first became a thing... In effect, TV Licensing holds everyone to Ransom!
I mean, Why should you Pay SKY for a Subscription but also pay the BBC?
(Though - I must be critical of SKY and Virgin here as well.. They also do similar as they LOCK some BBC Channels behind Paywalls... You have to subscribe to SKY TV's Kids Entertainment Package for instance to access CBBC and Cbeebies... So in that case, You pay Sky TWO subscription Fees AND the BBC... And SKY / Virgin should not be able to do that! If you pay the TV license ALL BBC Owned Channels should be Available regardless of Subscription!)
You'd think so wouldn't you 🤷?? Why do they get all of the money instead of sharing, tjust to watch repeats. Not had a license for 5yrs now. Legally as these programs can be found on the internet/smart TV. 👌
@@Phoenix2312 Only three Channels in the 70s. I remember because I was always out playing as there was never anything on the box. The laws defo need updating.
@@Phoenix2312 It started well before the 1970's it was actually an extension of the radio licence introduced back in 1904. The new fangled television was admittedly correctly regarded as a fancy pants radio receiver because it essentially was exactly that. The earliest licence to include both radio and television was introduced in 1946. It seems the radio part was scrapped back in 1971 from my bit of brief research but televisions required a licence as a fancy radio receiver from the beginning it did not start in the 1970's. Which as I say makes sense a television is by definition a radio tuner with additional circuitry that can extract a picture in addition to the audio and display or record the picture component also. It is just dumb that many parts of the would has not yet caught up with the fact that licencing television reception is outdated and pointless, the UK is not alone in this regard. Broadcast will always require licencing as someone will need to portion out the spectrum so users are not stepping on each other constantly.
@@Phoenix2312 Surely that's got to be illegal? They can't block access to BBC output, or any other subscription free channel, whether you've paid the TVL fee or not. It's down to TVL to prove whether you're watching licenceable broadcasts or not.
The other aspect of this is the fact that the TV Licensing organisation insists on you confirming for definite in the negative that you do not require a licence. I have challenged them about this. I have compared them to other licensing authorities. Someone who does not have a driving licence is not continually bombarded by DVLA with threatening letters that IF they are driving a car without a licence, they are breaking the law. Nor do I get bombarded with letters from the weapon licensing authorities threatening me that I better not be using a weapon without a licence. I have repeatedly told the TV Licensing that I do not wish to receive offers of contract from them and to remove my address from their marketing database. I informed them that any future correspondence would attract a £50 processing fee - to which I received a reply stating that they would not enter into any contract with me (thereby telling me that I could equally opt not to enter into a contract with them). I subsequently received a letter asking me if I would be in on a certain date (though indicating that their inspector might call on that date though it could be another date). I replied to ask them to confirm the exact date they were intending to visit so that I could ensure that I had cake (or at least biscuits) available to offer the inspector while we sat down to watch a TV that I don't have. My view is that I do not need to go to the DVLA site to confirm I do not have a car, so why should I have to go to the TVLA to confirm I do not have a TV!!
I would not watch TV if they paid me. The news is beyond a joke.
Thanks Black belt! That was illuminating. I read somewhere online that the harrasing letters these collection agencies send are indeed in breach of law by trying to obtain money by a threat of court proceedings
You can apply for a no license required document from the agency. I have had zero harassment since I started doing that. The harassment comes when you do nothing. I don't agree with harassment, and these letters are disgusting - my dead aunt received 10 of them between her funeral and the time it took to sell her property. Even after the license board was contacted and informed. They are disgusting and I will never pay them a penny. And I dont watch BBC content. If you do, then you should pay. But if they start to take money for something they did nothing for, surely thats fraud. Imagine SKY TV charging you for a zoom call when you are not even a SKY customer.
They are very threatening. I can confirm that. It should be illegal to bombard innocent people with threats. I've got some issues with anxiety - but, for somebody with significant issues, the timbre of the letters could be easily life changing. Completely innocent, adhering to the rules, people repeatedly receiving threatening unsolicited mail.
Don't open them, people. If you are confident that you have understood and are adhering to the law - don't open the threatening letters from TV Licensing. They are full on and, at the very least, intended to unsettle you.
I am 70 yrs old, don't feel that old, but some more elderly people than me would feel highly intimidated by such letters and go out and buy a licence whether they needed it or not. When I get these "reminder" letters I throw them straight in the bin. I also refuse to put my name on their database to avoid getting these letters. My name and address is my data and I prefer to keep it confidential. Once they have your name and address on their database they will keep hounding you in any case. Never give out more information than you need to. Digital IDs will be coming in, there's no escape, but for now keep resisting.
@@batintheattic7293 I throw mine in the recycling bin.
If you just ignore them and never ever give ur name then the letters start of mild and continue to get more and more threatening until eventually they go back to the original letter....I've been observing this for 5.5 years now! 😏
"...simply isn't possible for TV licensing to do this...."" I personally think that's BS, I think they like to keep it as ambiguous as possible, to give more credence to the threatening letters they send out and have everyone believing they need a license
Exactly, purposefully vague so they can push and fine.
Rules of fear 😀🙃😂
@@cjayeyzees1951 Always been about the fear.
No one in the UK needs a license of any kind ; however in the United States of Newspeak that may be what is required . In the civilised world , the word is licence .
William Pitt 1759-1806 British Tory statesman; Prime Minister, 1783-1801, 1804-6
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.speech, House of Commons, 18 November 1783
We need a Trial by Jury under common law and get rid of this legislation as its not fit for purpose, unclear and basically a costly nuisance to many.
It is just another stealth Tax.
