Getting a lot of emails about this video now telling me I'm wrong and if you own a TV or equipment capable of receiving a broadcast you must have a tv licence. People must be hearing you wrong. It's using the equipment to access stuff you shouldnt, not the owning of it that dictated whether you need a licence or not
BBB says he is clarifying the definitions (of receiver, apparatus), and then goes on to state that, if they have a warrant, then you have a duty to aid them in the search of any apparatus that fits the description. Don’t know if I’m one of the trolls he’s referring to but I asked him (in comments) whether this conflicts with Section 49 of RIPA. He hasn’t responded…
It would be helpful you could outline what a real search warrant should look like because my understanding is that a lot of the search warrants that are used by TV licencing and bailiffs could have questionable Origins it would be great if you did a video on that
Ahh but he probably won't as if he did he would probably put his profession at risk as its people like him who tend and try get you fucked and prosecuted and if I was wrong then the BBC wouldn't employ solicitors and lawyers so him trying to show a genuine warrant would fuck up his previous and potential cases in the past and future talking shit and helping the public get poorer by charging what they charge never mind the public money people like him get from the government and again out of our pockets not his as lawyers and solicitors don't generate wealth they charge people to get there wealth they don't build anything, create anything, produce anything all they do is sign shit create letters and documents.... the reason why the country is fucked is because of people in his profession
I’ve often wondered this about many things that the normal person isn’t use to seeing. If a copper, or even more difficult, a plain clothes detective, turned up at my door and showed me their ‘ID’ 🤷♂️ How am I supposed to know it’s real. I’d have to leave them standing there while I called and checked. 😆
@@Mark-kh1ny Yes, you are fully within your right to take their badge number & name & station of posting and call said police station they say they are from
@Mark also there was a case years and years ago can't remember the name of it as your can probably imagine it's quick a covered up case but I watched a documentary on it a few years ago and some guy was watching his mum or his miss.s or his mate or summat getting arrested for what ever reason it was at the time and he thought the way they were arresting his mum or miss.s or w.e he thought they were basically going to kill them by there actions so he jumped in and stomped the copper who was arresting the person he knew. It got taken to court as you would expect from him caving a copper in during a arrest and the guy won the case against the coppers and the judge basically said if you think some one is going to die from there actions your in your right to save that life or summat don't quote me on fuck all as av basically generalised what happened but am sure with some Google searches it will come up if you want to try and find it and then you will probably get a Google link to the documentary I watched about it lol was some fascinating shit to watch but av slept since then 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So , I'm guessing the best thing to do is just to not reveal your name because for all those filming licensing officers at their door , it's usually with a mobile phone which would be evidence of owning a receiving device and therefore grounds for them to get a warrant . My advice would be just don't say anything and close the door once you know who they are .
correct do not tell them anything you are under no obligation to do so and anything you do say could be used against you politely say no sorry I do not need a tv license thank you and goodbye that is it
This is only true if used or installed for that purpose, otherwise it does not meet the definition of television receiver. It's only a potential television receiver until explicitly stated otherwise (for example admitting you use use/used your mobile for watching BBC iPlayer), which would then define it as a television receiver.
It's great that you cover all this stuff, and in so much detail. It's so utterly wrong that they have the power to search your devices, a power normally only reserved for serious crimes.
One point: If they have that all important warrant, and for that they need to have good reason/evidence that you're doing what they are accusing you of doing. Now, I would say the powers are way too broad, especially if they can compel you to enter passwords or unlock devices so they can 'test' them (and I do question to what extent that testing can be - are they allowed to fit things to the devices or install things, and what can be examined in terms of computer or mobile device), but I'd expect each and every device they're looking at is listed in the warrant, and I'd seek legal aid if there is any question on if the device is actually covered by what is stated in the warrant. Plus... is there a penalty if the detector person lied to get the warrant? I'd hope so, but how does one go about proving a lie was told, or the warrant was obtained with malicious intent? And, as pretty much any communication device can be used (doesn't mean it is, or it's intended to be used for such) to receive live TV (I don't watch live TV these days on any device) then it may be the view of some that just possession of a mobile phone or laptop is sufficient to obtain the warrant. I suspect not: I suspect the person requesting the warrant must have seen and/or recorded the person with the device watching something that could be live tv else (and this is my hope) the warrant is declined and said requesting person told to grow up.
@@stevepowell491 really good point you made, are they and I doubt very much they are technically trained. What is the test? Install an tv antenna? Install bbc I player? Who knows..
Completely, however the comment sections is a good place for people to raise queries or misunderstandings and to have them answered. There is also a chance that BBB is not correct of course, but considering his legal experience this chance should be considerably lower than a random member of the public.
The internet has produced this entire 'I'm entitled to an opinion crap'. The first thing a person should ever do when asked about anything is ask themselves ' Am I qualified to have an opinion?' . If the answer is no then don't have one and do what you are told by people who are. Should I take a vaccine ?, ask yourself do I have a doctorate in immunology. No do what you are told by the doctor. You are not entitled to an opinion Should I be flying this jet airliner at the moment, ask yourself do I have a pilot license? No leave the guy with the wings and nice uniform to get on with landing
@@nickryan3417 There is always a chance an expert can get it wrong (but its a million times less likely than a non-expert) and if you really are concerned ask a 2nd expert
@@TheWebstaff No there isn't. What we have is millions of people who have no expertise in anything (ie the working class) who do jobs that anyone could do with a few hours to days training who put no value on people who actually do have expertise. These working-class people feel they are not valued by society and they are right, they aren't. No relevant degree no opinion Criminal record no opinion
🤐🤐🤐🤐Biggest take away from this video is if you have a telephone or computer they can ask for your password and if you don't give it you are in breach of not givingl reasonable assistance in the search. absolutely best advice when you answer the door and somebody says are you Mr or Mrs. Your reply should be who are you. They reply TV licensing. Do not say anything just shut the door. Anything said at the door could give them grounds to obtain a search warrant. With the implications of your phone being searched and perhaps confiscated. while that search is taking place which may take weeks???? you have to be reasonable but they don't.. 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐
Thanks again Daniel. Your channel and Ashley Neal's are a must-see for everyone. There's always a barstool barrister sadly, just like some appalling drivers who think they know it all. Ignore them (we certainly do).
Some of them are actual barristers ; showmen, salesmen who are trying to get 'big cases'. One of the things I like about Daniel is his measured considered style (same applies to Ashley Neal).
I agree shows me that the legal system is broken and biased, where words are used to define if a law has been broken, (Reasonable suspicion?) and other undefined or badly defined statements, I sat in court listening for almost a day to an argument about the difference between a full stop and a comma and what the outcome would be. (The Judge stopped it as he said it was a handwritten quickly done note) And if you do watch court cases the huge difference having money to buy a good lawyer as apposed to "SOME" free brief's
TVLicensing is always a contentious subject as they seem to be a law unto themselves and have managed to hoodwink the vast majority of people into thinking they require Licences when they do not through deliberately ambiguous legalese and having mythical detection powers from years gone by.
They really haven't helped themselves, from the ridiculous lies about TV detector vans onto the abusive and threatening letters from third party agencies. The technology behind TV detector vans was, in theory, possible, however success depended entirely on the model of the Cathode Ray Tube itself, shielding (both intentional and incidental) and whether or not there were other similar TVs operating in the area (i.e. high density housing). Essentially, incredibly sensitive and specialised radio pickup devices. As shielding of TVs improved the sensitivity requirements increased exponentially and with changing CRT technology it was a non-starter in the first place. There is no way that any such devices would ever work on non-CRT displays. The only evidence that is possible is either for someone to admit to watching covered video or for someone to be actively caught, and recorded, watching covered video content.
@@nickryan3417 If the wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van is to be believed, the amount of effort devoted to its advancement almost approached that used in WW2 by both sides in bomber- and fighter-target location. I say this half-jokingly, and I know technologies have moved on hugely. I sometimes wonder whether the German approach of something like a parallel tax for the TV service, or just public broadcasting paid for by taxes, might not have been more cost-effective. That was before the whole Netflix/internet/DVD possibilities came in
After a career in property, I now work as a professional sailor & sailing instructor. I've been sailing for 35 years and skippered race yachts in round-the-world races. It constantly amuses me when I get a student that pays for my time and then tells me I'm wrong all the time. 🤣 Great to see your channel growing so well.
Well....at least the last sentence out of the four was actual useful and on point with the topic.. Do your students ever throw themselves overboard with boredom due to your need to qualify your past and present careers as some kind of justification for how valid your comment/s may be? The word 'professional' before a verb merely indicates that you earn a crust from it - it has absolutely nothing to do with how good you think you are.
Well explained! I don't understand why some of your viewers can't follow what you say in your guidance. It's great to see how you explain legal matters so that we are all better informed.
What would be useful is if actual cases were covered. Otherwise tv licensing can manipulate and bully without contest just because people fear they must do things they probably don’t have to. So when tv licensing get to court, which cases have they won and lost. Unless we assume tv licensing is always legally correct which is obviously nonsense - even the police aren’t always legally correct and I doubt tv licensing operate at a higher level.
Excellent clear and informative. Firstly it is not required by law to have a TV licence if you own a TV or receiver of any sort. Remember the TV license only applies if you watch live TV , the BBC and I player. You are able to own a TV, mobile, lap top to watch catch up TV, News, cable channels, movies, UA-cam, Netflix, Amazon, sky and so many more ! As long as it is not being broadcast live you do not need a licence.
Under common law and section 14(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, a party may claim privilege against self-incrimination if compelled to disclose information that would tend to expose them to criminal proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty.
Totally agree with you with regards to trolls. I doubt any of them are legally qualified. Your advice is constructive & helpful. Trolls ignore never respond they then get bored and move on .
You can’t say trolls as he’s been taught by the very same people that are destroying our nation . THERES A LAW FOR THAT AND ITS CALLED TREASON but who cares . He gives advice that you get from a solicitor, banister etc . Think ! He should do a live show and answer questions . I forgot we live in a time where asking questions is racist !
I disagree with him on this. The comment section does not belong to him, even the one on his channel. Trolls are there to show the rest of us how not to act. Furthermore, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one may believe someone is a troll simply because they disagree with you, when in actuality they may have some insight. Not suggesting that is the case here but it is a definite possibility in other scenarios. Emailing his work is a crazy thing to do though.
Appeal to the court I'd suspect. At this point a judgement has been made and you either have to comply or to clearly demonstrate clear and pressing good reasons why you cannot comply. Not wanting to or being awkward are not good reasons to, I believe there has to be a clear and direct risk present in order for non-compliance with a warrant.
Do a Freedom of Information for all information on that case, from the Ministry of Justice, London, Sw1, to check the Warrants is real. You may be surprised by their reply..... 😁❤️
TV licensing warrants have been known to be obtained on, shall we say, 'not exactly truthful statements'. However, that will not affect the outcome if you are found to be in breach of TV Licensing law. The matters are separate issues.
BBB. I really appreciate your videos. You put a lot of hard work into them. Sadly, there are a lot of people who believe what 'Dave down the pub' says or what the 'Vacuous Foghorn of Sensational Incorrect Facts' screams out on a TV programme. The law is the law, even if it can be unfair sometimes and facts are the facts and nobody can argue with them. Keep up the good work!
