TV Licensing Officers REFUSED Entry on Search Warrant
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- An occupier refused TV Licensing officers entry to the property, despite having a search warrant - but that is not the end of the matter!
Thanks to @ChilliJonCarne for flagging the video for review.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Thanks for taking a look at this one, it's good to get a more legal opinion on it. I couldn't really say too much as it was above my pay grade
No worries - Thanks for the tag and hope it's useful!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Very useful mate, thank you.
Just makes me glad these warrants are pretty rare. Are they a lot of effort for TVL to obtain? Do you think they could use these more going forward with 'evasion' rates going up as they are?
@@ChilliJonCarne There is quite a threshold, as the do grant power of forceful entry, so I doubt we'll be seeing many of them. As you say, they may try more often as people stop paying!
@@ChilliJonCarne by what right did they have to use evidence they got through looking through his window? That was the evidence tv licence person said was the evidence
@@PaulaSB12 This is a good question as I have a TV that I watch Netflix and Prime on so, looking through my window, you will see something on the TV.
However, the actual aerial cable is in the next room and, as my TV is wireless, the only cable going into it is the power cable.
Amazing how they find police for tv licensing, but u wait weeks for a visit regarding a burgalry!
Sods law
I believe the police was there for breach of the peace of the execution of warrant. The police officer will have the power to execute public order offence if incidents were caused outside the premises.
@@anoyakashi8775 Yes, but the point being made is that for an actual crime the police don't bother; but in this case, on the chance that something MIGHT happen they turned up! .... has the Minority Report become a reality???
I think its because the BBC has more money and has friends in the grovernment. Money gets things done.
BECAUSE IN TODAYS CRAZY MONEY ORIENTATED SOCIETY - MONEY FOR ESTABLISHMENTS RANKS ABOVE HUMAN WELFARE!!.
The fact that a private company can get a warrant to enter your property due to the suspicion that you watch telly live is bonkers !! what a world
Please stop the world I want to get off before it gets any worse.
and if you don't let them in you will get find 5k or more 🙄
@@M.Y.O.F.B5178 so the moral of the story is explain to them and show them if needed why you don't need one ! then tell them to do one
Why ? ultimately anyone serving a warrant is an agent of the court be they directly employed or a contracted agency. The real issue is how easy it is for a warrant to be issued not how its enforced. Unlike the BBC a warrant wouldnt be issued for a private company say Sky alleging hes using a doggy box. Had the statement to the court included comments saying a live BBC program was witnessed on the 1st visit there would be compelling reasons for the court to grant a warrant but in this day and age having a monitor on is not compelling IMO.
@@williamgardner2739 That's a bit Extreme (ua-cam.com/video/2S8-C8AMq8M/v-deo.html) 🎸
That our courts are even bothering to concern themselves with a sub £200 annual fee is ridiculous. That they give private companies warrants to enter your property, is obscene. And that the police turn up to lend credence to the whole affair is laughable.
No what’s ridiculous is people who think they can free ride through life which from your reply saggiest is you. The police in many cases have to be there in case it turned violent. Had the man paid for his license neither police officer or warrant would be required. The house owner is the one wasting police time and causing me to pay more in both taxes and license fee to cover free riders.
@@wobby1516 it's dangerous is it? So why have laws which encourage violence? Just make TV voluntary, if you want it, apply for it. If you dont, do nothing. Simple as.
@@wobby1516 you don't need a TV licence if you do not watch live TV. Why would someone pay for something they don't need?
@@wobby1516 why do they do this to people who don't watch the BBC? It's all war and hateful news nothing but depression you subscribe to that?
@@cecil4485 Yes you do if you have a TV receiver. Communication Act 2003, Section 363 para 3.
What I find so troubling about TV licensing is it is treated as a guilty until proven innocence offence which is contrary to the entire paradigm of any civilized legal system.
As an Australian I find the very notion of a TV licence so utterly bizarre. The ABC gets funded out of general taxation, the same way we fund education, roads, and the police. There's no need for a specific separate payment to watch "free-to-air" television. There's no justification for the UK not doing the same with the beeb.
@JimCullen, as an English man, i find the idea of a tv licence bizarre and haven't had one since i left my parents, i am now 51😂😂
I'm no fan of the TV license, but it definitely isn't guilty until proven innocent. The warrant issued here is to obtain evidence of suspected criminality (it is, after all, a crime to watch television without a license, like it or not).
Nobody was arrested or charged with an offense, because the presumption is that he is innocent. If the evidence suggests otherwise, then that changes, of course.
@@christiananderson8686 You're talking specifically about when it escalates to the legal system. I'm talking about how the organisation itself behaves. You obviously haven't heard the stories. These people relentlessly harass elderly people who don't even own TVs, behaving as if they are empowered by some authority and making legal threats. They try to intimidate people into getting licences by sending letters that are deliberately phrased to imply as strongly as they legally can that you ARE violating the law by not having a licence and you are minutes away from a jail cell. It's disgusting how these people act. It's disgusting that they are allowed to "investigate" people for potentially violating this law simply because they aren't registered with a licence, which very much does lean right up against the line of the violating civil liberties. To the extent they can get away with it, and through masquerade, even beyond it, they definitely do treat you as guilty until proven innocent. This has been a major problem across the country for a long time. Most people don't even know they are legally allowed to not have a TV licence, because they intentionally make it sound that way with their constant threatening letters and sending people around to accuse you. It's a racket, and this entire practice should be scrapped.
I find you guilty of being very beautiful ❤ now you have to prove your innocence?!
Well now you know how words work. Words are meaningless when they aren’t lawful 😉
Much like those tv license letters. Ain’t no different to an iPhone add on the bus stop. Apple wants £849 from you with words. BBC want £170 from you in words.
Yayyuhhhhj 😂
'Trust me. I'm a police officer' ?
Those days are long gone.
So when you get home and its been ransacked. Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?
@@Xanderbelle Waste of time calling the police, they don’t even visit, you just get a crime number
@@Xanderbelle Not the Police, they're too busy helping TV licensing to get £100 and tell you they don't have the resources to help you.
The police have never been for the people, but always for our political and corporate overlords. Time people stopped being divided and distracted and stood up together as one.
Lol trust me I'm a police officer,funny
I’m interested in how they go from having “equipment capable of watching live TV” to using said equipment in a fashion that requires a license. I have plenty of stuff in my house that’s capable of committing crimes I just don’t use it for that purpose. Just because I have knifes in a kitchen draw doesn’t make me a murderer.