Very simple, don't invite TV licence goons in, don't speak to them or give them any information.
Treat them like the cold caller salesmen they are.
Defo
I have nothing to hide , therefore find their visits quite entertaining .
They can call around to me any time day or night 🌃📞⌚and they will get a huge bill I live in Bulgaria and have BBC on my TV its full of adverts 😅 the bill will be for the flight over 😅😄✈️
@@derekheeps1244 Same!
It's still a shame they challenge your word if you have stated you don't require a licence, they really are pure scum IMO
They may not be, but they have to catch you in the act and a kill switch is not that expensive, even if they get close?
They're collecting money for "me" to watch content from another country? At this point it sounds like a scam.
At the end of the day, regardless of the law and legislation, it still remains that the only way the BBC/Capita know what you watch is if you tell them. Ignore the letters, Just say "no thank you" if they come to your door and you will be fine and not fined
That's why they've come up with this BBC iPlayer bollox, they can see who is accessing it as you have to use an email that's linked to a valid licence, if u cancel the licence payments, you can't use the email to login, hence they've now in a round about way encrypted access to their shitty tv content, which is basically what every other channel provider does & you pay a fee to view an unscrambled signal shoud you choose to use another providers service... licence is not compulsory, never been any laws to use a telly, it's all bollox, cancel & forget.
Just say no. Thank you is much too polite for these people!
Thanks for a really great video illustrating the complexities within the law. I'm now pretty sure I don't need a licence to watch the BlackBeltBarrister. I do hope the same applies to my Rumpole Of The Bailey collection. 🤔
@Steven Tomozi you do have a right to refuse to say anything. You can just say no thanks and close the door on them. There is nothing they can do to that.
Now, if they have a search warrant, it should have your name or someone in your house. (A previous occupier does not count and I think you can refuse entry but I am not sure, you can request police presence when a search warrant is handed to you, the police would most probably advice based on previous occupier then it would be an illegal search, but you would probably need to provide evidence they don't live at the address).
Now if it is someone at the address then you have to comply, you also have to comply with any reasonable request with the police (if search warrant us issued by police (but the police will not issue search warrant from not having TVL).
AND I very much doubt a TV License will be issued without a valid name).
Because they to obtain a TV License the must provide a certain amount of information. They can't just say he might be watching TV.
In Sweden so many people opted out of paying the TV-license they started taxing everyone instead :(
Same with radio here
Thehoogard. I'll bet there was a rumpus about that.
That's the danger of a sudden defunding of the BBC. The government would simply create a new tax, charge everyone instead of just the few viewers, and keep a chosen bunch of staff in financial luxury forevermore. Far better we see a slow, steady decline which forces the BBC into some form of advertising or subscription service.
In France they tag the Taxe Audiovisuelle onto the council tax. I had to complain in writing to have it removed from my council tax bill. So many people will refuse to question it.
Imagine what would happen if they did that in the UK. Surely it would amount to a TV poll tax and we know what happened when that got brought in. Plus the other issues with the BBC I'm sure it will not go down well here. I don't listen to radio, I don't watch any main stream media, why should I pay for it.
Ok, I might send this in response to the TV licence threat letters.. 🤷🏻♂️
Thankyou for your letter.
I'm eager to give you the information you requested regarding my possible need of a TV licence, however I'm unable to clearly define what a 'TV broadcasting company' is, or what 'Television program services' are.
Please provide me with your clear legal definitions of these terms, and when I have this information, I'll be able to inform you wether I need a license or not.
you could go one further and ask them if they could provide source identifiers for everything you want to watch before you watch it. if everybody did this they would be flooded with requests... things would change.
based on the BBB response and the lack of data from the BBC, if the content does not clearly state its licence terms at the start and give you time to turn it off/leave it then you cannot know this information yourself and are not liable.
Its clear they keep the definition as wishy washy as possible so they can extract more licence fees out of people. If they made the definition crystal clear they know even more people would conclude they don't need one and would stop paying meaning even less money for them, they are never going to do this willingly, especially when they waste as much money as they do harassing and threatening people to get them to buy one.
Unfortunately, that is the case for most laws, especially for laws made after 2000. If the law was crystal clear, we wouldn't need lawyers.
@@MrEdrftgyuji I disagree that we would not need lawyers. In my view we will always need lawyers (im not one). Human behaviour is far too interesting and complex to ever be constrained by some fixed set of rules. The rules change, as they must. Humans cannot be stuck - look at changes over history (eg slavery). We will always need lawyers and thats good. This guy at least has some humanity.
B*llshit baffles brains. As they say.
@@josephfredbill Perhaps an overexaggeration. It is BS that the law is so complicated that even someone with a law degree and decades of experience cannot fully understand it.
Laws should be introduced sparingly, and should not be changed unless absolutely necessary. E.g. US Constitution / Bill of Rights, the important bits haven't been altered since their creation over 200 years ago.
@@MrEdrftgyuji partial agreement. But then do you understand quantum mechanics and relativity ? Time was when all the knowledge in the world could be known. Not so now - there is so much that we need experts who specialise in specific areas and know them well - thats what lawyers are. What I do question is the morality of lawyers and political allegiance/direction. There are some very fine lines there.
So glad you have finallly done this video as a non tv license holder AND also a not tv user. For entertainment in my retirement I will of course stick to UA-cam.
@Steven Tomozi You are correct I have never been stopped or arrested by the Police for criminal behavior.
UA-cam contains material covered by tv licence. Sky news for example - is live broadcasted on UA-cam. Sports events are streamed live by broadcasters.
UA-cam contains material covered by tv licence. Sky news for example - is live broadcasted on UA-cam. Sports events are streamed live by broadcasters.