So any device which is capable of receiving live TV, regardless of whether it is or isn't used for that purpose, can get you into trouble when the TV licensing salesperson lies about it. Yes, it's very clear that we're all stuffed, including you Daniel. My TVs have no ariel connected & can't connect to iPlayer as I don't have an account, so all TV programmes we watch come from catch-up services. BUT if a TV licencing salesperson lies to a court to obtain a warrant, I will be prosecuted because I have TV (& other) equipment which can receive live TV. I also have a car which is capable of travelling at 165 mph - looks like I should expect a visit from plod & a prosecution for speeding, despite never having used the car for that purpose! That also has a (unused) WiFI hotspot facility, so potentially could also receive live TV 🤦♂
Best to keep in the safety zone my friend, only drive at 145 mph. Why are the manufacturers allowed to sell such cars and be free from the harassment we get. This entire situation Is so stupid, they need to drop the whole subject/licence. oh yes, nice car by the way. Wish I had one !!
The TV licensing person can "lie to a court", or convince a court that there is suitable cause for a warrant providing access. After this a warrant visit would still have to provide evidence of you watching covered video content. Evidence is primarily an admission of watching the content, or observation of you watching the content. Possessing equipment capable of watching content is not enough for prosecution, but if the TV also has an aerial cable connected and is tuned into covered stations then a photograph of this demonstrating it could be considered evidence. While de-tuning a TV is generally not possible (give factory reset a go), not having an aerial cable connected should be enough.
@@nickryan3417: Not sure what you mean by de-tuning a TV but I’ve just deleted all the channels ( Freeview included) from my TV and just watch UA-cam via Chromecast. My TV is not a Smart TV hence the Chromecast . Obviously I’m not signed up to BBCi player as well.
Why do people feel they need to do this?Especially those with no qualifications or experience. You do great videos and I always find them fascinating and helpful.
Personally I think that it's basically anger. Folk typically don't appreciate being told things they don't like and it makes them angry causing them to lash out at the one giving them the information. Some also (I believe the term is cognitive dissonance, correct me if wrong) make themselves believe falsities in order to feel better and any challenge (or perceived challenge) to that belief usually provokes an aggressive response. Some even go so far as to try to force others to believe the same falsities, accusing them of prejudice if they don't. Lately there is a concerning trend of people who deny facts because they don't fit with their feelings and preferences, when that kind of mind-set is tolerated and even encouraged, it only promotes this kind of behaviour in all other areas.
As somebody else mentioned, the key wording is about having device INSTALLED OR USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TV CHANNELS... So unless the purpose was to watch TV, there is no need to give such access to such devices, even if they are able to receive TV signal? And what about providing any REASONABLE assistance? How to define that? Is reasonable to give acces to your phone and personal computer with personal information, photos, bank details etc?
People would be best advised to ignore all communications. If they come to your door and you do want to sat something just make up a foreign language and waste their time.
@@TheAnonyy Ignore everything, unless they have a warrant. Most situations they are looking for your to incriminate yourself, regardless of right or wrong. They want a conviction or to sell a TV license.
@@kwhufc5769 What! You don't find knocking a little ball into a hole with a stick enjoyable when you can just pick up that ball and place it in the hole? You don't even need to pick it up - you can just shuffle it along with the side of your shoe. The stick was introduced to make it more challenging. Think of the hours and days of stick challenge overcoming you're missing. 😂
@@aaronmicalowe Its not 'glossed over'. Dan pointed out if its not abusive & the comments are posted here its not a problem . Do at least *TRY* and keep up
First. Allow me to say that I find your content highly informative, as well as the way in which you explain matters. Your tone never changes. You never slow down and you never speed up. I really comend you for your delivery. I know a lot of other UA-camrs could benefit from your methods. Also, if I ever decide I feel the need to raise an question or a comment to something you've said. Then I will always be respectful on the matter. I can't communicate effectively if I don't know how I want to say what I want to say. My mind must be clear. Free of emotional issues or concerns. You may read this or you may not. I don't know. But I know others will and I want to address people respectfully at all times. Thank you for making your content. It has helped me understand law much better!
For further clarification, is it reasonable to deny access due to the device belonging to an employer and being under the employer's confidentiality policy that states it must be for employee use only? When travelling to the states we were told that we were only allowed to demonstrate to American airport security the device boots and to insist we did not consent to any further access (we work on security clearance projects). Any breach of this had to be reported to our security officer.
If you can prove the device is a work's property, it shouldn't be 'tampered' with by a TVL goon. And as I've had security controlled laptops and phones for work in the past, I would not have been allowed (under law) to give them any access whatsoever.
I am at a loss to understand anybody that disagrees with your information. I now understand a great deal more than 18 months ago, and for free. Well done Sir.
You don't have the right to silence. When you're arrested you have the right not to say anything, or to answer the police's questions. But that it is a completely different situation. The so called 'right to silence' does not exist.
@@simonmoore8776 Yes, you do have the right not to say anything but it might harm your defence, if you do not mention something when questioned, that you later rely on in court!
I watch videos on UA-cam about tv licensing .. I know more than a practicing barrister.. what.. seriously, go and learn the law before trying to dictate it. Well done on all your understanding of this man’s legal understanding. Love your videos sir .
I think it’s quite reasonable to refuse access to any computer or other device which may contain personal data of no relevance to the warrant. This is ridiculously intrusive.
If i was a TV licensing goon, I feel it would not be that unreasonable to ask you to show me what apps you have. Would you not agree? I never touch or even get within 2 feet of your phone in your hand. If you have bbciplayer,sky sports etc. etc APPS then it is an open and shut case. If all you have is spotify UA-cam etc. I would be convinced you do not need a tv license.
@@archie2archie Not an open and shut case if you have bbc iplayer, bbc iplayer can be installed and used by someone who had a licence, doesnt mean you are guilty. Are you guilty of speeding because your car can do 100mph? I've asked that exact question.
It's important to note that the duty to assist only applies to *the testing* , and not to the search. You do not have to show them where the equipment is, and if they miss something, that's their tough luck.
If the suspect has not installed any electronic devices for the purpose of watching live tv etc and not used to watch live tv etc, wouldn't these electronic devices fall outside of the definition of TV Receiver because, while capable of receiving (much like any mobile phone is) they have not been installed for that purpose. In that situation, refusing to unlock say a mobile phone would not be an offense because there is no intention for it to be used for that purpose?
Yes, but refusing to unlock the phone would prevent the investigator from checking if you have a TV app installed on the phone, I'm guessing the response would be that it would be up to the Courts to decide if there was intent or not!
"... these electronic devices fall outside of the definition of TV Receiver" That's how I would read the definition in the video. Whether they can be used as a receiver isn't relevant. Whether they have been is. It's not then clear to me what my obligations would be if someone comes to the door with a warrant and they want to test my PC when I've not used or installed it for watching TV broadcasts.
@@casinodelonge My logic on this matter is that the owner of the device has not installed their phone or any software on the device for the purpose of live tv et al. Whilst, like every device, it is capable, If the owner of the device has not installed it for and does not intend to use it for that purpose, I was wondering if in that case, it did not fall into the legal classification of a device that could be checked. I can see why BBB would stay out of this as it not only hypothetical it is also moot because there would need to be reasonable grounds from a warrant being issued.
The single reason I follow you because your guidance is professional and balanced. Even though I'm in Australia the United Kingdom Court’s is valid in our common law jurisdiction. Again thankyou
I think the default position was to get the police to charge them with Obstruction. Thereby the police issue that and TV Licence organisation can avoid the bad publicity. But the chances of getting a search warrant for this is getting less. To many people now video on their phones the actual search, and it simply highlights how ridiculous the TV Licence is in its current format. UA-cam has become a thorn in the side of TV Licensing and the BBC.
he answered in the video that you must provide reasonable assistance one would assume this involves unlocking the device so they can look at all your nudes... i mean look for evidence of you watching live tv 08:18
High sheriff of Scotland will only issue a warrant for outstanding debts owing to customs and excise inland revenue (HMRC) DWP and business that owes you money ie you buy a car you pay for the car but it will take a couple of weeks for whatever reason for your new car to arrive. But then it never does, the car showroom now owes you a full refund. But they don’t pay up .
Can you do a video regarding frivolous/unjust warrants, it seems so easy for company's such as walker love and those associated with energy firms to obtain warrants and threaten vunreable people even when the information is incorrect or unjust, it appears they have a ai judge that just sighns theses things off with little to no recourse to the poor sodds on the reciving end of what appears as a very shady practice?
So, given that *everyone* has a phone capable of viewing live TV (even by way of the pre-installed UA-cam app) then it should be a piece of cake to get the necessary warrant. In fact, surely under this law, *everyone* with a smartphone must have a TV license because their device is "capable" or "could be used" for the purpose of receiving live TV streams, even if it isn't actually being used for that purpose. I live in New Zealand and we ditched the ridiculous TV-tax many, many years ago.
that is exactly the spirit of the law. "...any device *capable* of receiving and displaying broadcast content..." (I may be paraphrasing). Intent is not at issue. This is a civil matter, and the balance of probabilities (the burden of proof standard in civil law) suggests that this *is* what the device is being used for.
Sometimes "common knowledge" is actually wrong, so sometime it could be good answering the trolls to give the correct common knowledge. Anyways, just thanks for everything you do 👍
How does this pan out when you have a work PC/Phone at home and the information on it is govened by GDPR. Can they force you to give them the password?
I always add a caveat to any disagreement I may communicate, whether that be due to lack of qualification/experience and/or what I'm disagreeing with. Usually that is the law itself, not somebody's (yours or anybody else's) interpretation of it. Keep up the great work, love the regularity of your videos!
Well it seems every single household in the UK contains some sort of electronic device capable of displaying a live broadcast TV signal. In which case the law is not fit for purpose because if you do not have a TV license then you are, by definition, in breach of said law. Even the lowly Raspberry Pi tucked away in a draw in the kid's room could receive a broadcast.
Very informative. Just one more bit of clarification I'd like to see: who can get the warrant and perform inspection? I assume TV licensing people? In that case, why a door to door salesmen (which what they, broadly speaking, are) can even obtain a warrant? Do they need to be accompanied by a police officer? And, if they can obtain a warrant, can I get one too assuming I provide some evidence?
But shouldn't said warrant have the person's name on it? There's lots of examples of a warrant being issued with no name on it, are you really "duty bound" in that case? 🤷
Would have been nice for BBB to have clarified this but I'm pretty sure warrants aren't supposed to be issued without a name, you could literally be anyone, a babysitter, housesitter, it's not their responsibility to allow anyone in the home warrant or not, I'm pretty sure the law is quite explicit about the issue, but as usual BBB is not interacting again 🙄
@@DoctaOsiris It would depend on the warrant. A TV Licence one would be looking for an item as described in BBB's video. A drug warrant, for instance, would need to mention, a property, car, any outhouse (shed), any persons on the property, any use of force needed to gain entry (if needed) and so on. The warrant would also need to be in a certain time limit, i.e. one month from the magistrates issuing the warrant. The warrant would allow the search and if an offence has been committed then a person would be arrested for that offence and not under the warrant. So going back to drugs a section 23 drugs warrant would gain entry and search and if any drugs found then they would be arrested for drug offences under the misuse of drugs act 1971 & not the warrant.