My sentiment exactly! ..... Surely its their job to prove that you watch live TV on one of these devices, not the public prove they don't use a device to watch TV...I have a gas oven but I dont use it for cooking my food...ever! .... How we can be bullied into paying for something we say we dont need is beyond me...Capita, along with the BBC are private corporations and shouldn't have anymore power than McDonalds or Marks & Spencer...Its ridiculous! ... I've not watched TV for more than 15 years, but until 6 years ago I was led to believe I had to have a license just because I owned a TV....I no longer buy one because I DONT NEED ONE, not because i refuse to pay for one ..I filled out their form online stating I don't need a license yet they still hassle me with threatening letters...I will not bow to them...I refuse to pay for something I don't need....Would I buy car tax, and insurance for a car I didnt drive?...It's time more people stood up to this intimidating bullying!
careful what you say on social media....
@@HarryNicNicholas dont be soft. He makes a valid point. Like arresting someone in a stationary car because it has the ability to break the speed limit.
@@HarryNicNicholaswhat an utter load of hog wash you speak sir.
"Your honour, the defendant possesses a pair of eyes which could be used to watch live television. We're going to need a warrant to search his property"
At the age of 64, physically disabled, i spend 5 days a week stuck in front of the box. My license runs out 30-11-2024. My daughter bought me a firestick for father's day this year. I watch this 90% of the time. Im considering not renewing my tv license but,the fear of the knock on the door bothers me. Where do i stand? Many thanks, Tom
Do not open the door, do not talk to them.
@@chrisclark4112 that's terrible advice, this video literally explains that won't work.
If you don't watch LIVE TV, any channels not just BBC and not even on UA-cam or the fire stick, and don't use iPlayer or BBC Sounds app for radio, then you won't need a licence but you might still have to prove you don't watch live TV and that isn't all that easy.
I take it your firestick hasn't been hacked so you can watch everything for free and you have a subscription to prime video or something like that?
@@Ch33rfulgrin So you have to prove your own innocence??
I’ve contacted the police a couple of times in the last 12 months. A 999 call about someone being physically threatened and racially abused on the street outside my house. An online report about criminal damage to my car. Neither situation resulted in any police contact/actions whatsoever yet they have the time to assist in this matter because someone looked through this guys window and thought he was watching a live sports event on his TV.
Outrageous and egregious
So true
Is that Kramer's Lawyer Jackie Chiles!?@@jayturner3397
All the more reason to get those nets up and shut those curtains.
I walk by so many houses and they have theirs wide open and i can see straight n.
Don't contact the police. We are on our own. Get your own protection.
' Trust me, I'm a Police Officer ' going by many recent events, never a less true statement.
Especially with all these chief inspectors getting nabbed with having indecent photographs of under-age children on their laptops. All good men and true . . .
The video is pretty old and recorded well before recent events.
Doesnt mean they know the law either
Trust me I'm a police officer. I'm sure that was a line that Wayne Couzens may have said in his time. The first thing I won't do is trust a police officer
Trust me, I'm a Police Officer said Wayne Couzens to Sarah Everard
The thing I found astounding is that search warrants are issued to private contractors, so basically you can get a job with Capita and after some minimal instruction be issued search warrants to enter private residences. That would be on a par with the security bloke form your local sainsburys being issued a search warrant because he thinks you may have shoplifted an item.
If a search warrant is issued, the owner of the property is allowed to request the presence of the Police. So the Capita people cannot act alone if the property owner doesn't allow it. Once the Police arrive, they will aid in the enforcement of the warrant, and keep things straight between both parties.
Not only that they ( captica ) can be a pedo if they have had only one conviction and is spent under the spent conviction act 1971 ( I think )
@Ubiquitous Ubiquitous well it is though isn't it, since short of you telling them you are watching tv without a licence they are assuming guilt
@@engineeredlifeform The police are only there to prevent a breach of the peace and cannot ‘aid’ the execution of the warrant. They must be impartial and take no active part.
Should the court have its own TV experts on hand to conduct the examination of The Author's equipment, and would they not also be private people rather than the court itself?
The fact that they can force entry to your home in order to ascertain whether you're watching live TV or not is ridiculously antiquated and needs to be repealed.
They can’t force entry. They’re not allowed.
Cps and bailifs can apparently enter only withing reason. Force to get is v limited. They can't force your door or window open. If they do it's criminal damage. It's a civil matter so can't. Only the police can and they need the right paperwork
Especially since it serves no purpose. The BBC is far from being impartial. They're a government propaganda mouthpiece and the quality of their shows is poor in my opinion
People watch Netflix, UA-cam, prime ect. Nobody but boomers watch cable TV.
Just stand there if they touch you at all just bring charges against them.
"Reasonable force" is permitted under the Act.
It's amazing how there are enough cops available to help the BBC out yet if you get burgled it takes them weeks to visit you and a lot of the Time they won't come at all.
To be honest I think a lot of it is to do with people being awkward with them, they pull someone over and it’s never a simple case of, License, insurance then warning/ticket, a lot of the time someone pulls a phone out and starts recording which eats up a lot of a police time. Although I totally agree our police is spread really thin, probably due to the gov keep cutting their funds.
cops are there to deal with an event IN PROGRESS. When you phone to say you were burgled last night, and the offenders are no longer there, whilst it's distressing for you, there is no requirement for cops to rush to you. I don't really know why that needs explaining?
@@Just-Ross Exactly. It reminds me of the time my ex-girlfriend was murdered during a home invasion; although it was distressing for me at the time, those pesky culprits had got away! I wrote a letter to the police because I didn’t want to bother them when they have more pressing matters to deal with such as people not paying a few hundred pounds to an extensive, government funded media institution. Still haven’t heard anything, but I wouldn’t want to disrupt the BBC’s revenue stream by troubling the police further…
@@whoahahaha9619 re-read my comment. May have to read it twice given your apparent levels of comprehension. Decades of underfunding by government means police do not have the resources to send 3 double crewed cars to a burglary that happened several days ago I'm afraid. Phone in a job that's IN PROGRESS and cops show up. IN PROGRESS being something like a burglary with 'intruders on', a fight - or a breach of the peace for example...
i got stabbed in the face and they never came. after 3 calls. they dont come here, because im an area thats dangerous for police.
THANK YOU for clarifying what a “signed” warrant is. There is a lot of confusion about that phrase.
Thank you for taking time to help and show care for ordinary people. Thank you for all you do to inform from a legal standpoint.
@@S.Tradesthat's how most services work. Doesn't undermine the service.
I dont find it acceptable that it can be signed by typing "justice of the peace". Anyone can fake that. If it isn't assigned to an actual legal person, with an actual name, I wouldnt accept it either.