@@montydevere9671 As I have the radio on at home I have no need to watch UA-cam News programs/videos, but I do watch Cyccling events 24hrs after broadcasting.
@@user-TonyUK Just be glad you were not born before 1971 then I guess back then it was illegal top operate any radio receiver including a TV without a licence. If that still existed using wifi, a mobile phone, or microwave would also be a crime.
I don't pay, stand by the requirements that are involved and don't engage.
It's clear to me that letting them in will create issues.
Not paid for so many years now and they know about me not having a licence.
Had them (BBC) look at my connections via my ISP years ago and they could not see me watching live TV or even plus one shows.
Why would it if you do not have a TV set
@@derekheeps1244 I have a TV set .... I watch DVD's on it.
@@raystewart3648 The BBC can't snoop on your wifi Pal.
Surely buying a TV licence is very much like making love to a beautiful woman? You pay in advance, voraciously take in everything that is being shown, satiate yourself with every possible genre until you finally fall asleep and awaken to find yourself £150 out of pocket and stuck with a load of repeats.
Another way to look at the issue with the law as it stands - the only way for an individual to fully assess if a live stream is possibly a TV broadcast under the law is for them to watch the broadcast at which point they have already broken the law if it is. Imagine if there was a shelf in a shop with a sign that said "some things on this shelf are free, please take one. We will prosecute all shoplifters for stealing non free items" and there was no indication of which items fall into what category except when they had you arrested after you leave the shop.
But that is how the law works. If every law was completely clear cut, there would be no need for lawyers, courts and judges. As it is things are grey and it is the job of the courts to turn that grey into black and white. Hence the need for test cases.
I suspect it is flawed by design, not perhaps from its implementation, but as time has gone by and media and broadcasting has evolved. The "design" part pertains to reluctance/refusal to update it to the current situation as a lot more people would be comfortable in not paying for a service they can clearly identify they do not use. I suspect there is substantial revenue in the form of people who are "programmed" to pay a TV licence and cannot be bothered with the uncertainty of whether they can be prosecuted or not. The "Is this a hill I want to die on?" principle
I suspect it is flawed because it was a very different world when the licence started.
Actually you gave a lot of style(meaning the way you presented and conducted yourself) and law information...above the norm...
It was very good...
Full credit... really
Thanks
Surely the continual bombardment of people with unwanted letters, emails, threats of visits, threats of prosection etc must fall under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act?
Thank you for your amazing work. I would ask a question. Is the TV licence breaching jurisdiction, as they're changing a fee for services they are not providing? Is this not just totally incompatible with trading standards and the rights of consumers? Thank you again.
For 5.5 years they've been sending me letters to "the homeowner" but I will not pay them and I will not give them our name EVER!
it's quite amazing how persistent they are and how the letters start then get more and more threatening as they send them until eventually the cycle goes back to the original letter....they've probably spent more on letters at this point than my fee would be? 🙄
You could always put "not known at this location... return to sender
Yes the law is clearly flawed, the more cynical side of me says it's intentionally vague to get you to pay for a license just in case. But another way to err on the side of caution without having to pay the license fee is to watch only on demand content excluding BBC iPlayer, and to avoid any kind of live broadcast or live stream. All on demand content is currently legal to watch without a license regardless of whether it is provided by an independent creator or a TV broadcasting company, with the exception of content on BBC iPlayer.
100% true
If you are a UK TV broadcaster you have to have a license issued by ofcom the list of current license holders is available on their website. I can't post the link to the page here as it gets blocked
You are correct and so you most definitely need a licence to watch a programmed from those on that list. That however is not the issue. The issue is who else counts as a TV broadcaster?
Overseas TV stations? Yes.
BBB? maybe if his quality improves
Why has this never been tested in court ? Maybe it,s too big a financial risk ? Someone one day will do this i hope 🤞
I am sure that there was a case many years ago - But it would have been back in the days of "Dial Up" where a Broadband internet connection was a Luxury few could afford... And if I recall the case was Dismissed. Being so long ago though - and so few people able to access such services back then, It has probably faded into memory as at the time it didn't matter that much!
Likewise, As Streaming became Available on Phones... In the Early days, so few could afford it that even if they did bring a case and it got tested in court - It would have faded into obscurity as barely anyone at that time could afford such "Luxurious Devices"
Now such Devices are more mainstream than ever - It needs to be back in a court and tested!
If we keep putting the pressure on, we will get results.
Crowd funded test cases.
TV licence Resistance, forum.
TVLicenceresistance.
Because it would require TV Licencing to prosecute someone who undisputedly had not watched either BBC iplayer or live TV. And they haven't.
In an age where they could encrypt their broadcast very easily to become a paid to view. Them choosing to openly broadcast and charge you no matter if you want to receive it or not just shows how messed up things are. It's the only publicly supported private company i know of if they had to compete on a fair and level playing field with all the other broadcasters they'd be done.
Isn't a "TV programme service" regulated by Ofcom? Regular people broadcasting would not fall under this, thus viewing their broadcasts live wouldn't require a TV licence.
A tv licence is required to watch content from other countries too which are not regulated by OFCOM. .
@@StevenCowell Agreed. Which makes me wonder that maybe you can actually view live foreign programmes without a TV licence, even though here in this video they appear to be indicating you can't.
@@parkamark you may watch live foreign broadcasts, but you could be prosecuted if caught viewing without a TV licence.
It is physically sickening to hear the BBC talk about 'values.' The 'laws' around requiring a licence to watch TV are archaic and indefensible, bullying and hostile behaviour to any pushback is so predictable and banal it's almost boring. THANK YOU for adding your _personal take_ in this video, that is appreciated. Some laws do not make sense and must be repealed.