Thanks for your time and efforts Daniel, some people genuinely believe their truth is the only right truth, ironically because THEY conceived it, based on THEIR limited information. Perfect example of people mistaking information for knowledge. Marcus Aurelius, "just because you believe it doesn't make it true", sorry for the paraphrase 😊
It does amuse me when 'arm chair experts' disagree with a real expert in any given field. I know a little bit of law and I know enough law to know how dangerous a little knowledge really is. I appreciate your channel a great deal. it's massively interesting and informative. great to hear a real expert speak. Thank you.
@@Polecat54941 i thought the mask was worn to stop your breath going far (30cms with a mask as opposed to 200cms without a mask) and n’encensa stopping the spread of a virus; not to stop you catching the virus
@@Jock609 think of the virus as a fly and the mask mesh a wall of entrances to a train tunnel but you are probably correct and entitled to your opinion 😁
If someone says they have a warrant, how do we the common man tell if it's true. They can wave a piece of paper at us, but how do we check it's a real warrant?
So what happens when they turn up with a warrant, possibly accompanied by a policeman, and you don't answer the door to them and it appears to them that the house is unoccupied? Do they batter the door down? Get a locksmith? What?
Can you explain why legally, the words "any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving..." are synonymous with "could theoretically be used for receiving...", when linguistically they definitely are not? That's the bit I don't understand.
If you have to provide them with your unlocked computer, laptop or mobile phone, how can you ensure that they only look at the things that they are entitled to look at and secondly, what is it that they are actually entitled to look at on your devices?
Very clear thank you. There has been and still is/are many channels that give advice but actually don’t know, understand or accept what the Acts actually state. As an ex police officer I understand the vital need to read any Act in depth to understand it. Thank you again,
I think the main problem with people's anger over these things is that the general public just do not pay attention to laws that are passed. They see a headline and say yes we want to obviously stop malicious communications. Without realising these laws tend to have loads of other things you might not expect in them. We need to start paying attention to these things!
That's called being a lawyer. Parliament passes laws and then the judiciary start interpreting them as they see fit. Most laws also let government ministers maintain schedules, that also can be used to extend the scope of laws. It's almost impossible for an ordinary person to understand the reach of law on any given day. It would be far better to fund the BBC through taxation then we can get rid of all the silly TV licence laws and the cost of the industry that only exists to police it.
People do pay attention but there's a limited amount you can do. You can write to your MP, but lobbyists and think tanks have more weight and tweeting at your MP is just going to get ignored.
Side question; if there is a tenant who is not home and a person turns up with a warrant. Would you have to let them into the Tennant's room. Even if you did or didn't have access?
Thank you for that clarification regarding computers. etc, and I personally stand corrected, although I note that multiple sites claim computers may not be examined. I do find this worrying, as I have no desire to have a 3rd party look at my computer, since it contains confidential information. It seems the sticking point is 'installed or used for the purposes of receiving live TV'. None of my devices are installed or used for that purpose, so I do not see that I am under such a duty. But safety first. Thanks.
One excuse for not allowing entry into a premises I hear is that the warrant has not a ink signature... Is it correct that a digital copy can not be used? Thank you.
Always check the case and warrant is real at the Ministry of Justice, London, Sw1, and check the Bailiffs are correctly registered by phone. Remove all implied rights until all information is checked to be true.
Have you examined the less well known 2004 Amendment to the 2003 Communications Act. Which then goes onto state that computer equipment is not considered TV equipment. You are 100% correct on the 2003 Communications Act, but I believe this was amended.
The video is using the 2016 amendment, which was expanded with language which implies it covers the user of computer equipment (the part in the brackets with the F1 label).
@@cynicaloutlook Thank you for that I will have a look. I meant to add before submitting in my comment, that the 2004 amendment had confusion regarding “TV Set” definition vs “TV receiving equipment”.
Very sad that certain people who wish to react negatively cannot produce a constructive message without becoming aggressive and foul mouthed. Without constructive criticisms our nation would not move forward, for the better. Free speech is our right but it must always remain for the good, to enable us to comprehend perhaps something that wast thought of. Great work Mr Barrister, there are so many people who greatly respect you and your efforts. We need people like you
There seems to be a problem with the need for a licence if apparatus is installed for the purpose of watching TV, even if that apparatus is not used for watching TV. eg A new TV comes with BBC Iplayer installed, would not having a BBC account be enough to negate the need for a licence or would the user need to remove BBC Iplayer?
It's not even just iPlayer. If you have a UA-cam app installed, which you obviously do as you are commenting on a YT video. Then just by clicking on the Sky News Live channel would require you to have a TV License.
your clear and dispassionate explanations of important laws are so useful especially when shedding light on apparently misguided people with plausible but nevertheless wrong information ( otherwise known as fake news.. what you do is so useful and important . Do not be discouraged and keep going. Thanks
Except it was left as vague as the instruction itself. Unless examples are given from court how can we know what the law considers reasonable. Are we obligated to give passwords to our computers, for example.
this basically states you have a duty to entrap yourself by tuning your device to licensed content or allowing the officer to do so.. this has to be the most bizarre legislation ever as it provides zero protections as any device capable of watching content (computer/TV) can if intentionally tuned to it, observe it. It is like a copper demanding you drive your car 100mph just to prove it can do it, then prosecuting you for doing so.
But still I don't understand "television receiver". I have a mobile but I DID NOT installed nor use it for the purpose of receiving a television programme. So why such a device is included in search?
If TV licensing came into our house with a warrant - I would not know the passwords of wife or sons iPads/pcs/phones etc. So how would they then be able to check them?
Lets clear this up A statute (legislation ) does not have the power to punish , an individual has the right under constitutional law to a trial by jury And in that trial the legislation or law is also on trial .
How does the official secrets act, and the data protection act works with regards to the protection of privileged information on work laptops and phones that happen to be on the premises?
R v Morris twenty-eighteen [2018] judge ruled that if a document does not have both a judges wet-ink signature and a court seal it is a fraudulent document
Apologies if I've ever made a comment that is in the "trolly" style you mention. I do try to refrain from being verbally "extreme" in comments sections, and I do get facts wrong sometimes (probably more so than I believe). I really do appreciate your videos and your insights into how the law actually works, whether any of us like the laws, dislike them, believe they're good or bad, or otherwise. My personal opinion on TV licencing is that the BBC are in the past, when television broadcasting first became a thing. In the modern world, their business model doesn't appear to make any sense, when all other TV studios pay for their own survival without government intervention (other than for contract enforcement purposes in courts, which everyone gets access to). Anyway, thanks for all your videos. I appreciate your time explaining the law to us.
09:37 - P.S. That's the thing I dislike the most about reading Statute Law, the fact it links to different sections, so you have to have a good memory to be able to comprehend it in its entirety. Sometimes you have so many chains linking one single section and subsection to multiple other sections and subsections, that it becomes almost impossible without copying and pasting each section into a document. In the 21st century, I think, for the clarity of ordinary people who wish to read the Statutes, someone could come up with a better system where you can hyperlink at the very least between sections, or have a pop-out window. Just thinking out loud!
How do you read the legislation when it says _apparatus installed for the purpose of receiving or watching live TV_? If a TV was installed for the purpose of watching Black Belt barrister on UA-cam would that incur a liability for a BBC Licence?
@@twig3288 it's all about the definitions. The act says 'for the purpose of receiving a television programme or ... an on-demand programme service provided by the BBC' not 'Live TV'. You have to read section 362 of the 2003 Act to find the definition of 'television programme'. Services defined as 'on-demand programme services' in section 368A such as internet provided services (other than those provided by the BBC i.e., through iPlayer) are not subject to TV licensing. UA-cam is on demand and exempt as is Netflix, etc.
If iplayer is part of the manufactures apps which many devises have, and you don't use it, how can you mitigate this in a court of law? Also if you are asked under the terms of a warrant to turn on a device, which you don't use, then are you being forced to commit an unlawful action?
Whilst I agree there are many keyboard experts that hear and disagree with what they think they have heard. The part which maybe being misconstrued is that whilst a warrant appears to be intrusive by examining phones and computers and not just a TV. It only applies to finding any evidence that the device has been used for the purpose of which the warrant has been served. For example, just because you have a UA-cam app installed would not be sufficient evidence to convict you of the offense of `watching live broadcast TV'. Likewise just because you have a cable or satellite installation with hundreds of broadcast channels available, does not mean you use it for that purpose, if you have it for the purpose of watching `on demand' services. It is the TV licence authorities duty to prove you have been watching broadcast TV, not for you to disprove it. The warrant is for them to FIND evidence to bring to a court and prove their case to a Magistrate `beyond reasonable doubt'. Remember they first need to provide enough reason to first get a warrant in the first place, and they can't get that if you do not talk to them when they first visit.
I'm a little confused and hope for some clarification. In the video, the wording of the legislation suggests that there is only an obligation to assist if there is a television receiver "installed or used" [10:42]. However, you seem to imply that there is an obligation to assist even if the receiver is NOT installed. Hoping for clarification. I'm a radio ham, and was always taught that 'installed' means connected to power and an aerial. So does the obligation remain if it is unplugged?
I very rarely watch TV but my wife watches it every day so we have a TV licence. I personally don't think it is worth the money, but I am not willing to break the law just because I think it's a rip off. Thanks for the invaluable free legal guidance Dan I am sure it is helping a lot of people understand the law. 👍
When my wife died, I found myself watching it less and less, to the point where it really wasn't worth the bother, so I cancelled my licence. I don't miss it at all.
@@markellott5620 I have always found most TV programs quite tedious so I stopped watching back in 1993. Initially I found that I couldn't participate in chit-chat about the latest TV program, but I found many more enjoyable and productive uses for my time, learning languages, travelling, gardening, various DIY tasks. Now I just don't have the time to waste on a TV - and why throw your time away watching other people live their lives when you could be living your own.
We're not breaking the law because a TV Licence is a rip off. We're not breaking the law, at all! I sense some presumptive resentment. I'm, personally, more than sated with Netflix and Prime and UA-cam. I suspect I'm being much more efficiently entertained, too. Of course, there will be some people who watch/listen to BBC/live broadcasts without a license. I have encountered people who had zero qualms about proudly announcing they had found a way to cheat. Many of us, though, were just sick of paying for something we didn't want.
if they turn up with a warrant turn off your electric if they need to test your equipment, they will have to hire a generator or inverter from there vehicle, also ask to see they are competent to interfere with your equipment, request to see a copy of there liabibility insurance in case they dirty your carpets or damage your equipment so you can claim damages off them. most important of all film them, film there ID and say nothing to them dont even confirm your name or address, if they want to question you don't refuse, politely decline and inform the police if in attendance if they want to question you, its should be done at the police station in presence of your solictor and after full legal advice. Nothing in the warrant forces the householder to answer questions or provide electricity for them to use.
So, the first legislation you refer to, does that mean if you have a tv in your house and don’t use it for anything other than watching dvd’s you need a licence ?