As for someone peeping through the window and assuming its live. Thats an utter garbage excuse to issue a warrant. Good on the author for standing his ground.
Why is it not signed with a signature.. This makes me question the procedure and why is a police presence at little notice always at the TV agents hand, who do the police work for?
So the lesson learned is that, what is moral and what is legal are two entirely different things.
The difference between Moral and legal are clearly demonstrated in the fact that slavery was legal.. wars are legal.. moral absolutely not of course..
morals are subjective like laws
@@davidrichards3851the morality of war falls on the reason for invasion and justification of defense.
That distinction has always been valid, just as law courts are not about justice.
The phrase, ‘just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right’ didn't just appear out of thin air in the eighties!
Not morals. Ethics. What is ethical is certainly not cohesive with all laws, but that doesn't mean all laws are unethical. It's a minor point, but morality is more about broader, inalienable cultural notions. Ethics pertain to social fairness. TV licenses are unfair and should be abolished, but until that happens the moralistic position is to respect that, while the law is not perfect, it is a fundamental aspect of a free society and should be paid. This is why we have freedom to protest. Breaking the law isn't the way to protest UNLESS the law is both unethical and broadly immoral. For example, if cops could kill babies, under the auspices of the law, it is morally abhorrent and refusing to recognise that law is more important than maintaining the general letter of the law. Any society that makes it legal to kill babies is acting outside the accepted social standards of morality. But we're talking about the other end of the spectrum.
In short, choose the hill you die on wisely.
this is why a large minority pay the tv licence out of fear (including my 96year old mother)
No. Its because she watches her tv
@@Xanderbelle Oh ...you know crivsmum's mother then , to make such an assertion ❓🤔
Fear and threats are the TV licence extortionate's way of getting their 'fees' 😡
@@Xanderbelle You know that how?
Some of us do abide by the law and enjoy watching live TV quite happily.
What I was surprised at is how tv licensing got a warrant on the fact that the goon looked through the window and presumed the resident was watching live TV!
Must’ve been an honest goon
Surely that's like being a peeping Tom the goon should be arrested.
@@paulbuckley5748 I would be saying I’m naked in my house and why is the tv license guy being a peeping Tom on me and being a pervert
Surely looking through a window isn't evidence plus it can lead to other issues ie if you walk around naked in your house etc
@@quagmirewaserewell if some mentally retarded tv license goon staring in the window they be lucky if don't find something blunt and heavy coming from the upstairs window.
I never thought I'd find the process of law so educational! Great channel.
While I agree with your legal thinking 100%. It amazes me that the English system allows private organizations to search a residence to see if they are watching TV. The third man is obviously a bully boy to enforce it. And they allow the evidence of an officer that works for the company that gets a portion of the collected fees to testify they "saw" someone violating it. It sets up a reason to find anyone violating the law.
The third man is likely the technician who would examine the tv equipment as evidence of its capacity to show live tv. The warrant would normally be issued based on the fact that no current tv licence exists and other evidence such as that obtained by tv detector vans. There is no requirement to visually prove someone is watching live tv to obtain a warrant
@@richard-me7wx TV detector vans? What decade are you living in? It's been proven beyond doubt that these vans were a deterrent, nothing more.
@@richard-me7wx The question is whether there is a requirement to show visual proof for a case of Evasion... and if not, why not?
@@greenandpleasant5523 quite correct, well said.
@@andrewpiaf if tv detector vans actually worked wouldn't be much need for the warrant in the first place.
I wonder what would happen if everyone refused to pay for a tv licence? The system would be swamped for sure.
Most likely the BBC would get the government to make it a mandatory payment that everyone has to pay. 😑
The cost of employing Capita to send an "Agent" plus a "heavy" plus a Policeman must far outweigh the cost of a TV licence;( and all this based on what someone thought they witnessed through a window with blinds) How can the BBC justify this kind of action.
They are supplying propaganda across the country and the world, that's justification enough for them.
It is not, of course, about an individual case, it is about enforcing the law in general. If the message got about that the law could be ignored with impunity, then there would be a huge growth. You can argue whether the TV license is justified or not, but that is an entirely different point.
@rhippo2091 The evidence would be heard in court and, as a summary offence, that will be by a magistrate or district judge. You would have to be in court to hear the full evidence available, and a UA-cam video like this is not going to provide that. However, this is not the matter I was addressing, which was about the economics of the matter. In this case, it appears the search warrant was obtain forensic evidence. For example, was the receiving equipment connected to a TV aerial or satellite dish, were there any BBC programmes recorded on a set to box and so on (using iPlayer or recording BBC programmes requires a TV licence). This could all form part of the evidence.
The term "ultimate proof" is meaningless in law. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, and what determines that level is, in this case, down to the judgement of the judge or magistrates that hear any case. In more serious cases, it is the jury that determines it.
If he wasn’t watching live tv why refuse entry to the warrant.
Likely original tv guy knows what live tv programs are on, and it matched.
Yes it’s an invasion of your home but author did himself no favors by refuse to say what he was watching and instead went down the route he did.
Be interested to know if this went further.
@@toppkaffe527 I suggest you read up on the law. If there's a valid warrant, and you refuse entry, then you are in a world of legal pain as that's a breach of the law. You can argue the evidence or the legal justification for the warrant in court, but refusing to obey the order of a court is highly inadvisable.
Thanks
Thank you 😊
i had a tv license chancer put his foot in my door trying to stop me closing it. im partially sighted and cant actually watch tv unless its from 6 inches from the screen so i dont watch tv. the guy was mocking me and calling me a liar. my dog (a tactically trained american bulldog) sat patiently and quietly behind the door. when he put his foot and blocked me i gave my dog the command to bark and intimidate as i opened the door fully. the muppets couldn't get away quick enough. i done the proper complaints but never heard a thing about it after. the tv license is a farce and the arrogance of their employees is disgusting.
He cant do that. That’s trespass
Give him another chicken leg from me what a good boy
So if the TV licence people lies to the judge about what he / she says, they saw they will get a warrant, and you are stuffed, and there is nothing you can do. Great Law, what about innocent until proven guilty
If it can be proven that they lied to obtained the warrant then it would be invalidated and any evidence gained from it thrown out
If they lied then you can get them into trouble.
They would still have to find some evidence that live TV has / is being watched. Unless you are actually watching TV at the time I wonder what evidence would actually prove your guilt. It seems there is a lot of wriggle room and reasonable doubt that can be presented. Unless as I say, the tv is being watched when they walk in.