It seems to be the current fad for all of these faceless corporations and government agencies to have "values"
They act as if these "values" are some kind of religious law, despite them being plucked out of some overpaid marketing consultant's behind a few years ago.
@@MrEdrftgyuji 100% correct. I have worked at or visited too many companies to name with that horseshit plastered on the walls. "Respect" "inclusivity" "professionalism" "commitment" etc etc etc. You can scrub all that off and replace it with one word - 'profit.' However the BBC do not have to make programmes people actually want to watch because of their guaranteed licence funding.
I also think 'uploading' is a different thing to 'transmitting'.
I was under the impression that in order to operate a 'Television Service' a license needs to be issued? Historically, this was via the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA)? Clearly this was some time ago...was everything deregulated and thus no license is required?
Valid question....
Great point nobody has ever mentioned. I didn't know that 😳 Black Belt should look into this.
Blackbelt did mention this, but there is no easily findable list of TV company licence holders.
I believe that is all handled by OFCOM now. And it seems that OFCOM is desperately seeking to "regulate the internet" in addition to regulating TV/radio broadcasts.
OFCOM is UK only and terrestrial broadcast only and so cannot provide the list.
Takes me back to the early 1970's and the new DOT 1972 (?) Motor Vehicle Comstruction and Use Regs incorperating EEC regs. Some were at variance to the EEC regs, so I wrote to the DOT for their interpretation. The responce ... we only write the regulations, it is the job of the Courts to interpret the regulations. But the DOT were the body testing and issuing type approval to the regulations, for which they could not interpret.
Brian
Around the year 2000/2002? they made licence plates illegal if they did not have the bsau logo and the dealers name/postcode. Problem was it was not a legal requirement for the cars that were failing their MOT's when they were manufactured. Your year 2000 car did not require the bsau logo or dealers details when the car was brand new, so many were surprised their cars failed the first mot on illegal numberplates even though they were the original plates when new.
They had to pull that one from the MOT and brought it back in later after making it a legal requirement.
Does the BBC now have responsibility for interpreting legislation? I always thought that was the role of the courts and judges.
Isn't there a conflict of interests with the BBC interpreting the TV licence legislation as they have a financial interest to interpret the law one way rather than another?
The law is no longer fit for purpose, totally needs to be overhauled with the advent of UA-cam, Twitch etc that are in some sort of grey area.
Better still it should be removed totally.
Twitch is counted as live TV i expect that would catch most people off under the law anyway.
@@davidlister7590 cordbusters did an article November 2021 and a BBC spokesperson said Twitch did not require a TV licence.
I get the distinct impression taht they just make it up as they go, depending on who is interpretating the legislation
@@legion162 That is just unhelpful in the sense the wording of the law makes it clear you do only for the BBC to say no. I guess it puts it in to a grey area the BBC could try to catch you on this but likely wont.
@@davidlister7590 Only if a TV production company streamed content live. If a TV production company or channel decided to stream EastendCorrie Street live on Twitch then yes you would need a licence to watch that live. Creator content, although a lot of creators are media companies which does make matters a little grey.
If i watched a YT creator who had grown to be a large media company and the licence goons knocked on the door as I watched it and said you need a licence for that I would ask the question of what channel/network are their TV programmes on and which TV guide publishes that data.
@@WhiteDieselShed You should fundantally ask if the BBC have funded that company from the licence fee. If not, they should be told to FRO.
A television license for a public company who cannot identify companies who produce television programs, is a joke. Seems to be very little effort made by the BBC to provide information for their customers, whilst the people have been under this enforced system of licensing for decades, a license that they do not want. BBC should be left to compete with other television program providers without forced public investment.
The BBC used your licence fee to pay and protect p3dos
@@1337murk And they even get released!
Yep, I have a TV License and I'm certain our household does not need one. I have no devices connected to broadcast TV services, don't watch live tv and none of us have a BBC account so no iPlayer... but the threat of trumped up charges and capita employees at the door waving warrants keeps me paying for services we just don't use.
Well then maybe you need to grow a set of balls. If you don't need something and still pay for it because you are scared, you are part of the problem. I don't need a licence and don't have one.
@@useyourbrain.5574 Such a pleasant individual
Thanks for your excellent inputs.
I've asked tv licensing this question regarding UA-cam and the best answer I got was: you do NOT need a licence to watch "user-generated content that is unique to the platform or belonging to a broadcaster". However, if a user is broadcasting something that CONTAINS material that would otherwise require a tv licence, you would then need a licence to watch.
that is vague of course as even if user generated content showed a clip from a licenced source, it would not be live and covered under fair use. Ofcom do not regulate UA-cam, ergo UA-cam are not beholden to Ofcom/tv licence terms.
I've lost count of the number of times I've explained to serving and retired Police Constables that people do not have to talk to TVL or let them in your home.. or even answer the door.. including if the Police are knocking.
@@frank1847 The Police won't break your door down in connection with TV Licensing matters.
If they do in fact actually have a valid warrant if you do not co-operate you can be prosecuted for obstruction and pay a fine for that. Some have been fined for that and even state that,
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 It doesn't matter if they have a warrant or not, if you are not at home then they cannot force entry or prosecute you for obstruction.