You don't need a TV Licence for just watching DVDs. TV Licence door knockers might demand to come and visit to prove it. You don't have to do this and really don't let them in unless they produce a warrant.
@@270wsm6 Even a TV doesn't count as a 'television receiver' unless it has been "installed or used for the purpose of" watching live TV or BBC Iplayer. So no, you do not need a license if you installed it and only use it for on demand content, video games or physical media like DVDs. Of course, if you had an aerial plugged in, channels tuned and Iplayer downloaded it would be pretty difficult to argue you didn't install it for the purpose of watching it.
Dear BBB, as the experrt, I trust your word. I have every confidence in you expertise and I thank you for all that you are advising/educating us, your viewers, with. Love Sue x
ChilliJonCarne is the go-to person for advice on TV licensing. I took his advice and cancelled mine ages ago and if I happen to open my door to a TV licensing enforcement officer I just say not today thank you and just shut the door.
"installed or used for the purpose of receiving (...) any television programme or service" Who determines if any of your multi-purpose devices were/are installed or used for that purpose? Can I refuse to assist with certain devices from my knowledge that they were not installed for that purpose and are not used for that purpose?
@Sam Liddicott, I raised the same question, but seem to have been shadow blocked. In order to know if it IS used or installed for receiving live TV (or BBC iPlayer) they'd have to test it. But you're not obliged to help them (and they cannot test it) unless it IS a TV receiver. BB says that the definition means if it "can be" or "can possibly be" used for that purpose. But if so, then you would already committing an offence for merely possessing such an item (unless you had a TV licence). Unless of course the courts are intepreting "television receiver" one way for the duty to assist in testing, but another way for possession of the item itself.
@@davidkesslerauthor I suppose that if a specific device were mentioned in the warrant because there was evidence in relation to it presented to the magistrate, it has already been determined that it was used for the reception of a TV programme
It would be good to know how much assistance they can really require. If there's an unplugged PC do I have to be the one that gets under a desk to plug it in, or is pointing to a socket enough? If the computer uses an operating system they are not familiar with do I actually have to perform the testing for them?
(Clarification not debate): my PC is not 'installed' nor 'used' for the purpose of watching live TV (neither is iPlayer installed or used). What the machine 'could' be used for is not mentioned is it?
What happens if a device was not installed for the purposes of receiving live television, but is able to receive live television? E.g. an office / work computer. It's installation purpose is to do work - not to receive live TV, but it's capable of receiving an iPlayer feed.
Interesting stuff. The bit I always get confused on ( despite watchong a number of videos) is the difference between having a TV .... and what exactly crosses the line between needing or not needing a licence. Owning a TV, means you own a device capable of receiving a broadcast of live TV. I have often wondered how, exactly, any TV licensing enforcement officer would actually prove through 'testing' that the device was used for purposes requiring a licence, and not for watching DVDs, UA-cam videos and content from Netflix, Amazon etc. that was not a live broadcast. My understanding is that these things do not require a licence....but a modern smart TV, with it's WiFi access to the internet via your ISP, doesn;t need any physical connection to anything to perform its full range of functions. Which also could include live broadcast TV....or not. How would they conduct any meaningful test as these devices ( unlike a PC, phone, Tablet or laptop...which may leave history/cookie evidence ) don't record a history of their activity. Unless you ware sat there watching the latest episode of Eastenders, or wathing hte BBC News....of course.
Very interesting , thanks , May I ask this in comments for hopefully some insight? Are the T.V. licence agents (Capita) legally , allowed to use trickery tactics and hard sell methods ( bordering on the realms of threatening, with letters and visits to homes without a licence that maybe do not require or need one ??
Like any sales people they shift words to sell their product. If you record and accept the contract on their words you can always take it to court if you find them to be incorrect as we know. But if you know they are the TV licence people ignore the letters as any spam mail and if you get a knock on the door say no thanks shut the door like any other sales people that come to your door
Bear in mind also a warrant allows them entry for ONE TIME ONLY. It states this on the warrant. Ask to see and read it before admitting entry. It is not blanket authorisation. Should they step outside for any reason you are not obliged to let them back in. As these employees of Capita are on commission to con you into buying a potentially un-needed licence, I would be inclined to ask if they were in possession of a Peddlar's Licence. They are in essence a door to door salesperdon. A warrant also has a shelf life. Check the dates.
I'd like to see a video on constitutional law & the balance of power between government & citizens.I'd really be interested in the full powers of a jury particularly in relation to annulment and a jury's right to find a person not guilty even if they believe that person did commit the offence.Assuming such a right exists of course.
Your videos are very informative and much appreciated. On the subject of warrants; specifically on the subject of TV licensing; I have seen a number of videos where the homeowner says the warrant is not valid onless it is signed by a magistrate. How true is this? The other thing I notice is that some homeowners in these videos, seem to barely get an opportunity to read the warrant because it is briefly held up to their face before being quickly snatched back by the official executing the warrant. Does the homeowner have the right to read the warrant in full and to receive a copy of said warrant?
R v Morris twenty-eighteen [2018] judge ruled that if a document does not have both a judges wet-ink signature and a court seal it is a fraudulent document
Thanks for clarifying this matter. It gets confusing as there’s far too many people on UA-cam and other media stating “ if you’re not watching live tv channels” then you don’t need to pay for a licence. I always thought the actual law would be far more complex than what others are waffling about. Great vid 👍🏻
The key words seem to be _“installed or used for the purpose of receiving live tv”_ I didn’t install or use my tv for the purpose of receiving live tv. I installed it to watch Black Belt Barrister on UA-cam.
It’s now confusing for me, I live in Australia and I have the BBC sports app on my iPad, although I don’t get live sports, I do follow the live football scores/updates and message commentaries.
I don't see anything in the video that contradicts the ideas that you only need a TV license if you watch live TV. The only matter the video raised is that if they get a warrant you have a duty to allow them to search all kinds of devices that could receive live TV.
You are allowed to have a TV and with aerial connected to listen to radio it is only a TV receiver when in use to receive TV signals when used to receive radio is is that
Not a lawyer here, but from watching many of BBB's videos I would think they would have to prove intent? Just because you have a phone, doesn't mean you watch TV on it.
@@jasonuren3479 But with a warrant they are allowed to "search and test" it. You also have to facilitate that by entering your pin, fingerprint etc. It's all murky as anything. You might have installed the TV apps when you were staying with a friend who had a licence and only use then in that scenario, but they'd say he had the apps on his phone so he watches TV without a licence.
@@radman8321 Good points. I know the warrant gives them powers to do those things. But the chances of a warrant being issued are incredibly slim. Only when such a warrant is issued is anyone under any obligation to speak to them. I've had dozens of letters saying my property is under investigation over the years, I've yet to be presented with a warrant. The so-called inspectors who call have no power, there is no obligation to speak to them or let them in, as BBB alludes to. If they ask to 'come in and check' if a person has such equipment, there's no obligation without the warrant. The inspectors work on commission. And are actually employed by firms such as Capita, a private company, again who have no legal authority. And personally, I'd never install those apps, as I have no intention of watching TV, I got rid of mine in 2009 I think. Anyone who genuinely doesn't want to watch live TV like myself should already know this stuff.
As we've seen recently in the case of magistrates rubber-stamping warrants for energy companies to enter homes and install pre-payment meters you cannot rely on the courts treating you fairly with regard to tv licensing. You need to assume that the courts will always be on the side of tv licensing if they submit false information to obtain a warrant to search your home.
Getting a lot of emails about this video now telling me I'm wrong and if you own a TV or equipment capable of receiving a broadcast you must have a tv licence.
People must be hearing you wrong. It's using the equipment to access stuff you shouldnt, not the owning of it that dictated whether you need a licence or not
BBB says he is clarifying the definitions (of receiver, apparatus), and then goes on to state that, if they have a warrant, then you have a duty to aid them in the search of any apparatus that fits the description. Don’t know if I’m one of the trolls he’s referring to but I asked him (in comments) whether this conflicts with Section 49 of RIPA. He hasn’t responded…
Thanks, you answered my question I just posted...Its bloody confusing...
In this day and age NEVER let the Police in your house without a warrant.
Absolutely correct and the dogs do try
In particular, never let a third party non-police into your house without a presented and verified warrant.
And always film them for your own protection
The police don't need a warrant to enter your house. All they have to say is 'we had reason to believe a crime was being or about to be committed'.
@@somatotrophin1535 not any old crime though, surely that would only be the case in extreme circumstances/imminent danger to life.
It would be helpful you could outline what a real search warrant should look like because my understanding is that a lot of the search warrants that are used by TV licencing and bailiffs could have questionable Origins it would be great if you did a video on that
Ahh but he probably won't as if he did he would probably put his profession at risk as its people like him who tend and try get you fucked and prosecuted and if I was wrong then the BBC wouldn't employ solicitors and lawyers so him trying to show a genuine warrant would fuck up his previous and potential cases in the past and future talking shit and helping the public get poorer by charging what they charge never mind the public money people like him get from the government and again out of our pockets not his as lawyers and solicitors don't generate wealth they charge people to get there wealth they don't build anything, create anything, produce anything all they do is sign shit create letters and documents.... the reason why the country is fucked is because of people in his profession
I’ve often wondered this about many things that the normal person isn’t use to seeing.
If a copper, or even more difficult, a plain clothes detective, turned up at my door and showed me their ‘ID’ 🤷♂️
How am I supposed to know it’s real. I’d have to leave them standing there while I called and checked. 😆
@@Mark-kh1ny Yes, you are fully within your right to take their badge number & name & station of posting and call said police station they say they are from
@Mark also there was a case years and years ago can't remember the name of it as your can probably imagine it's quick a covered up case but I watched a documentary on it a few years ago and some guy was watching his mum or his miss.s or his mate or summat getting arrested for what ever reason it was at the time and he thought the way they were arresting his mum or miss.s or w.e he thought they were basically going to kill them by there actions so he jumped in and stomped the copper who was arresting the person he knew. It got taken to court as you would expect from him caving a copper in during a arrest and the guy won the case against the coppers and the judge basically said if you think some one is going to die from there actions your in your right to save that life or summat don't quote me on fuck all as av basically generalised what happened but am sure with some Google searches it will come up if you want to try and find it and then you will probably get a Google link to the documentary I watched about it lol was some fascinating shit to watch but av slept since then 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@jonathanbarnes7981 Which AI randomly generated this comment?
So , I'm guessing the best thing to do is just to not reveal your name because for all those filming licensing officers at their door , it's usually with a mobile phone which would be evidence of owning a receiving device and therefore grounds for them to get a warrant . My advice would be just don't say anything and close the door once you know who they are .
correct do not tell them anything you are under no obligation to do so and anything you do say could be used against you politely say no sorry I do not need a tv license thank you and goodbye that is it
correct, just a polite 'Not today thank you', and immediate shutting of the door works like a charm every time.
This is only true if used or installed for that purpose, otherwise it does not meet the definition of television receiver. It's only a potential television receiver until explicitly stated otherwise (for example admitting you use use/used your mobile for watching BBC iPlayer), which would then define it as a television receiver.
the correct thing to do is to just say: 'Im not interested' and shut the door...