@Steven Cowell nope all they need is reasonable suspicion to obtain the warrant however they cannot lie to obtain it
Having a warrant issued doesn't make you guilty. It makes you suspect, but not guilty. You plead your case the to judge, and it's upto TVL to prove that you were watching TV. At every stage of the case, you're innocent until proven guilty by a judge.
The basic advice to not talk to them, not even open the door to them still applies. However, you gotta know how far you can take things. By the time there is a warrant, the jig is up, and coming out with nonsense like "it's not a valid warrant because it's not signed by a judge" and other sovcit nonsense is just going to make matters worse. There is so much misinformation out there as to what are a citizen's rights and duties under the law in these circumstances that a lot of people get themselves in unnecessary trouble. You do a great job dispelling myths and explaining things as plainly as possible. Thank you!
What do you mean the jig is up. You don’t need a license if you’re not watching live tv. What do they think they will find if they go inside and inspect the tv. The tv is obviously able to receive live tv but they can’t tell whether you are watching it or not. What if they break the tv or damage something inside
Unfortunately, this video only encourages sovcit behaviour. They will hear the sovcit talk, see the sovcit behaviour and start frothing at the mouth when they see that it finally worked! All it does is sets a dangerous precedent.
@@twistedsister2568 the judge was so easily convinced they had a suspicious, the judge will also be easily convinced you are watching due to something like iplayer being installed.
@@twistedsister2568 lol, are you trying to mansplain? "The jig is up" means that a warrant gives them right of entry end of. Deny them at that point at your own peril.
@@Locutus Exactly!
This video is clear evidence of BBB protecting what he was programmed to say and do from the Bar association, he's not on our side and doesn't understand how we are not obligated without a contract
The ''trust me I'm a police officer'' line made me crack up.
Trust is earned and the Police have backpedalled so much from the 1950s its unreal....they are now nothing more than a paramilitary goon squad that uses force at the first opportunity. To me they are the enemy
Or I'm a Barrister, I give unbiased opinions...
Works for people like Wayne Couzens...
Some policemen are great blokes. I called one back recently, concerning a friend's house being cleared. He was off-duty, but gave 20 minutes while cooking his son's tea one-handed.
That's up there with
'I'm with government and hear to help'
I assume attending situations like this, is why there aren't enough police resources to deal with real crimes. Like attending burglaries, recovering stolen cars, protecting victims of persistent harassment and anti-social behaviour!
That's why they sent that unimportant looking little scroat
This is a real crime. If the rest of us are paying to use a service and the other is using a service he isn't entitled to. Like using a train and not paying or filling with petrol and leaving without paying. If you want the police to do better things just let the TV people have a look in your house.
@@michaelprobert4014 Could just have a properly made subscription service and remove all doubt. That would work better than harrasing and fining people based on hearsay from commission based taddletales. I dont think they would lose out on revenue if they did enter the 21st century.
@@anthonybeswick1937 How do you make a broadcast service into a subscription service? You can't, hence the licence.
@@anthonybeswick1937 I think they would but you are right. Could just have that.
I just can't believe that TV licensing still exists. It's so far behind the times and useless. Just another form of Tax basically.
Your right it is a tax and it’s a tax that’s not going to go away, if not in this form I am sure they will tag it on to something else.
It is not a tax. It is a subscription fee if you are inclined to watch their crap. I dont. I do not own a TV and stopped watching commercial TV back in 2010.
There is no such thing as free TV.
If you think otherwise you clearly don't understand the system.
The average cost of advertising per household in the UK is £4.700 per year, even if they don't watch TV.
If you're concerned about the cost of TV you would be better off complaining about that.
The standards of the BBC programmes are admired throughout the world.
If you want to waste more of your life watching adverts put them on the BBC.
The standard of the programmes would crash to the American level.
Commercial TV has to compete with the high standards of the BBC.
If the BBC takes a large chunk of the advertising revenue, commcial TV will loose revenue and not be able to maintain their current performance.
You will have to subscribe to pay to view and you will see how much more expensive that is compaird to what we have at present.
High quality TV and Radio for the whole family for a week for the price of a cup of coffee, you won't find a better deal.
Parasitic behaviour based on old ideals...
@@mstables3185
Admired throughout the world!? 😂
I live in Norway and most people here, and in Sweden and Denmark thi k it's a absolute joke now! 😂👍🇳🇴
It’s extraordinary to see this!
I thought it was mentioned in a video a while back that it wouldn't be acceptable to look through someone's window as it would be a breach of privacy so how do they get around that to collect evidence?
@D-Bunker surely this is covered by privacy laws and by doing this would be an invasion of your privacy and in breach of those laws?
@D-Bunker interesting because the guy turned up with a warrant meaning he got that through evidence that was obtained by breach of privacy laws as the statement suggested the inspector saw evidence of watching tv through the window. then that evidence for the warrant would have been obtained illegally. Then the guy would have a case against the inspector I guess or his employer for the breach. I'd be interested to know what BBB's opinion is on it.
It's perfectly legal to look through someone's window. Evidence of watching live TV can therefore be got that way, provided the looking took place from a point where the public have normal access, such as the street or the garden path.
Actually they can. When I walk down the road, there are plenty of people with clear windows. My neighbour doesn't like curtains but also doesn't like people looking in. I pointed out that it is up to him to obstruct the view, however it is done (e.g. by privet hedge), not for people to not look in from the street. Now if someone comes on your property to look, you can ask they leave, and refusal, or coming back onto the property is now trespass, a criminal offence. There is no law against people looking in an open window. Trespass on your property, yes, but not looking through a window.
@@jamesw5584 "inspector saw evidence of watching tv through the window."
And if the window in question was visible from the street, there was no breach of privacy. Keep your windows curtained.
If they lie and fabricate evidence to gain the warrant, surely challenging it in court is acceptable.
I believe the law around it is that if it has been issued then you must comply with the court order.
If you do wish to challenge the order and wish to say that court order was illegally obtained then I would ask the officers and more importantly the enforcers of the warrant that they are sure they wish to proceed as you are only giving permission under order of the court, if found later that the order was unlawful i would be challenging them personally and privately in addition to the BBC to unlawful practice, duress and any other convinction to which is applicable
Absolutely..., But they didn't 🤷
@@501sqn3 I mean.. their evidence was their 'co-worker' saying 'trust me bro'. 🤷♂🤷♂
Another issue is what is the legal of this, if something else /technically/ illegal is found on the premises unrelated to the warrant? For instance he might have bootleg tobacco, or maybe the house smells of Marijuana, or maybe he has a bong on his coffee table, maybe he has a vintage unregistered weapon framed on the wall above the fireplace, or an unregistered hooker in his bedroom banging his flatmate?