@@mda5003 If they have a warrant they have the legal right to do so. They have a policy of not wanting to but they have the legal right to do so, or rather the police accompanying them do. Some people have complained in the past the police actually did it when they were away for a long time. If you are at home and open the door and will not let them in or delay delay unduly letting them in they can get you fined in court for obstruction and it has apparently happened in the past. Obviously if you are genuinely not at home they cannot prosecute you for obstruction (but entry can in theory be forced, however they prefer to try another time). However without a warrant they cannot force themselves into your home or insist that you let them in.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 But first they have to get a warrant of entry and for that they need evidence. The number of times that actually happens is about a hundred or so every year - in other words hardly any. No investigator with a warrant and with or without the police in attendance will break the door down if you are simply suspected of watching Eastenders without a TV licence. The best advice as always is to simply not open the door or even speak to these Capita salespeople - that's all they are just trying to get you to buy a licence or admit that you should already have bought one.
I just tried to do the TV questionnaire last week and it is totally misleading and you are quite correct. You would have to say no to all questions. Ludicrous TV licensing 😅
Have there been any test cases where a Court has defined whether a viewer was watching a TV programme that falls within the purview of the Law or not?
I believe the people prosecuted gave away enough evidence for the prosecution to take place, and the Magistrates Court does not accept any other evidence and rubber stamps the prosecution, just as they do for search warrants and for allowing forced entry to change gas/electric meters to pre-payment.
Why doesn’t someone challenge this law? It is unjust , unfair , nonsensical and contravenes other laws .
A good legal challenge will dismantle this unfair tax . Why don’t you use your skills to legally challenge it. I’m sure a lot of people would crowdfund you to take on the BBC 👍
Because the law itself is sound. Parliament itself would need to vote on the law. There are lots of laws that if people knew what they actually allow would probably want them scrapped because they seem unfair or unjust. But that would take huge organised campaigns on the scale of Brexit or a political party committed to overturning them. Laws, once on the books, tend to stay there.
Law isn't there to be fair. Law is there to keep you poor whilst Prince Andrew fucks your college kids.
The law is there to keep barriers between disabled people and their medication, and to keep locking young black boys in jail, whilst Philip May (Teresa's husband) makes an absolute fortune shipping tons of cannabis to America.
@Michael Palmer if those laws were challanged and were proven to be so (unfair and unjust) then they would fall under discrimination at the very least.
This is just hilarious, because of the quality of the BBC that I've seen, I'm not sure many would regard it as "forming part of a television programme service"
thanks for your time.
What's really annoying is there dishonest. I remember in my younger days, they used to go abt in vans saying they can tell if ur watching live TV, so that was obviously a total lie to trick u into buying a license.
Biggest legal scam going, and the law/the BBC 'guidance' is deliberately kept on the vague side to maintain that "what if" fear element.
Currently, you don't need a licence to use the (non-iPlayer) catch-up services, but those apps let you watch live TV. It's only a matter of time until BBC push for the licence to cover them because you "might" use them for that purpose. I'd like to think they'd never swing that one, but then once upon a time I didn't think they'd manage to get it to cover any and all non-BBC channels... but they did.
So they're profiting from any and every broadcast programme, despite having no input in its creation. For example, when Amazon Prime show a football or tennis match live, you need a licence if you want to watch it, even if it's the only thing you watch that year; why the hell should you have to pay BBC £159 for that, when they have zero involvement in bringing it to your screen? As I've said before, it's like Tesco being allowed to charge you a delivery fee if you shop online at Morrisons. Nobody would stand for that, and it shouldn't be legal for BBC to do it either.
With the digital TV technology we have, I think it would be a relatively simple task to force BBC to effectively become a subscription service if they don't want to do it themselves. TV licencing is based on the address, not the individual living there, and there is a database. Give all the TV service providers access to that database, and then they can enable or disable BBC channels on the box depending on whether the customer's address is present on the licence database; then change the laws accordingly. That way, BBC can be assured that only those who have paid can watch their content, and everyone else can watch any other channels freely - and BBC doesn't get paid for content and output they have nothing to do with.
It's possible that the BBC is keeping the description vague on purpose so there's more ways that they can prosecute you if they catch someone without a licence
Interesting. Thanks for trying to clarify the TV law.
Thanks for exploring this from a legal perspective.
Your Honor, it is the argument of the undersigned that the requirement of a TV license as imposed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is arbitrary and unreasonable. In today's world, numerous other providers such as Netflix, Amazon, and Disney have shifted to a subscription-based model, and it is submitted that the BBC should follow suit.
Moreover, it is uncertain for non-subscribers of the BBC as to whether a TV license is necessary to watch a UA-cam livestream. Such confusion calls for a mass inquiry from subscribers to the BBC, seeking clarification on the matter.
In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the requirement of a TV license by the BBC is absurd and should be reconsidered in favour of a subscription-based model.
Thank you, Your Honor.
If only I could give this more than one thumbs up...
As it is criminal is the onus on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one has watched live TV from a TV company? How can they do that if what one has watched is not listed as being provided by a TV company ?
By you confessing
If a TV license is required to watch any live TV broadcast from any TV company, then the fee for such a license should be split between ALL TV broadcasting companies.
If the BBC still wish to retain their fee, then the license should only be required to watch BBC transmitted content and BBC iPlayer content - all other live broadcast channels should NOT require a license. That is the only fair way for the BBC to retain their license fee.
I am surprised more license challenges haven't come from broadcasters. Surely putting a license barrier between the public and the press is some form of press freedoms or censorship violation.
Could you cover the Wild Camping debacle please? I would be very interested to learn what modern laws impose themselves over tort laws? And why etc. Thanking you kindly.
They are looking at creators like yourself to see if it's viable to make you register as a Media Creator and comply like a real TV company so we have to have a TV licence to watch. I think that's why they are not committing to anything right now.