No no no 😂
It's great that you cover all this stuff, and in so much detail.
It's so utterly wrong that they have the power to search your devices, a power normally only reserved for serious crimes.
One point: If they have that all important warrant, and for that they need to have good reason/evidence that you're doing what they are accusing you of doing.
Now, I would say the powers are way too broad, especially if they can compel you to enter passwords or unlock devices so they can 'test' them (and I do question to what extent that testing can be - are they allowed to fit things to the devices or install things, and what can be examined in terms of computer or mobile device), but I'd expect each and every device they're looking at is listed in the warrant, and I'd seek legal aid if there is any question on if the device is actually covered by what is stated in the warrant.
Plus... is there a penalty if the detector person lied to get the warrant? I'd hope so, but how does one go about proving a lie was told, or the warrant was obtained with malicious intent? And, as pretty much any communication device can be used (doesn't mean it is, or it's intended to be used for such) to receive live TV (I don't watch live TV these days on any device) then it may be the view of some that just possession of a mobile phone or laptop is sufficient to obtain the warrant.
I suspect not: I suspect the person requesting the warrant must have seen and/or recorded the person with the device watching something that could be live tv else (and this is my hope) the warrant is declined and said requesting person told to grow up.
@@stevepowell491 really good point you made, are they and I doubt very much they are technically trained. What is the test? Install an tv antenna? Install bbc I player? Who knows..
Eye opener to me, thanks Daniel
The internet is full of people who "know better". Best ignored! Thanks for your work.
Completely, however the comment sections is a good place for people to raise queries or misunderstandings and to have them answered. There is also a chance that BBB is not correct of course, but considering his legal experience this chance should be considerably lower than a random member of the public.
The internet has produced this entire 'I'm entitled to an opinion crap'. The first thing a person should ever do when asked about anything is ask themselves ' Am I qualified to have an opinion?' . If the answer is no then don't have one and do what you are told by people who are.
Should I take a vaccine ?, ask yourself do I have a doctorate in immunology. No do what you are told by the doctor. You are not entitled to an opinion
Should I be flying this jet airliner at the moment, ask yourself do I have a pilot license? No leave the guy with the wings and nice uniform to get on with landing
@@nickryan3417 There is always a chance an expert can get it wrong (but its a million times less likely than a non-expert) and if you really are concerned ask a 2nd expert
@@TheWebstaff No there isn't. What we have is millions of people who have no expertise in anything (ie the working class) who do jobs that anyone could do with a few hours to days training who put no value on people who actually do have expertise. These working-class people feel they are not valued by society and they are right, they aren't.
No relevant degree no opinion
Criminal record no opinion
🤐🤐🤐🤐Biggest take away from this video is if you have a telephone or computer they can ask for your password and if you don't give it you are in breach of not givingl reasonable assistance in the search. absolutely best advice when you answer the door and somebody says are you Mr or Mrs. Your reply should be who are you. They reply TV licensing. Do not say anything just shut the door. Anything said at the door could give them grounds to obtain a search warrant. With the implications of your phone being searched and perhaps confiscated. while that search is taking place which may take weeks???? you have to be reasonable but they don't.. 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐
Thanks again Daniel. Your channel and Ashley Neal's are a must-see for everyone. There's always a barstool barrister sadly, just like some appalling drivers who think they know it all. Ignore them (we certainly do).
Some of them are actual barristers ; showmen, salesmen who are trying to get 'big cases'. One of the things I like about Daniel is his measured considered style (same applies to Ashley Neal).
I agree shows me that the legal system is broken and biased, where words are used to define if a law has been broken, (Reasonable suspicion?) and other undefined or badly defined statements, I sat in court listening for almost a day to an argument about the difference between a full stop and a comma and what the outcome would be. (The Judge stopped it as he said it was a handwritten quickly done note) And if you do watch court cases the huge difference having money to buy a good lawyer as apposed to "SOME" free brief's
TVLicensing is always a contentious subject as they seem to be a law unto themselves and have managed to hoodwink the vast majority of people into thinking they require Licences when they do not through deliberately ambiguous legalese and having mythical detection powers from years gone by.
They really haven't helped themselves, from the ridiculous lies about TV detector vans onto the abusive and threatening letters from third party agencies.
The technology behind TV detector vans was, in theory, possible, however success depended entirely on the model of the Cathode Ray Tube itself, shielding (both intentional and incidental) and whether or not there were other similar TVs operating in the area (i.e. high density housing). Essentially, incredibly sensitive and specialised radio pickup devices. As shielding of TVs improved the sensitivity requirements increased exponentially and with changing CRT technology it was a non-starter in the first place. There is no way that any such devices would ever work on non-CRT displays.
The only evidence that is possible is either for someone to admit to watching covered video or for someone to be actively caught, and recorded, watching covered video content.
@@nickryan3417 Also involved the radiated signal from the local oscillator.
@@nickryan3417 If the wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van is to be believed, the amount of effort devoted to its advancement almost approached that used in WW2 by both sides in bomber- and fighter-target location. I say this half-jokingly, and I know technologies have moved on hugely. I sometimes wonder whether the German approach of something like a parallel tax for the TV service, or just public broadcasting paid for by taxes, might not have been more cost-effective. That was before the whole Netflix/internet/DVD possibilities came in
Absolutely.
it's only contentious when people avoid paying for a licence when they blatantly require one. The law is clear on it.
After a career in property, I now work as a professional sailor & sailing instructor. I've been sailing for 35 years and skippered race yachts in round-the-world races. It constantly amuses me when I get a student that pays for my time and then tells me I'm wrong all the time. 🤣 Great to see your channel growing so well.
How these youngsters gets so knowledgeable in such a short time.... As the likes of Julia Hartley-Brewer says, they were never told NO as kids!
Well....at least the last sentence out of the four was actual useful and on point with the topic.. Do your students ever throw themselves overboard with boredom due to your need to qualify your past and present careers as some kind of justification for how valid your comment/s may be? The word 'professional' before a verb merely indicates that you earn a crust from it - it has absolutely nothing to do with how good you think you are.
Well explained! I don't understand why some of your viewers can't follow what you say in your guidance. It's great to see how you explain legal matters so that we are all better informed.
Not all of us are that bright!
What would be useful is if actual cases were covered. Otherwise tv licensing can manipulate and bully without contest just because people fear they must do things they probably don’t have to. So when tv licensing get to court, which cases have they won and lost. Unless we assume tv licensing is always legally correct which is obviously nonsense - even the police aren’t always legally correct and I doubt tv licensing operate at a higher level.
Chilli john carne, all you need to know about tv licensing
Excellent clear and informative. Firstly it is not required by law to have a TV licence if you own a TV or receiver of any sort. Remember the TV license only applies if you watch live TV , the BBC and I player. You are able to own a TV, mobile, lap top to watch catch up TV, News, cable channels, movies, UA-cam, Netflix, Amazon, sky and so many more ! As long as it is not being broadcast live you do not need a licence.
If you use iPlayer purely to listen to BBC radio , no licence is required for that purpose ; it may be iPlayer , but it is not television .
Unfortunately a license is required to download BBC iPlayer.
Under common law and section 14(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, a party may claim privilege against self-incrimination if compelled to disclose information that would tend to expose them to criminal proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty.
Totally agree with you with regards to trolls. I doubt any of them are legally qualified. Your advice is constructive & helpful. Trolls ignore never respond they then get bored and move on .
You can’t say trolls as he’s been taught by the very same people that are destroying our nation . THERES A LAW FOR THAT AND ITS CALLED TREASON but who cares . He gives advice that you get from a solicitor, banister etc . Think ! He should do a live show and answer questions . I forgot we live in a time where asking questions is racist !
Yeah I am 100% with you on this.
Here’s your law and order . ua-cam.com/video/FwwpYBAkk4k/v-deo.html
I disagree with him on this. The comment section does not belong to him, even the one on his channel. Trolls are there to show the rest of us how not to act. Furthermore, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one may believe someone is a troll simply because they disagree with you, when in actuality they may have some insight. Not suggesting that is the case here but it is a definite possibility in other scenarios. Emailing his work is a crazy thing to do though.
@@robwalker3417I agree, I don’t think that’s what UA-cam had in mind when they provided a comment system.
what can you do if the warrant was got through a lie ?
Appeal to the court I'd suspect. At this point a judgement has been made and you either have to comply or to clearly demonstrate clear and pressing good reasons why you cannot comply. Not wanting to or being awkward are not good reasons to, I believe there has to be a clear and direct risk present in order for non-compliance with a warrant.
Do a Freedom of Information for all information on that case, from the Ministry of Justice, London, Sw1, to check the Warrants is real. You may be surprised by their reply..... 😁❤️
TV licensing warrants have been known to be obtained on, shall we say, 'not exactly truthful statements'. However, that will not affect the outcome if you are found to be in breach of TV Licensing law. The matters are separate issues.
BBB. I really appreciate your videos.
You put a lot of hard work into them. Sadly, there are a lot of people who believe what 'Dave down the pub' says or what the 'Vacuous Foghorn of Sensational Incorrect Facts' screams out on a TV programme. The law is the law, even if it can be unfair sometimes and facts are the facts and nobody can argue with them. Keep up the good work!
Facts are facts I agree but there is only the presumption of Law.
Acts and Statutes aren't law if they were they would be called law.
So any device which is capable of receiving live TV, regardless of whether it is or isn't used for that purpose, can get you into trouble when the TV licensing salesperson lies about it. Yes, it's very clear that we're all stuffed, including you Daniel.
My TVs have no ariel connected & can't connect to iPlayer as I don't have an account, so all TV programmes we watch come from catch-up services. BUT if a TV licencing salesperson lies to a court to obtain a warrant, I will be prosecuted because I have TV (& other) equipment which can receive live TV.
I also have a car which is capable of travelling at 165 mph - looks like I should expect a visit from plod & a prosecution for speeding, despite never having used the car for that purpose! That also has a (unused) WiFI hotspot facility, so potentially could also receive live TV 🤦♂
Best to keep in the safety zone my friend, only drive at 145 mph. Why are the manufacturers allowed to sell such cars and be free from the harassment we get. This entire situation Is so stupid, they need to drop the whole subject/licence. oh yes, nice car by the way. Wish I had one !!
The TV licensing person can "lie to a court", or convince a court that there is suitable cause for a warrant providing access. After this a warrant visit would still have to provide evidence of you watching covered video content. Evidence is primarily an admission of watching the content, or observation of you watching the content. Possessing equipment capable of watching content is not enough for prosecution, but if the TV also has an aerial cable connected and is tuned into covered stations then a photograph of this demonstrating it could be considered evidence. While de-tuning a TV is generally not possible (give factory reset a go), not having an aerial cable connected should be enough.
@@nickryan3417 Should be 🤞
@@nickryan3417: Not sure what you mean by de-tuning a TV but I’ve just deleted all the channels ( Freeview included) from my TV and just watch UA-cam via Chromecast. My TV is not a Smart TV hence the Chromecast . Obviously I’m not signed up to BBCi player as well.
So if you have sky and watch sky on demand only how do you prove your not watching sky live? because you cannot switch that off?