Does that mean ultimately he may win the tv licence, but then be served with a second warrant on the other matter due to what the police officer witnessed during the execution of an already questionable search warrant matter in the first place? There is a reason why such frivolous search powers are not meant to be given to private organisations; especially if they are collaborating with police. It seem like a conflict of interest.
It all really goes against the /spirit/ of privacy laws; which is why it seems so absurd. Like honestly; if BBC was really serious about this instead of it being another case of power creep being allowed to violate peoples human rights, then they could legislate to have a sub channel decoder installed on all screens sold in the UK, that detects a prohibited live signal; and requests your tv licence number if you have not already entered one. Or take it a step further and encrypt all live broadcasts to begin with, requiring the licence to even decode it.
This tech as existed since teletype machines and teletext was invented. Why don't they use it?
@@phoenixx5092spoil sport. If they do that, how on earth will the government get to spy illegally on you, or crapita and BBC make more money out of you. Do be serious, they're not here to help us, they are here to alarm, distress and rob us, anything else that comes along after that is a pure bonus.
What you say is a good idea, but then no one would watch the biased BBC.
They have tried to claim they have seen my TV from the door and the window before. I live on the second floor, and my doorway gives sight into the bathroom only. Not to mention... I literally don't own any TV whatsoever.
They lied, perish the thought.
I get horrible, threatening letters addressed to occupant. They don't even know who lives here! I don't own a TV but these letters get increasingly threatening. Bold face, all caps, red ink! And, no, the "snooper vans" don't do anything!
@@GarryJantzen😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You might want to lead with the fact that you dont have a TV. I dont care where they can see if there's nothing for them to see.
@@peterc3262 I somewhat care, because the claim that they have "seen my TV" implies they put up a big ladder and looked into my bedroom. I be naked in there sometimes.
Even with a search warrant, how can they prove that a person watches live tv?
They look for connected antennas, satellite, or free view boxes and installed channels. Apart from that, they can't prove anything really
Exactly he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about I can assure you,its not legal and only if you let them in and admit your watching TV,if you look through a window a judge would toss it out,if they were right they would of booted the door in 👍
I don't watch television at all. I consider it a waste of time
Exactly. And even if you had an aerial or dish connected, that's not an offence in itself as far as I'm aware. You may just use the radio channels for example (I'm presuming this doesn't require a TV licence). Not really sure how they could prove you've watched or recorded live TV at some arbitrary point in the past unless you actually admit to it. If the goon has a warrant, turns your TV on, goes into iPlayer and starts something playing... then doesn't that make HIM guilty of the offence by watching iPlayer in an unlicenced property?
Radio does not require a licence, however listening to radio on a smart TV or set top box tuned to television stations does.
As for iPlayer, if the chap were to switch on a Smart TV or streaming device (Roku, Amazon Fire etc.) and find the iPlayer app listed as recently played, he could then run the app, and if it were logged in that would be evidence that someone had watched iPlayer with that device. If one could produce a receipt to show that set/device was bought second hand one might be OK but it still might go to court.
It’s laughable that Capita employees refer to themselves as “officers”. They work for a private company not a government agency. They are not officers but more akin to sales people.
A common scare tactic.
they are jobs worths
Also the chap in the white shirt never gave his ID, but just fumbled around.
They are Enforcement Officers and looking for Legal Occupiers.
One does not have to be a government employee to hold an office
Thank you BBB for your professional opinion on this.
I am surprised and a little concerned that forceful entry could be used based on the words of a single capita employee. The thought of returning home to find my home full of strangers and my front door smashed in is just awful.
As I don't need or pay for a TV license I will now ensure I record any encounter I have with these capita goons and make sure they are aware I am recording them to discourage any potential falsifying of evidence by a rouge type employee, rouge types that even the police seem to have a fair few of nowadays.
Thanks again and make sure you continue to "practice" at being a barrister :)
But obviously it now seems that they can walk up to your window and peer through it to see if you're illicitly watching anything, and if they notice a rectangular screen showing video (could be a monitor with UA-cam), that seems to be justification for a warrant to be issued. Despicable.
It's almost like the courts are god and give people power to do anything and only a higher court can overrule them. Which of course is the only way a society could function.
On the streets, the police are the law even when wrong, you can take it to court and then the judge is the law regardless, don't like it appeal to another judge. Don't like that tough you opinion on the law is irrelevant
@@EE12CSVT I heard there are only around 300 warrants issued a year of this type, so this likely won't be a massive problem
@@EE12CSVT They're not allowed to trespass, however if your TV is visible from somewhere within their (presumed) right of access - in the video the officer states it was seen from the door - then it would be no different from someone opening the door to them with Coronation Street blaring away in the background. It's reasonable grounds to suspect you own a TV, that's sufficient to get a warrant to search the premises. Obviously we'd never dream of breaking the law, but if we hypothetically were to do so it should be obvious the first step to not getting caught would be to make sure it isn't bleeding obvious we were doing so in the first place.
This is exactly the point I tried and failed to make to Triple B a while back. Exactly. I absolutely do not need a TV license but I am not sure that means much if you have just a bit of bad luck and the wrong person turns up at your door. 'reasonable suspicion' - HMMMMMMMMMMM
Thanks Labour for this Act
Honestly all this shows me is how bonkers the TV license is. My goodness. Just make it a subscription.
I agree.
Licence BTW.
Here's a headline for you:
"Netflix password sharing ‘a crime’ according to Intellectual Property Office and could result in prosecution"
Absolutely agree British Brainwashing Corporation is a comedy show! apparently we live on an oblate spheroid chasing the Sun/clearly fake pseudoscience news.
The problem is that you can't make broadcast TV a subscription service.
Make it a general Tax - it is there to allow the government to use the BBC as the public broadcaster ... Most other European counties do this already - the Licence fee is weird
Years ago as a manger of an Advice Centre I encountered a situation whereby the TV Licencing Officer had looked through a window and seen children watching TV. The person looking after them was either a family member or a neighbour and did not live at the address, but she answered the door to the Licencing Officer and was duly prosecuted by TV Licencing and received a fine.
It is quite common for TV Licencing Officials to look through windows and why they target houses during school holidays for easy pickings. People living in blocks of flats frequently watch TV without licences and rarely if ever get prosecuted in my experience. Why, because it is difficult to ascertain if a person in a high-rise building is watching a TV.