Firstly they don't even have access to your ISP service provider so they wouldn't even know what UA-cam videos you're watching
I would argue that the BBC does have a list of TV companies that are counted as needing a licence to view, it’s called the Radio Times!
Exactly! Fantastic point.
You mention the threat of prosecution from the letters that tv licensing send out. I'd love for you to look into the content of these letters. They haven't (as far as I know) been successfully taken to court for harassment or demanding money by menace, despite the frequency of their delivery, or the language and design used, being deliberately intimidating and threatening.
Although I agree with the conclusion of this video, I would point out that the BBC do not get to write the law or decide what constitutes a TV programme - shouldn't we be looking at the wording of the ACTUAL legislation/laws, rather than the BBC's interpretation of them?
Thank you for your efforts in unravelling or attempting to unravel this mess. I don’t think the BBC is the authority regarding licensing but merely the recipient of the revenue collected. In one sense TV companies have created the situation by streaming their broadcast content. The BBC’s response conflates the terms “transmitted”, “streamed” and “broadcast” which are actually distinct attributes. The BBC could protect their revenue with a pay wall like some newspapers. Equally ITV funded through advertising can stream adverts along with programme content. At the end of the day the universal license for the benefit of one content provider is anachronistic in a era with a plethora of content providers.
Exactly! It appears the BBC can have dominance over outside broadcasts too. So, how much money does Euronews get from the licence fee?
I would gladly pay a licence fee for European news without British or USA propaganda merchants sticking their noses in .
Demand news like a proper relationship - unadulterated!
You're correct Nick, in that BBC are not the authorities on TV Licensing. It's Parliament that created the legislation. I'm absolutely sure that the BBC has influenced the legislation significantly over the decades.
@@Locutus Why don't parliament use laws against Rupert...
Oh, no, they needed him to get elected. And he needed them to get Brexit.
This is why the whole lot need ousting!
Well said. Thank you 👏
Excellent information, thank you
Would it then be reasonable to argue that not having a license is more reasonable than having one as you cannot prove what you paying it for? In the same way as going into the supermarket, paying money, then hopefully getting the groceries you wanted... If you get any groceries at all 🤔
No. In the vast majority of cases (probably every case) people either watch BBC or live TV with a licence or risk prosecution so the blurredness of whether BBB is TV channel or not is irrelevant.
There's a lot of laws written at a time that didn't anticipate advances in technology into a digital age. This certainly appears to be one of those. I still think it's fundamentally wrong to use (as a measure) content other than anything owned/transmitted by the BBC given that other content dosen't benefit from the licence fee. The quality measures are entirely subjective. Great video on the topic.
Historically the TV license was partly used to pay for the transmission network. It’s no longer justified with video being delivered over the internet and via satellite. The BBC are fully aware of this, but they continue to take and waste the free money they get.
These laws have been amended and updated as digital technology has progressed. For example: iPlayer and the internet never used to fall within the amit of TV licensing. In fact, it seems to me that the BBC have had very little difficulty persuading the lawmakers into changing things to maintain and reinforce their income stream.
I also believe that the BBC are fully aware that the current laws are ambiguous, but are happy for this situation to persist because they profit from the uncertainty via those who buy licences "to be on the safe side".
@@cargy930 Neither did satellite broadcasting some 30 or more years ago .
@@derekheeps1244 Indeed. It seems they've never had any difficulty in moving the goalposts when it suits them.
@@cargy930 you wouldn’t expect them to make changes that are fairer and collect less money 😄.
Thank you young Sir. Excellent video
As I am listening to you explain this, I called the licencing dept and briefly explaining that I ONLY watch UA-cam on the tv, my subscript was cancelled fortwith... Took less than 5 mins.. As an added bonus, as I had paid 6 months in advance, they are going to refund me. The lesson here? To hell with forms, CALL
TV licence law has always been flawed. Anyone who is not registered as a TV broadcasting service or does not need to be registered can send live streams and people can watch those live streams without a licence.
Tell me I am wrong lol.
@Absinthe Conundrum Unfortunately, how long before OFCOM start regulating / censoring internet broadcasts? They are desperately trying to obtain more power to censor the internet.
@Absinthe Conundrum The simplest solution of all would be that only people or organisations who receive an allocation from the TV Licence revenue stream should be able to require a licence to be held .
If the licence fee does not support the programme provider , then no licence should be required to watch them .
This would also make it very simple to generate a constantly updated list of all bodies receiving revenue from TV Licencing ; and if not on the list on a given day , then no licence required to watch content .
I would say you are right ... And I think even BBB is stating as such... But he is highlighting how the law and BBC TV Licensing keep this very Vague so that should they bring a case to court - The Courts are more likely to rule in their favour as TV License Evasion should by all rights be a pretty simple and Quick case to hear and pass judgement on...
... They know that Magistrates don't want to waste protracted amounts of time hearing details about exactly what someone views online and just want to get these cases out of the door as quickly as possible! Even our Courts are under pressure to lower costs where possible!
Everything is Vague by design!
That is correct. However if you want to stream TV programmes then you will possibly have to become a TV company (e.g. you want to show complete episodes of Friends even if the copyright holders allow it and you paid for it).
Reading the wording of the actual law, you are wrong, but as BBB indicates, the BBC are reluctant to put that to the test in court (because it would force the government to rewrite the law).
I watch live zoom broadcasts as part of a Patreon subscription, so is that also included. This is the case of the law being outdated and requires a total review, or easier is just to scrap much of it and be done with it, as was promised before elections, and then quietly dropped.