Why do people feel they need to do this?Especially those with no qualifications or experience. You do great videos and I always find them fascinating and helpful.
I think 🤔 some people just think they're better than others, it's sad really 😅
Seconded, I think people are lonely and want to be heard and feel needed so they spew rubbish lol
@@2462bf2 you get more attention if you write a well thought out and detailed point!
Personally I think that it's basically anger. Folk typically don't appreciate being told things they don't like and it makes them angry causing them to lash out at the one giving them the information. Some also (I believe the term is cognitive dissonance, correct me if wrong) make themselves believe falsities in order to feel better and any challenge (or perceived challenge) to that belief usually provokes an aggressive response. Some even go so far as to try to force others to believe the same falsities, accusing them of prejudice if they don't. Lately there is a concerning trend of people who deny facts because they don't fit with their feelings and preferences, when that kind of mind-set is tolerated and even encouraged, it only promotes this kind of behaviour in all other areas.
@SpudHead I'd like to triple-like your comment. It's spot on but sadly it will be overlooked by most.
Under a warrant are you required to provide electricity for their "tests"?
As somebody else mentioned, the key wording is about having device INSTALLED OR USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TV CHANNELS... So unless the purpose was to watch TV, there is no need to give such access to such devices, even if they are able to receive TV signal?
And what about providing any REASONABLE assistance? How to define that? Is reasonable to give acces to your phone and personal computer with personal information, photos, bank details etc?
This was the obvious question I had, the use of the word "reasonable". Would you provide your password to a random bloke on the bus?
No, thats NOT what he said.
I cant believe the court can order someone to help incriminate themselves.
That would be my question on "assistance". Do you have to turn the TV or PC on etc.
People would be best advised to ignore all communications. If they come to your door and you do want to sat something just make up a foreign language and waste their time.
@@TheAnonyy Ignore everything, unless they have a warrant. Most situations they are looking for your to incriminate yourself, regardless of right or wrong. They want a conviction or to sell a TV license.
@@del69blue Spot on.
@@atlanticx100 it seems not only switch it on but also unlock your devices... i wouldn't let any stranger access the tools i use for banking etc.
Some people get a kick out of being vindictive don't they 🤔 What a sad life they must have 🙄🙄
Some people give polite criticism. Notice how that is glossed over. 🤔
I suppose it's all perspective. I find golf a sad boring game but it seems to bring joy to many millions. How bemuses me but to each their own
@@kwhufc5769 What! You don't find knocking a little ball into a hole with a stick enjoyable when you can just pick up that ball and place it in the hole? You don't even need to pick it up - you can just shuffle it along with the side of your shoe. The stick was introduced to make it more challenging. Think of the hours and days of stick challenge overcoming you're missing. 😂
@@aaronmicalowe prefer pool or snooker. Unlike Golf the walk isn't spoilt by a lack of a bar. But good sir you do raise a good point
@@aaronmicalowe Its not 'glossed over'.
Dan pointed out if its not abusive & the comments are posted here its not a problem .
Do at least *TRY* and keep up
First. Allow me to say that I find your content highly informative, as well as the way in which you explain matters. Your tone never changes.
You never slow down and you never speed up. I really comend you for your delivery. I know a lot of other UA-camrs could benefit from your methods.
Also, if I ever decide I feel the need to raise an question or a comment to something you've said. Then I will always be respectful on the matter.
I can't communicate effectively if I don't know how I want to say what I want to say. My mind must be clear. Free of emotional issues or concerns.
You may read this or you may not. I don't know. But I know others will and I want to address people respectfully at all times.
Thank you for making your content. It has helped me understand law much better!
For further clarification, is it reasonable to deny access due to the device belonging to an employer and being under the employer's confidentiality policy that states it must be for employee use only? When travelling to the states we were told that we were only allowed to demonstrate to American airport security the device boots and to insist we did not consent to any further access (we work on security clearance projects). Any breach of this had to be reported to our security officer.
If you can prove the device is a work's property, it shouldn't be 'tampered' with by a TVL goon. And as I've had security controlled laptops and phones for work in the past, I would not have been allowed (under law) to give them any access whatsoever.
I am at a loss to understand anybody that disagrees with your information. I now understand a great deal more than 18 months ago, and for free. Well done Sir.
Strange how you have the right to silence.
However you can not refuse to provide assistance.
That could possibly incriminate yourself!
You don't have the right to silence. When you're arrested you have the right not to say anything, or to answer the police's questions. But that it is a completely different situation. The so called 'right to silence' does not exist.
@@simonmoore8776 what’s the difference between “remaining silent” and “not saying anything”?
@@twig3288 yeah come on Simon explain that one 🤔 😂
@@simonmoore8776 Yes, you do have the right not to say anything but it might harm your defence, if you do not mention something when questioned, that you later rely on in court!
@@casinodelonge Then again, it might not harm your defence.
I watch videos on UA-cam about tv licensing .. I know more than a practicing barrister.. what.. seriously, go and learn the law before trying to dictate it. Well done on all your understanding of this man’s legal understanding. Love your videos sir .
I think it’s quite reasonable to refuse access to any computer or other device which may contain personal data of no relevance to the warrant. This is ridiculously intrusive.
Personally, I would agree - but I suspect many Magistrates would not
@@BlackBeltBarrister What experience exactly with regard to the law do magistrates have?
If i was a TV licensing goon, I feel it would not be that unreasonable to ask you to show me what apps you have. Would you not agree? I never touch or even get within 2 feet of your phone in your hand. If you have bbciplayer,sky sports etc. etc APPS then it is an open and shut case. If all you have is spotify UA-cam etc. I would be convinced you do not need a tv license.
@@archie2archie Not an open and shut case if you have bbc iplayer, bbc iplayer can be installed and used by someone who had a licence, doesnt mean you are guilty. Are you guilty of speeding because your car can do 100mph? I've asked that exact question.
@@keithdavies1395they have a barrister sitting alongside them to advise them.
It's important to note that the duty to assist only applies to *the testing* , and not to the search.
You do not have to show them where the equipment is, and if they miss something, that's their tough luck.
If the suspect has not installed any electronic devices for the purpose of watching live tv etc and not used to watch live tv etc, wouldn't these electronic devices fall outside of the definition of TV Receiver because, while capable of receiving (much like any mobile phone is) they have not been installed for that purpose. In that situation, refusing to unlock say a mobile phone would not be an offense because there is no intention for it to be used for that purpose?
Precisely
Yes, but refusing to unlock the phone would prevent the investigator from checking if you have a TV app installed on the phone, I'm guessing the response would be that it would be up to the Courts to decide if there was intent or not!
"... these electronic devices fall outside of the definition of TV Receiver"
That's how I would read the definition in the video. Whether they can be used as a receiver isn't relevant. Whether they have been is. It's not then clear to me what my obligations would be if someone comes to the door with a warrant and they want to test my PC when I've not used or installed it for watching TV broadcasts.
@@casinodelonge This is why preinstalled applications on your devices, that you literally cannot remove, is such a big problem...
@@casinodelonge My logic on this matter is that the owner of the device has not installed their phone or any software on the device for the purpose of live tv et al. Whilst, like every device, it is capable, If the owner of the device has not installed it for and does not intend to use it for that purpose, I was wondering if in that case, it did not fall into the legal classification of a device that could be checked. I can see why BBB would stay out of this as it not only hypothetical it is also moot because there would need to be reasonable grounds from a warrant being issued.
The single reason I follow you because your guidance is professional and balanced.
Even though I'm in Australia the United Kingdom Court’s is valid in our common law jurisdiction. Again thankyou
Has anyone actually been prosecuted for not showing them their phone or pc?
I'd be very surprised if they had.
I think the default position was to get the police to charge them with Obstruction. Thereby the police issue that and TV Licence organisation can avoid the bad publicity.
But the chances of getting a search warrant for this is getting less. To many people now video on their phones the actual search, and it simply highlights how ridiculous the TV Licence is in its current format. UA-cam has become a thorn in the side of TV Licensing and the BBC.
he answered in the video that you must provide reasonable assistance one would assume this involves unlocking the device so they can look at all your nudes... i mean look for evidence of you watching live tv 08:18
Suggest this as a video in the appropriate email.
Would it be self-incrimination to do so?
I would be very suprised if they hadnt, as this is pretty much what the video above is about.
High sheriff of Scotland will only issue a warrant for outstanding debts owing to customs and excise inland revenue (HMRC) DWP and business that owes you money ie you buy a car you pay for the car but it will take a couple of weeks for whatever reason for your new car to arrive. But then it never does, the car showroom now owes you a full refund. But they don’t pay up .
Can you do a video regarding frivolous/unjust warrants, it seems so easy for company's such as walker love and those associated with energy firms to obtain warrants and threaten vunreable people even when the information is incorrect or unjust, it appears they have a ai judge that just sighns theses things off with little to no recourse to the poor sodds on the reciving end of what appears as a very shady practice?
So, given that *everyone* has a phone capable of viewing live TV (even by way of the pre-installed UA-cam app) then it should be a piece of cake to get the necessary warrant. In fact, surely under this law, *everyone* with a smartphone must have a TV license because their device is "capable" or "could be used" for the purpose of receiving live TV streams, even if it isn't actually being used for that purpose. I live in New Zealand and we ditched the ridiculous TV-tax many, many years ago.
that is exactly the spirit of the law.
"...any device *capable* of receiving and displaying broadcast content..." (I may be paraphrasing). Intent is not at issue. This is a civil matter, and the balance of probabilities (the burden of proof standard in civil law) suggests that this *is* what the device is being used for.
Sometimes "common knowledge" is actually wrong, so sometime it could be good answering the trolls to give the correct common knowledge.
Anyways, just thanks for everything you do 👍
How does this pan out when you have a work PC/Phone at home and the information on it is govened by GDPR. Can they force you to give them the password?
I always add a caveat to any disagreement I may communicate, whether that be due to lack of qualification/experience and/or what I'm disagreeing with. Usually that is the law itself, not somebody's (yours or anybody else's) interpretation of it. Keep up the great work, love the regularity of your videos!
Well it seems every single household in the UK contains some sort of electronic device capable of displaying a live broadcast TV signal. In which case the law is not fit for purpose because if you do not have a TV license then you are, by definition, in breach of said law. Even the lowly Raspberry Pi tucked away in a draw in the kid's room could receive a broadcast.
Very informative. Just one more bit of clarification I'd like to see: who can get the warrant and perform inspection? I assume TV licensing people? In that case, why a door to door salesmen (which what they, broadly speaking, are) can even obtain a warrant? Do they need to be accompanied by a police officer? And, if they can obtain a warrant, can I get one too assuming I provide some evidence?
Thank you. Just simply thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and information & skill etc etc with us all. V grateful. 👍
But shouldn't said warrant have the person's name on it? There's lots of examples of a warrant being issued with no name on it, are you really "duty bound" in that case? 🤷
A warrant does not need a name on it, just the property, vessel etc being searched. And any person on/in said address, vessel would be duty bound.