If the agent gets caught looking through windows there is no longer any need for politness...they don't make it home. Leave their body where it falls and claim you were stopping a pervert from peeping in your windows.
Given that we live in a digital age, I am surprised the tv licensing officer failed to video this alleged viewing of live tv.
But would that then leave them open to peeping tom prosecutions?
Would go against your right to privacy if they tried to film the inside of your house without your knowledge or consent.
Because it's bs, I would expect a hand signed warrant from the judge, because this is a warrant based on hearsay.
It's against ICO regulations
Why did they not knock on his window and door then tell him who they were and that they have just seen the tv on with live sports programme playing. Surely if he knew that they had seen his tv on how can the tv owner deny it? They have just seen it from outside his house.
I would love them to come to mine with a warrant. Under no circumstances would they ever be allowed in. Why? Quite simple. I know I don’t and have not watched any live tv at my property for the last 16 years.
Then I would be contacting a solicitor to establish how on earth did they get the warrant issued in the first place.
It's irrelevant once the warrant is issued. If you don't let them in you get arrested.
Doesn’t this mean that anybody who doesn’t like you can report you for watching television and you have to go through all this performance. I don’t like people coming in my house and I don’t watch television and I am 77 and don’t need a license. I also do not answer the front door without an appointment.
How detailed is the search allowed to be because if I did have a flatscreen television I would put it in the bed or while I was talking on the doorstep Somebody else would put it in the bed and put the cat on the bed. Would they have the right to move the cat and open up the bedding? Or if you put it in the garden, do they have the right to look in the garden or the bathroom. ?
They searched the house and find a television that you used to watch UA-cam videos, how can we prosecute you for watching television and if I cannot, what is the point of the search warrant?
@ don’t worry about it at all, ignore all letters, they even get quite threatening it’s just a gimmick by them, if they do knock on your door either ignore it or just tell them to go away. Then they can’t do anything. The only way they can procecute you is by you telling them too much information, say nothing and shut the door
Back in the summer of 1997 I was getting ready to go to work. The British Transport Police knocked on my door with a warrant to enter and search my house. I let them in and asked why then had a warrant. They said that due to the aerial masts attached to my house they had suspicions that I was monitoring Police radio messages. I took them into the room where all my radio equipment was. I told them I was a fully licenced radio amateur who had been licenced since 1978. They said they have never heard of amateur radio and thought I was telling lies. I then switched on my radio equipment so let them hear what it received. They heard amateur radio Morse Code and SSB speech. They then abruptly left my house looking rather unhappy without explanation. Later that day I phoned the BTP and said I will bring down my amateur radio licence documents to prove that I am a fully licenced radio amateur. They said that won't be necessary. That episode cost me a day's pay. I am not impressed with the Police or Magistrates for causing this unnecessary intrusion to my home and costing me a day's pay. Now at that time enforcement of the Wireless Telegraphy Act was purely the responsibility of the Radio Communications Agency and nothing to do with the British Transport Police. I did ask for compensation for loosing pay but the British Transport Police ignored my request .Resulting from this incident I have little respect for the Police or Magistrates.
Go see Crimebodge. They didn’t have REASONABLE grounds to believe you were committing an offence, as it’s not an offence.
Unfortunately, police do not provide any recompense, nor do they have any obligation to, through their internal complaints procedures.
Although well out of time for you now, if a situation such as this arises, a separate civil action (complaint) against the police/ their actions must be sought through court for a compensation order to be made. Lots of no win no fee companies will assess the claim and take their percentage too.
Let it go mate it was almost 30 years ago 😂
@@Overkill_dnb Yes but if I committed a crime 30 years ago and the Police were after me they wouldn't forget it would they.
Whether police would lawfully pursue an historic crime depends on the alleged offense, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_periods_in_the_United_Kingdom , fwiw.
One of my friends had something similar a few years back, an inspector used "Evidence looking through a shut curtained window" to obtain a court order because he could see a tv on.
They arrived with a court order and police to search his property and found no tv in his house, took him to court for hiding equipment and trying to obstruct the court order. (not that he had any prior warning they were going to show up).
Turns out, my friend had one of those plug in TV imitated lights in his front room to make it look like he was in at night as he worked nights. The goon has obviously seen the flicker from that, put two and two together and got thirteen, and tried to base evidence off of something he couldn't have seen clearly anyway.
Why the court signed on the warrant in the first place is laughable. So frustrating to see a private company abuse powers of courts like this.
Great, we all need to go out and buy these lights..keep the buggers on their toes....
The assertion of belief that an offense may have been committed is a reasonable justification for the warrant, as made clear by the Act.
@@Armand79thand when the person making the assertion has a financial incentive to claim that they believe an offence has taken place, why is this not taken into account?
These warrants should never get into the hands of a private company
And they keep telling us that the UK is a democratic country, when a private company can force people to buy something that they don`t want.
What do you think the police and government who approve them are.. the courts.. all private companies who stand to make a profit. Welcome to Britain in all its fucking glory.. I say it's time we lined the streets personally, millions of us, out for blood and change. They can't arrest us all they don't have the man power, they can't jail us all even if they could, they don't have the cell space for that at hand, and best of all, they can't just send in the armed police and military to gun us all down for pushing back against them, because they created a country with more cameras and eyes on you than ANYWHERE on earth.. and I'm sure the US or another country would love to jump at that perfect excuse to send their troops in and invade us for control, so they aren't that stupid.. even the French had the balls to have a revelation for fucks sake, it didn't go too well for them but my point still stands, the citizens of this country are a laughing stock, we give an inch and they take 10 miles over and over again and still, we all do nothing. It's time for change.
Exactly ! But if he was never allowed in the house in the first place on the first visit then how has he got the evidence to get a warrant
As he been spying through the window 🤔 if so , isn't that illegal ?
Unfortunately the law allows it as most bailiffs are operated by private companies appointed by the courts
Most bailiff’s warrants are executed by commercial companies.
They derive satisfaction from exerting pressure on everyday individuals, however, when the situation is reversed, they struggle to maintain composure, acutely aware that this could be detrimental to their case in court. The homeowner manages the circumstances adeptly and clearly demonstrates a high level of expertise. Well done!
trust me im a police officer is the biggest joke on the planet
He wasn't too bad, all things considered.
Didn't Wayne cousins used use that line.
At no point did the clipboard TV inspector show his I.D despite being asked for it twice, in fact he fumbled around looking for it yet seemed to not be able to find it, he even asked his colleague if he had his as if that excuses he not having his
I found it humorous that aside from the police officer, they felt it necessary to send the neck-less goon to serve as "muscle" during the interaction. As if the presence of a tattooed thug is going to make one more likely to comply.