Does it then come down to this idea of 'consistency' (which, I take to refer to, a consistent theme)? If the broadcasts are always about the same thing - that's consistency. Ah - but you said 'broadcast'. That's the key term. However, what about mobile phone calls etc.? Technically, it's two people live broadcasting at each other. They could, indeed, watch each other live. And what about warning sirens and church bells? Live broadcasts!
BBB is consistent in that he mostly discusses elements of law. Is BBB one of the UA-cam consistent content providers we, without TV licenses, are not allowed to watch?
Watching streamed content via Zoom and 'paid for' via your contributions to that creators Patreon I would say falls outside of a definition of programme content broadcast via TV transmitters and received on a device with capability to receive and decode those transmissions.
Thanks for this.
Appreciated, see this is why this channels far better than any of the others i see. Hists keeping it real and ibforming me of stuff thats directly applicable to me rather than random whats hot at the moment topics.
If there is no such list how can they prosecute you for not having a license?
Anyone can prosecute anyone for anything. What matters is what the courts determine and I don't think there has ever been a test case, hence the ambiguity.
The TV licence is there to help pay the massive salary for the cast of eastenders and the likes of Graham Norton.
'nuf said.
Linakre etc.
As I understand it, UA-cam has some editorial control and will exert that if it believes its values are being compromised.
A very clear explanation of a very unclear situation. Many thanks. Now subscribed.
IMHO: you have perfectly hit the nail on the head as to why the current law is wrong. If a UA-cam channel is of sufficient quality, the current legislation my suddenly require the viewers to start paying a license fee and for no benefit to anyone. It could even be a cause for a loss of views and to many, a loss in income.
How I think it should work in an ideal world, there should be a register of the services (not companies) that the providers must register to. Getting onto the register and renewing your position on the register should involve some method of proving or documenting why the service is eligible. This puts the requirement on all the providers to define themselves as appropriate. The benefit to the providers would be income from the TV licensing which is kind of the whole point of it. This takes away any ambiguity and allows for all parties to know when a TV license is required or not.
they are never going to know what UA-cam channels you're watching
Personally I'm absolutely amazed the BBC came back with that reply. It could cost them a lot of money. Perhaps a test case needs crowd funding to establish the identify which channels/broadcasters require a licence to receive.
Even the routes of footpaths have a definitive map, all of them.
I Don’t know who needs to hear this…
If you ignore the letters and Don’t answer your door… what are they going to do?
I’ve never had one and never contacted them, still receive letters but no one ever showed up to check.
I Don’t actually need one anyway (I’m not paying the BBC, for me using UA-cam 🤣)
If the money isn't paying the creator why should their viewers have to pay the BBC.
This law sounds like it was written before the era of Social Media and online viewing (UA-cam, Twitch, etc.). It needs a complete overhaul or removal (as its an archaic law to begin with).
Or just needs a minor amendment to section 368(3)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 from
"(a)receiving all or any part of any television programme, or"
to
"(a)receiving all or any part of any television programme which is provided by the BBC, or"
Problem solved and everyone happy
@@ditch3827 That's a minor amendment in wording, but a major amendment in law. It turns the Licence from a tax into a subscription, and the BBC could only accept that if, like Sky, it was able to set its own subscription rates.
@@PastPresented Maybe they should. Laws are set by parliament and not the BBC, so it's up to our MPs really
It was written before anyone knew anything about computers and is kept in place by people who know nothing about computers. Computers is trained to people while they're young. It's difficult to train or retrain adults with things but most know why things got introduced to the World. The reason for the licence was more quality programmes from the BBC and less advertising which is why many accept it. The problem is media can give a very biased opinion of things and lack knowledge of what's really happening with people.
@@ditch3827 _"Laws are set by parliament and not the BBC"_
While that is of course true, the people who work for the BBC have the right to vote with their feet, like Chris Evans, Andrew Marr, Emily Maitlis, Jon Sopel etc. etc.
Having seen this vid, 1st: Thank for some more info on TV licensing, 2nd: Your channel has no doubt been helpful to many viewers, 3rd: I wonder why there is no definitive 'List' and I could be wrong but perhaps there is a catch for the BBC and you maybe right, a flaw somewhere that they know that could change their control on licensing?
I wouldn't in a month of Sundays expect you to be our singular matyr who resolves the matter of 'not having to have a licence' however your info may lead to a loophole.
It might, if viewers are interested in, investigating this rather grey area, hold some clarity as to how much the BBC does in fact know and can or can not, enforce their standing on the TV license!
Q: could the lack of [ List ] be that the actual program material is different Every Day, ie: whilst the 'Channel/view times/staff/ equipment/ editorial crew/ etc, be the same, BUT, that the information in the show be constantly be different each showing?
It is pure speculation, perhaps the only reason why the BBC 'could not' comment but only give guidance is that they don't want to leave any 'bread crumbs' to the 'possible' loophole, call it( misdirection), is what you see frequently in the style of these types of business!?
Pause for thought: Is there something about a 'Live' program not being 'Dead' such as on demand shows, as I've previously mentioned, something about the signal?🤔🤨😏🤓
Excellent. Thank you.
My question is: Has anyone been unreasonably prosecuted for not having a TV licence? Until I see examples, reasons to be worried, I'm happy to use my own judgement and opinion of the TV Licensing website's description of when a licence is required...or not.
Sounds like you need a TV license to even use video conferencing if the letter of the law is given full latitude. This would seem absurd.
Only if a court determined that a video conference was a TV programme in the context of the Communication Act 2003
@@ditch3827 Right, that that definition isn't defined concretely in the sense we've been given a list of what is and what isn't a TV programme. Instead, we're left guessing.