@@trickydicky8488 I'm not entirely convinced tbh, otherwise the videos I've seen would entail police arrest but that literally never happens 🤷
Would have been nice for BBB to have clarified this but I'm pretty sure warrants aren't supposed to be issued without a name, you could literally be anyone, a babysitter, housesitter, it's not their responsibility to allow anyone in the home warrant or not, I'm pretty sure the law is quite explicit about the issue, but as usual BBB is not interacting again 🙄
@@DoctaOsiris It would depend on the warrant. A TV Licence one would be looking for an item as described in BBB's video. A drug warrant, for instance, would need to mention, a property, car, any outhouse (shed), any persons on the property, any use of force needed to gain entry (if needed) and so on. The warrant would also need to be in a certain time limit, i.e. one month from the magistrates issuing the warrant. The warrant would allow the search and if an offence has been committed then a person would be arrested for that offence and not under the warrant. So going back to drugs a section 23 drugs warrant would gain entry and search and if any drugs found then they would be arrested for drug offences under the misuse of drugs act 1971 & not the warrant.
Thanks for your time and efforts Daniel, some people genuinely believe their truth is the only right truth, ironically because THEY conceived it, based on THEIR limited information. Perfect example of people mistaking information for knowledge. Marcus Aurelius, "just because you believe it doesn't make it true", sorry for the paraphrase 😊
It does amuse me when 'arm chair experts' disagree with a real expert in any given field. I know a little bit of law and I know enough law to know how dangerous a little knowledge really is.
I appreciate your channel a great deal. it's massively interesting and informative. great to hear a real expert speak. Thank you.
Dunning Kruger in action. You are so correct.
Like all the medical experts saying a dust mask must be worn to stop a virus? We must never question experts you are right!
@@Polecat54941 i thought the mask was worn to stop your breath going far (30cms with a mask as opposed to 200cms without a mask) and n’encensa stopping the spread of a virus; not to stop you catching the virus
@@Jock609 think of the virus as a fly and the mask mesh a wall of entrances to a train tunnel but you are probably correct and entitled to your opinion 😁
@@Polecat54941 thé masks were not virological barrier masks and so offered no protection whatsoever.
Thank you for clearing this up under the law.
If someone says they have a warrant, how do we the common man tell if it's true. They can wave a piece of paper at us, but how do we check it's a real warrant?
So what happens when they turn up with a warrant, possibly accompanied by a policeman, and you don't answer the door to them and it appears to them that the house is unoccupied? Do they batter the door down? Get a locksmith? What?
Can you explain why legally, the words "any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving..." are synonymous with "could theoretically be used for receiving...", when linguistically they definitely are not? That's the bit I don't understand.
If you have to provide them with your unlocked computer, laptop or mobile phone, how can you ensure that they only look at the things that they are entitled to look at and secondly, what is it that they are actually entitled to look at on your devices?
Yet again, masterpiece level, thank you for your content 💚
Very clear thank you. There has been and still is/are many channels that give advice but actually don’t know, understand or accept what the Acts actually state. As an ex police officer I understand the vital need to read any Act in depth to understand it. Thank you again,
I think the main problem with people's anger over these things is that the general public just do not pay attention to laws that are passed. They see a headline and say yes we want to obviously stop malicious communications. Without realising these laws tend to have loads of other things you might not expect in them. We need to start paying attention to these things!
These so called laws are NOT worth the paper they are written on FULL STOP.
100% agree!
That's called being a lawyer. Parliament passes laws and then the judiciary start interpreting them as they see fit. Most laws also let government ministers maintain schedules, that also can be used to extend the scope of laws. It's almost impossible for an ordinary person to understand the reach of law on any given day.
It would be far better to fund the BBC through taxation then we can get rid of all the silly TV licence laws and the cost of the industry that only exists to police it.
@@TheWebstaff I'd argue we need it more than ever.
People do pay attention but there's a limited amount you can do. You can write to your MP, but lobbyists and think tanks have more weight and tweeting at your MP is just going to get ignored.
Some people expect legal advice for free... this is guidance.... love that...
Side question; if there is a tenant who is not home and a person turns up with a warrant. Would you have to let them into the Tennant's room. Even if you did or didn't have access?
Thank you for that clarification regarding computers. etc, and I personally stand corrected, although I note that multiple sites claim computers may not be examined. I do find this worrying, as I have no desire to have a 3rd party look at my computer, since it contains confidential information. It seems the sticking point is 'installed or used for the purposes of receiving live TV'. None of my devices are installed or used for that purpose, so I do not see that I am under such a duty. But safety first. Thanks.
Anglo Saxon law states that you’re exempt from possession of a TV licence if you keep a dead newt in your purse.
😂😂😂😂 never newt that
Would you have to give up passwords for pc, tablet ect if they have warrant thanks
One excuse for not allowing entry into a premises I hear is that the warrant has not a ink signature... Is it correct that a digital copy can not be used? Thank you.
Good question.
BBB has covered this before; wet ink NOT required
Always check the case and warrant is real at the Ministry of Justice, London, Sw1, and check the Bailiffs are correctly registered by phone. Remove all implied rights until all information is checked to be true.
Have you examined the less well known 2004 Amendment to the 2003 Communications Act. Which then goes onto state that computer equipment is not considered TV equipment.
You are 100% correct on the 2003 Communications Act, but I believe this was amended.
The video is using the 2016 amendment, which was expanded with language which implies it covers the user of computer equipment (the part in the brackets with the F1 label).
@@cynicaloutlook Thank you for that I will have a look. I meant to add before submitting in my comment, that the 2004 amendment had confusion regarding “TV Set” definition vs “TV receiving equipment”.
Very sad that certain people who wish to react negatively cannot produce a constructive message without becoming aggressive and foul mouthed. Without constructive criticisms our nation would not move forward, for the better. Free speech is our right but it must always remain for the good, to enable us to comprehend perhaps something that wast thought of.
Great work Mr Barrister, there are so many people who greatly respect you and your efforts. We need people like you
There seems to be a problem with the need for a licence if apparatus is installed for the purpose of watching TV, even if that apparatus is not used for watching TV. eg A new TV comes with BBC Iplayer installed, would not having a BBC account be enough to negate the need for a licence or would the user need to remove BBC Iplayer?
It can be difficult to remove the app. Sometimes you just change your location to, say, Eire and it will remove/hide/block it.
It's not even just iPlayer. If you have a UA-cam app installed, which you obviously do as you are commenting on a YT video. Then just by clicking on the Sky News Live channel would require you to have a TV License.
your clear and dispassionate explanations of important laws are so useful especially when shedding light on apparently misguided people with plausible but nevertheless wrong information ( otherwise known as fake news.. what you do is so useful and important . Do not be discouraged and keep going. Thanks
Brilliant explanation of the “duty to provide assistance” Dan. Thank you!
Except it was left as vague as the instruction itself. Unless examples are given from court how can we know what the law considers reasonable. Are we obligated to give passwords to our computers, for example.
Good point and going on from that if it was a pay on demand service are we then to give them your credit card details too
this basically states you have a duty to entrap yourself by tuning your device to licensed content or allowing the officer to do so..
this has to be the most bizarre legislation ever as it provides zero protections as any device capable of watching content (computer/TV) can if intentionally tuned to it, observe it.
It is like a copper demanding you drive your car 100mph just to prove it can do it, then prosecuting you for doing so.
But still I don't understand "television receiver". I have a mobile but I DID NOT installed nor use it for the purpose of receiving a television programme. So why such a device is included in search?
Arguing with trolls is like wrestling with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it. - George Bernard Shaw (sort of)
If TV licensing came into our house with a warrant - I would not know the passwords of wife or sons iPads/pcs/phones etc. So how would they then be able to check them?
Describing those that disagree as 'trolls' tells me all I need to know. Black belt, my ass. Yellow belt at best.
Lets clear this up
A statute (legislation ) does not have the power to punish , an individual has the right under constitutional law to a trial by jury
And in that trial the legislation or law is also on trial .
wtf?
@@andrewcoupe9528 quite correct
negative. Trial by jury is not offered in civil cases. What is that horse puckey you've been reading anyway? JJ Harris?
How does the official secrets act, and the data protection act works with regards to the protection of privileged information on work laptops and phones that happen to be on the premises?
Please do one about the warrant, has it got to have certain things like a signature and stamp ?
No - it doesn't require a wet signature or a court stamp.
R v Morris twenty-eighteen [2018] judge ruled that if a document does not have both a judges wet-ink signature and a court seal it is a fraudulent document
@@bushcraftone7240 R v Morris (2018) - Canada?
Apologies if I've ever made a comment that is in the "trolly" style you mention. I do try to refrain from being verbally "extreme" in comments sections, and I do get facts wrong sometimes (probably more so than I believe). I really do appreciate your videos and your insights into how the law actually works, whether any of us like the laws, dislike them, believe they're good or bad, or otherwise.
My personal opinion on TV licencing is that the BBC are in the past, when television broadcasting first became a thing. In the modern world, their business model doesn't appear to make any sense, when all other TV studios pay for their own survival without government intervention (other than for contract enforcement purposes in courts, which everyone gets access to).
Anyway, thanks for all your videos. I appreciate your time explaining the law to us.
09:37 - P.S. That's the thing I dislike the most about reading Statute Law, the fact it links to different sections, so you have to have a good memory to be able to comprehend it in its entirety. Sometimes you have so many chains linking one single section and subsection to multiple other sections and subsections, that it becomes almost impossible without copying and pasting each section into a document.
In the 21st century, I think, for the clarity of ordinary people who wish to read the Statutes, someone could come up with a better system where you can hyperlink at the very least between sections, or have a pop-out window. Just thinking out loud!
Great video. A masterclass on how to read legislation (and the same applies to contracts). Thanks.
How do you read the legislation when it says
_apparatus installed for the purpose of receiving or watching live TV_?
If a TV was installed for the purpose of watching Black Belt barrister on UA-cam would that incur a liability for a BBC Licence?
@@twig3288 it's all about the definitions. The act says 'for the purpose of receiving a television programme or ... an on-demand programme service provided by the BBC' not 'Live TV'. You have to read section 362 of the 2003 Act to find the definition of 'television programme'. Services defined as 'on-demand programme services' in section 368A such as internet provided services (other than those provided by the BBC i.e., through iPlayer) are not subject to TV licensing. UA-cam is on demand and exempt as is Netflix, etc.
@@nigelc2 That's exactly what I previously thought, so why didn't our host make that clear?
@@twig3288 exactly. Clarifying with vagueness and word salad isn’t clarifying at all.
If iplayer is part of the manufactures apps which many devises have, and you don't use it, how can you mitigate this in a court of law?
Also if you are asked under the terms of a warrant to turn on a device, which you don't use, then are you being forced to commit an unlawful action?
Whilst I agree there are many keyboard experts that hear and disagree with what they think they have heard. The part which maybe being misconstrued is that whilst a warrant appears to be intrusive by examining phones and computers and not just a TV. It only applies to finding any evidence that the device has been used for the purpose of which the warrant has been served. For example, just because you have a UA-cam app installed would not be sufficient evidence to convict you of the offense of `watching live broadcast TV'. Likewise just because you have a cable or satellite installation with hundreds of broadcast channels available, does not mean you use it for that purpose, if you have it for the purpose of watching `on demand' services. It is the TV licence authorities duty to prove you have been watching broadcast TV, not for you to disprove it. The warrant is for them to FIND evidence to bring to a court and prove their case to a Magistrate `beyond reasonable doubt'. Remember they first need to provide enough reason to first get a warrant in the first place, and they can't get that if you do not talk to them when they first visit.