Hilarious
The whole thing stinks of intimidation. They probably get inside, claim there is an aerial hookup and coerce granny into signing a contract.
I completely disagree with how the TV licence can enforce this much power, however Id also like to state that the homeowner is a absolute plonker
I personally think the fact they don't need proper evidence beyond a persons opinion that they saw a tv through a window to gain a warrant is highly questionable.
Witness Evidence is given all the time in court.
@snowflakemelter not when the witness has clear bias, and witness testimonies in court need to be corroborated.
In this case, it's a licensing officer being a witness for his own warrant. "Yep, I definitely saw evidence", and if they got in and searched and found he didn't use TV license covered broadcasts, then what would happen to the lying licensing officer? Nothing unless the citizen who has had his privacy breached wanted to spend a lot of money to try and take a company to court who are clearly favoured by the government and court system.
@@snowflakemelter1172 Yes, but this has not come to court with all parties present and represented, has it?
Admittedly, when the author said he was watching this on UA-cam at the time, did they knock on his door to ask him about this? Surely, someone looking through the window is an invasion of privacy.
The TV Licensing Officer who saw the TV set being used was gathering evidence - evidence that was sufficient to suspect that an offence was committed, and sufficient to be part of the sworn Information upon which the warrant was granted. That is how warrants tend to be obtained, whether by TV Licensing, or the police.
"Trust me, I'm a police officer" 😂 That's a good reason not to trust him ffs!
The biggest joke is when he says "Trust me I am a police officer."
*gets raped*
"trust me I'm a police officer"
Since 2008 all police forces are REGISTERED BUSINESSES SAME AS THE COURTS . barrister never tells you .
I think he’s just dress up as a copper he looks like a school teacher
yeah dodgy and corrupt.
After the Yank cops we have the most corrupt cop squad in the world. Trust them? I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the right time. This so-called cop here looks like he’s just left his paper round and dressed for a school play about how nice our cops are.
Thanks for the clear and concise guidance. Extremely helpful 👍
Tripped over this youtube channel purely by chance. An excellent idea serving a worthwhile purpose. The strict letter of the law does in many cases require expert interpretation, even if the written act is readily available. Well done.
When the copper said "trust me i'm a police officer" I nearly spat my tea out.
Drama queen much?
When the licence officer read out the conversation the author had with the previous capita goon and the author said “this act is not a law” etc.
Just goes to show Chilli Jon’s correct when he states, don’t have a conversation just say no thank you and shut the door. That way they have no evidence of anything.
They just lie and say you had the conversation.
That was so funny that somebody thought you were practising as in... Just having a go, see if youould do it... Classic! 🤣👍
so legally you are obliged to comply regardless. Which means we need to abolish the Comms Act
The Telecommunications Act is irrelevant to the matter of obstructing a warrant.
All persons have a duty to comply with an issued warrant.
Just compy
@@Armand79thBollo**s. The whole system is corrupted now, so it is therefore null and void!
So basically these goons can make any crap up just to gain a warrant in itself needs to be looked into
No. They can give evidence to a court under the serious penalties of perjury to get a warrant.
Just imagine how much Court time is taken up with this kind of Shill scam.
@@snowflakemelter1172 They do lie to get gain a warrant, I know someone who did this job for a year and they were told to lie in their training material.
My friend was sacked as they wouldn't lie resulting in them having a much lower licencing sale rate.
In case you haven't realised, these whole dance is to get you to buy a licence to get them to leave you a lone...
It's a disgrace the whole thing.
You are giving powers to some of the worst companies out there.
Exactly. Amd that constable is there to uphold the peace not deceive and try and trick entry into the property. What a scumbag
@@snowflakemelter1172 since the warrant isn't signed. How would you find the judge to tell them they were lied to so they get penalized?
It can't get to that stage if you just never interact with them, he must have opened the door and spoken to them at some point, big mistake.
Update: I wrote this half way through the vid (never do that!) he had spoken to them before and claimed that the tv licence law was in question. If they saw him through the window they couldn't just use that but when he spoke to them he gave them probable cause, NEVER SPEAK TO THEM.
Agree. And unfortunately, that will convict him.
Did you actually read the act or watch the video? The warrant gives authority to use force to search the property - they're allowed to break the door down if that's the only way to carry out the warrant, and anyone on the premises would then have committed an offence by not giving reasonable assistance by opening the door. The only reason they don't break the door down is that it's their policy not to.
@@digitig I think Mike's point is that the 'author' must have said something on an earlier occasion that justified the granting of a warrant.
Or they lied most likely
They're finally pursuing me, currently they don't have my name, simply a letter to ask me to identify myself for their records. In truth I don't watch any live TV, it's not my thing and I won't pay a TV license. I'm going to be applying reflective window material amongst other additions but I'm barely ever home.... I work a lot. I'm home only 2 days a week so I doubt I'll actually see the tv license people
Even Prince Andrew seems mildly likeable compared to TV Licencing.
Well said! TV licencing is on the same level as parking officers and especially private company car parks such as grocery stores, Brits will probably be amazed to find out that no grocery stores in Australia have parking fees! Reason, the grocery store would lose droves of customers.
@@keithad6485I don't know what S hole town you live in but all mine are free parking
This man should have been given the opportunity to challenge the issue òf a warrant.
he put the burden of proof upon them, No contract.
just because a tv is capable of receiving live broadcasts doesn't mean he was watching it live......how do you prove that?????
This is something I’ve been curious about. The rule is “ you don’t watch” lots of tvs come with iplayer already installed. They can’t prove you were watching it?
@@kungfudavieyou have to sign in and then they have your ip address
@@kungfudaviethey can prove you're watching it because you have to give your postcode and sign in to iplayer. Aside from that you should remove it from your devices.
@@liamdaly1784 Yes you're correct. With some difficulty I managed to delete iPlayer from my Smart TV only to have it re-appear when my TV did an automatic update. Having the app does not mean it is being watched and if they say they KNOW you watch it how can you defend yourself? Likewise any Live Streaming requires a licence but most streaming progs are NOT live and therefore do not. Merely having the ability to watch does not mean it WAS watched. The same logic applied to my car: My speedometer has 120 miles an hour on the clock, so therefore I MUST be guilty of speeding.....