@@nighttrain1236 That is the way the law works. The legislators make stab at defining it then the courts refine it on individual cases. We need TV licencing to prosecute someone for watching BBB or a video conference and for it to go to court. If that happened then we would know one way or another. Until then we are left guessing.
@@ditch3827 That's true, although I would argue that good law requires that legislation be straightforwardly and easily interpreted so citizens know where they stand. After all, a law prohibiting 'bad behavior' would leave us all guessing.
I can get where they're coming from regarding being unable to provide a list. The list would have to encompass foreign 'broadcasters' too, and that would make it a nightmare.
They only have to give us a list of the ones they (BBC) warrant licence fees for. A licence is something but the licence fee goes where? Surely I don't require one to watch European countries news which are nothing to do with, the BBC or any company that is not governed by Westminster?
How can the BBC have control over foreign media if the government do not?
@@hannahjames3180 24/7 news tv channels, regardless of where they are based or their prioritised content, still come under the live tv umbrella and are subject to the tvl fee, I'm afraid. So if all you ever watched was, say, CNN or Fox News, you'd still need one.
@@davidspear9790 I don't watch any terrestrial TV. Only Netflix occasionally.
I am shocked the BBC can hold such powers for overseas non UK content, or do they?
I just learned that it has been suggested Labour could implement a means test tax on a TV licence.
Er, if I'm not buying petrol - why the hell should I pay for petrol?
It would be pretty easy to produce a list and then add to it if needed. It need only contain the broadcasters that a significant number of people actually watch. If they discover that revenues are down because lots or people are just watching something not on the list then all thy have to do is add it.
@@ditch3827 Won't happen. The people in charge of the TVL have a vested interest in keeping the waters as muddy as they can.
I feel the Law around this should be completely scrapped, because frankly its only still being paid is because of scare tactic used in how vague this written..
When a TV like say GBN post a section of their program, how long does the post must be put up before a non licensed viewer can access it before they are breaking the licensing law?
Also how would you know what time it was broadcast on TV as you never watch it?
An on-demand clip never requires a TV Licence.
Simple answer..scrap the license
Quick Question: what is the standard of certainty one needs in order to succeed in prosecuting an alleged criminal offense of watching tv without a license? Does it have to be beyond reasonable doubt? Without clear definition, there appears to be a lot of reasonable doubt here ...
how do they evidence it ? I would hazard they would need to record you and the live show in an unedited video basically.
however the clause that gives them the right to basically tune your stuff to licensed content or demand you to do the same and then cuff you exists.
Ultimately they entirely rely on confession. hence women are most affected.
It is beyond reasonable doubt.
There could be a case for example where it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that you watched a live-stream of a kid playing Minecraft. Then it would be a question of law whether this kid's live-stream was a Television Service Broadcast.
It should be enough to say that you are not allowed to view live TV programmes without a licence no matter how you view them.
You shouldn't need to make a list of methods of watching, it's as daft as standing up in court and saying you shouldn't be prosecuted for speeding because you are using an electric car, or because the law doesn't say anything about the sports decals you added to the car.
I can see that they are trying to force their way into other media as television becomes less relevant
The question I would have asked regarding enforcement is, if TV Licensing have NO authority to enter a person's home, NO authority to question a person, and that no person is even legally required to even utter a word to them, HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY PROVE A LEGAL CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT???
The reason the BBC don't want to make a statement/comment on your questions is because it's in their favour to keep the legislation murky and not definitive so that they keep the revenue coming in
Wait. I thought the licence was strictly for BBC content. How can the "law" collect money for videos provided by random UA-camrs?
Well if you watch live TV broadcasts of Sky News all day and nothing else, legally you need a TV licence. The money is used to fund the BBC and S4C whether you watch it or not.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Then just put it in the budget for taxes...
Because they're going to manipulate the system because they need the extra licence money. It's disgraceful
Given the wide scope and ambiguity that the enforcement of the UK TV licensing law and its authorities gives themselves , in regards to what defines a “TV broadcast” (in terms of source) Does the UK TV licensing law put foreign nationals or tourists visiting the UK at undue risk of a TV license breach fine, if said person enters the UK with devices (such as smart phones, tablets , laptops etc) if said devices have app’s installed on that could be construed as “TV channels” under UK’s undefined definition? Could passing through UK customs without declaring such installed apps on said device also constitute a fine if undeclared ? What if a foreign national enters the UK with a device that they pay a similar license fee for in their home country. Are they required to pay an additional UK TV license fee for them to watch said broadcast while in the UK ?
Next time a goon comes to the door ask them what stations does the TV licence cover as they ream off the list in their head just say nope don't watch nope don't watch. Or just shut the door easier 🤣
Seems to be it's a mess because the goal has been to try and safeguard BBC funding with no regard to the changing media landscape and what any of it actually means in practical terms. The law is a joke, as is its raison d'etre.
Very well debated and won’t be resolved until it goes to court!
I hope that you concentrate on fighting the ridiculous tv licence issue. I will gladly donate to the cause if so.
Black belt judge thank you for helping me to understand I totally appreciate your support thank you
They don't want a list because it means they can say any channel they want is a TV channel when they are trying to fine you for not having a licence. They keep it vague so it is easier to take action against you.
I asked tv licencing tis same question some years ago. I got an even more wooly answer back then.
If a company has to apply to its native government for a license to broadcast then that should be classified as a TV company.
Doesn't the law have to be clear cut? I constantly get letters every couple of months I now ignore them after a bunch of calls over the year telling them I dont need. I've closed the door in the face of them twice. But still feel uneasy because I watch Netflix Amazon and UA-cam.
Laws are never clear cut. If they were then there would be no need for lawyers, courts and judges. Their job is to make the law clearer and cutter.