I'm a little confused and hope for some clarification. In the video, the wording of the legislation suggests that there is only an obligation to assist if there is a television receiver "installed or used" [10:42]. However, you seem to imply that there is an obligation to assist even if the receiver is NOT installed. Hoping for clarification. I'm a radio ham, and was always taught that 'installed' means connected to power and an aerial. So does the obligation remain if it is unplugged?
I very rarely watch TV but my wife watches it every day so we have a TV licence.
I personally don't think it is worth the money, but I am not willing to break the law just because I think it's a rip off.
Thanks for the invaluable free legal guidance Dan I am sure it is helping a lot of people understand the law.
👍
When my wife died, I found myself watching it less and less, to the point where it really wasn't worth the bother, so I cancelled my licence. I don't miss it at all.
@@markellott5620 I have always found most TV programs quite tedious so I stopped watching back in 1993. Initially I found that I couldn't participate in chit-chat about the latest TV program, but I found many more enjoyable and productive uses for my time, learning languages, travelling, gardening, various DIY tasks. Now I just don't have the time to waste on a TV - and why throw your time away watching other people live their lives when you could be living your own.
We're not breaking the law because a TV Licence is a rip off. We're not breaking the law, at all! I sense some presumptive resentment. I'm, personally, more than sated with Netflix and Prime and UA-cam. I suspect I'm being much more efficiently entertained, too.
Of course, there will be some people who watch/listen to BBC/live broadcasts without a license. I have encountered people who had zero qualms about proudly announcing they had found a way to cheat. Many of us, though, were just sick of paying for something we didn't want.
It should be against the law to force anyone to pay for a service they've never asked for, need or want.
if they turn up with a warrant turn off your electric if they need to test your equipment, they will have to hire a generator or inverter from there vehicle, also ask to see they are competent to interfere with your equipment, request to see a copy of there liabibility insurance in case they dirty your carpets or damage your equipment so you can claim damages off them. most important of all film them, film there ID and say nothing to them dont even confirm your name or address, if they want to question you don't refuse, politely decline and inform the police if in attendance if they want to question you, its should be done at the police station in presence of your solictor and after full legal advice. Nothing in the warrant forces the householder to answer questions or provide electricity for them to use.
So, the first legislation you refer to, does that mean if you have a tv in your house and don’t use it for anything other than watching dvd’s you need a licence ?
If that's all the TV is used for (playing DVDs) then no, you don't need a license.
You don't need a TV Licence for just watching DVDs. TV Licence door knockers might demand to come and visit to prove it. You don't have to do this and really don't let them in unless they produce a warrant.
@@Mushroom67 but the first bit of legislation b b b refers to seems to indicate you need one if you have a tv capable of receiving
@@270wsm6 Even a TV doesn't count as a 'television receiver' unless it has been "installed or used for the purpose of" watching live TV or BBC Iplayer. So no, you do not need a license if you installed it and only use it for on demand content, video games or physical media like DVDs.
Of course, if you had an aerial plugged in, channels tuned and Iplayer downloaded it would be pretty difficult to argue you didn't install it for the purpose of watching it.
Dear BBB, as the experrt, I trust your word. I have every confidence in you expertise and I thank you for all that you are advising/educating us, your viewers, with. Love Sue x
ChilliJonCarne is the go-to person for advice on TV licensing. I took his advice and cancelled mine ages ago and if I happen to open my door to a TV licensing enforcement officer I just say not today thank you and just shut the door.
"installed or used for the purpose of receiving (...) any television programme or service"
Who determines if any of your multi-purpose devices were/are installed or used for that purpose?
Can I refuse to assist with certain devices from my knowledge that they were not installed for that purpose and are not used for that purpose?
@Sam Liddicott, I raised the same question, but seem to have been shadow blocked. In order to know if it IS used or installed for receiving live TV (or BBC iPlayer) they'd have to test it. But you're not obliged to help them (and they cannot test it) unless it IS a TV receiver. BB says that the definition means if it "can be" or "can possibly be" used for that purpose. But if so, then you would already committing an offence for merely possessing such an item (unless you had a TV licence). Unless of course the courts are intepreting "television receiver" one way for the duty to assist in testing, but another way for possession of the item itself.
@@davidkesslerauthor I suppose that if a specific device were mentioned in the warrant because there was evidence in relation to it presented to the magistrate, it has already been determined that it was used for the reception of a TV programme
It would be good to know how much assistance they can really require. If there's an unplugged PC do I have to be the one that gets under a desk to plug it in, or is pointing to a socket enough? If the computer uses an operating system they are not familiar with do I actually have to perform the testing for them?
(Clarification not debate): my PC is not 'installed' nor 'used' for the purpose of watching live TV (neither is iPlayer installed or used). What the machine 'could' be used for is not mentioned is it?
Can you do a video on power of attorney please, I'm finding the whole system very confusing. Ty
What happens if a device was not installed for the purposes of receiving live television, but is able to receive live television? E.g. an office / work computer. It's installation purpose is to do work - not to receive live TV, but it's capable of receiving an iPlayer feed.
Interesting stuff.
The bit I always get confused on ( despite watchong a number of videos) is the difference between having a TV .... and what exactly crosses the line between needing or not needing a licence. Owning a TV, means you own a device capable of receiving a broadcast of live TV. I have often wondered how, exactly, any TV licensing enforcement officer would actually prove through 'testing' that the device was used for purposes requiring a licence, and not for watching DVDs, UA-cam videos and content from Netflix, Amazon etc. that was not a live broadcast.
My understanding is that these things do not require a licence....but a modern smart TV, with it's WiFi access to the internet via your ISP, doesn;t need any physical connection to anything to perform its full range of functions. Which also could include live broadcast TV....or not.
How would they conduct any meaningful test as these devices ( unlike a PC, phone, Tablet or laptop...which may leave history/cookie evidence ) don't record a history of their activity.
Unless you ware sat there watching the latest episode of Eastenders, or wathing hte BBC News....of course.
I would personally refuse. And get arrested. I don't believe it is reasonable for a G4 agent to access my personal equipment.
Very interesting , thanks , May I ask this in comments for hopefully some insight? Are the T.V. licence agents (Capita) legally , allowed to use trickery tactics and hard sell methods ( bordering on the realms of threatening, with letters and visits to homes without a licence that maybe do not require or need one ??
Problem is that most homes would have a mobile phone, laptop or Xbox ....
Like any sales people they shift words to sell their product. If you record and accept the contract on their words you can always take it to court if you find them to be incorrect as we know. But if you know they are the TV licence people ignore the letters as any spam mail and if you get a knock on the door say no thanks shut the door like any other sales people that come to your door
Bear in mind also a warrant allows them entry for ONE TIME ONLY. It states this on the warrant. Ask to see and read it before admitting entry. It is not blanket authorisation. Should they step outside for any reason you are not obliged to let them back in. As these employees of Capita are on commission to con you into buying a potentially un-needed licence, I would be inclined to ask if they were in possession of a Peddlar's Licence. They are in essence a door to door salesperdon. A warrant also has a shelf life. Check the dates.
I'd like to see a video on constitutional law & the balance of power between government & citizens.I'd really be interested in the full powers of a jury particularly in relation to annulment and a jury's right to find a person not guilty even if they believe that person did commit the offence.Assuming such a right exists of course.
The constitution doesn't exist in the UK. We have a bill of rights based on the Magna Carta
@@boztec7187 I think the subject would still be referred to as constitutional law but I'm happy to be corrected.
@@boztec7187 you haven’t got a clue have you.
@@sempereadem54eadem64 Explain then.
Judges seem able to direct juries to find people guilty at times, regardless
Do not be put off by trolls and haters, Sir. You are doing a great job and helping a lot of people here. Thank you.
Your videos are very informative and much appreciated. On the subject of warrants; specifically on the subject of TV licensing; I have seen a number of videos where the homeowner says the warrant is not valid onless it is signed by a magistrate. How true is this? The other thing I notice is that some homeowners in these videos,
seem to barely get an opportunity to read the warrant because it is briefly held up to their face before being quickly snatched back by the official executing the warrant. Does the homeowner have the right to read the warrant in full and to receive a copy of said warrant?
R v Morris twenty-eighteen [2018] judge ruled that if a document does not have both a judges wet-ink signature and a court seal it is a fraudulent document
Thank you for helping people understand the law . I appreciate what you do . All the best for the future 🤗
Thanks for clarifying this matter. It gets confusing as there’s far too many people on UA-cam and other media stating “ if you’re not watching live tv channels” then you don’t need to pay for a licence.
I always thought the actual law would be far more complex than what others are waffling about. Great vid 👍🏻
it is true no live tv channels or bbc i player
The key words seem to be _“installed or used for the purpose of receiving live tv”_
I didn’t install or use my tv for the purpose of receiving live tv.
I installed it to watch Black Belt Barrister on UA-cam.
It’s now confusing for me, I live in Australia and I have the BBC sports app on my iPad, although I don’t get live sports, I do follow the live football scores/updates and message commentaries.
I don't see anything in the video that contradicts the ideas that you only need a TV license if you watch live TV. The only matter the video raised is that if they get a warrant you have a duty to allow them to search all kinds of devices that could receive live TV.
You are allowed to have a TV and with aerial connected to listen to radio it is only a TV receiver when in use to receive TV signals when used to receive radio is is that
So if your filming them on your phone they could say that's really all the evidence they need as it's possible it could receive tv that's nuts
Not a lawyer here, but from watching many of BBB's videos I would think they would have to prove intent? Just because you have a phone, doesn't mean you watch TV on it.
@@jasonuren3479 But with a warrant they are allowed to "search and test" it. You also have to facilitate that by entering your pin, fingerprint etc.
It's all murky as anything. You might have installed the TV apps when you were staying with a friend who had a licence and only use then in that scenario, but they'd say he had the apps on his phone so he watches TV without a licence.
@@radman8321 Good points. I know the warrant gives them powers to do those things. But the chances of a warrant being issued are incredibly slim. Only when such a warrant is issued is anyone under any obligation to speak to them. I've had dozens of letters saying my property is under investigation over the years, I've yet to be presented with a warrant. The so-called inspectors who call have no power, there is no obligation to speak to them or let them in, as BBB alludes to. If they ask to 'come in and check' if a person has such equipment, there's no obligation without the warrant. The inspectors work on commission. And are actually employed by firms such as Capita, a private company, again who have no legal authority.
And personally, I'd never install those apps, as I have no intention of watching TV, I got rid of mine in 2009 I think. Anyone who genuinely doesn't want to watch live TV like myself should already know this stuff.
As we've seen recently in the case of magistrates rubber-stamping warrants for energy companies to enter homes and install pre-payment meters you cannot rely on the courts treating you fairly with regard to tv licensing. You need to assume that the courts will always be on the side of tv licensing if they submit false information to obtain a warrant to search your home.
"Doing my law degrees, plural"
Solid flex