Can anyone explain to me how the BBC isn’t being made to provide a paywall for their services instead of putting the British public through this nazi style treatment? It makes no sense to me. I will not watch their programming, I haven’t paid for a tv licence seance 2008. And I NEVER watch their stuff… I also do not agree that I should be expected to “check in” with a private business to tell them anything about my life.. and wether I need their services. So by having this opinion I should expect a bunch of goons and the police to come to my house and hinder my freedom and affect my mental health, all because I don’t want their product. Think about that. And we aren’t meant to be angry?
How can entry to the premises possibly prove he was watching TV on whatever date the guy looked through a window? it's ridiculous you can be visited with a warrant on the word of somebody working for a corporation who is incentivised by bonuses on number of people paying.
That was my thoughts, I have a connected tv but it has not been turned on for best part of 3 years. If they were to come in what would it prove if they lied and said previously I was watching a live programme. As in previous comments they should have to provide digital evidence.
The warrant is likely to be to search the premises to see if a tv was there and is it capable of receiving live broadcasts.
@@stevehaynes2857any tv that has access to UA-cam is capable of receiving live broadcasts, doesn’t mean that’s evidence. 😒
If he has a tv connected an aerial or the internet , that's enough for them , and I guess the magistrate will go with tv licensing every time . TV licensing don't play by the rules . Can he demand a trial by jury ? That's his only chance .
@@alanwhitham4 I agree and I guess the magistrate could go with tv,....However I have fists and could kill a man but doesnt mean I have killed someone.....It should be mandatory they provide proof.
Just subscribed my dear
Lol the simple fact that you kept a straight face while explaining what being a 'practicing '
Professional actually means ....
😅🤣😂
Keep up the good work 👍
We need more
"It's a warrant. trust me I'm a police officer." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A malnourished police office with a skinny neck 💪
...with the Smiffy's Costume Hire attached to his jacket. 😆
I think they are using halisbury's courts
And yet the officer is still correct.
"Trust me im a Police Officer" hmm
It's rediculous that in this day and age they can go to these lengths to find out if you are watching a television . Almost comical
You know if they came to my house I think I'd do exactly the same.. waste their time, ask stupid questions, query the documents and generally slow everything down as long as possible.
Until finally they get inside and discover that I don't even have a TV... Their faces on video 🤣
If the tv licence inspector was looking through the window doesn’t this make him a peeping Tom ie an illegal act ?
Voyeurism is only a crime if the person was doing it for sexual gratification. Invasion of privacy may come into it.
@@ZooumbergI don't think you have expectation of privacy for breaking the law!
@@Zooumberg so who decides what the peeping Tom is doing ? Could be casing the home for burglary,watching a couple, looking for a dog or a thousand different reasons. !!
@@Zooumberg stalking and spying wouldn’t apply then? Thin end of the wedge..
@@joetodd4351 Blair was the one who gave everyone from MI5 to (somewhat famously) bin men the right to spy on you. And that bit of legislation has never been repealed.
The BBC TV Licence is the most unfair and unjust Tax there is and must be ABOLISHED.
Not worse than VAT
It's not a tax, it's a fee for a service like Netflix
Thanks for the time clearing that up, they can enter into your home whenever they feel like it, because i think I saw your tv on through the window!
Its just opened to abuse.
Thank you very much. 💜
Good information there BBB, thanks!
Scary that this Act gives legal permission to a corporate business to appoint 'a person' to break into your home and use whatever force they deem necessary without the presence of a Police Officer being required AND to issue and unlimited fine for any resistance to this process. To me, that is a wrong that all personnel within the legal establishment should have a duty to pursue to correction of the Act.
Shameful and disgusting abuse of a situation where 'the law is an ass'.
They cannot force entry, I give up with this so called lawyer 😤 even a bailiff can't force entry to a private home, there's a video on her me of a TV licence warrant and police with them and the tenant taunts them from the window and they go away in the end ,as the warrant requires you to let them in ,
@@bigfist255 If a warrant is issued, forced entry is permitted. It appears that TV Licensing Agents choose not to use that power but that is simply their policy, presumably because they are not equipped to carry out a forceable entry--I can't see the two chaps in this video kicking down a door!
Bailiffs have varying rights depending on the exact authority under which they act. In most cases, despite their bluster and outright lying, they do not have a right of entry.
@@MrPaulMorris no the video in question was a visit from them with court order and the tenants talked to them through widow and said your not commung in ,they ened up going away ,so I think that's a grey area, for instance if they came into my house they would be seriously injured or dead as my dog would rip them to pieces ,I have the relevant warning signs ,enter at own risk guard dog on premises.
@@bigfist255 A bailiff with a warrant of control, ie pursuing unpaid fines CAN force entry and on a first visit. A bailiff with a liability order cannot force entry ie for council tax ,A tvl warrant is a search warrant, but they are advised they shouldn't force entry ,due to the bad publicity. i think i ive seen one instance of tvl gaining a forced entry . This bloke should have just gone back into his house closed and locked the door , The police cannot force entry with that warrant and to refuse a bailiff access is not a breach of the peace.
@@mortgagewizard40 if they were to force entry it wouldn't stand up anyway because if your not there how can they prove your watching TV? They can't start messing with your equipment, that would open a can of worms ,the police may as well drive your uninsured car and say your car was being used in that case .
Great analysis as usual.
Would love a video on how much/little is needed to get a warrant, what lengths they can go to to get evidence enough for a warrant, and how (if at all) it is possible to challenge a warrant.
Don't hold your breath he's supporting the system he's not Mr. Loophole.
Because the agency looked through his window and says that he was watching LIVE tv why do they need to gain entry? The tv doesn’t log what he was watching and when.
Nearly every time I watch your videos my heart sinks a little bit further, basically 'subjects' in the UK are nothing, when we look into the law in detail it seems everything is stacked against us, the 'law' can be changed by dodgy politicians to suit agendas, in more enlightened countries a private company demanding money with menaces totally backed up by the courts and police would seem rather out of place in a supposed free democracy. Over the years you have, very kindly, explained the 'law' to us and it's pretty frightening really, there seems to be forced respect for laws that are made up by rascals, no questions no debate just more laws to squeeze us and control us, not many new laws to protect us, are there? "the law IS an ass" ! Thank you.
Constitutional law has been hidden from people for a long time, at one time your rights were taught to you... we are governed and policed by consent, but there is a lot in law that is not known by the average person... and that is by design
Totally agree.
I feel the same way 😩
All lies! Common law is common sense! He talks pish!
Rights come with responsibilities, if there's no enforcement of those responsibilities then it's free for all and no one has any real rights.
Thank you for your demonstration of the TV licence regulations 😊
As an American watching this..... 😟 You have to pay for a license to watch television. OMG
It’s absolutely wrong and antiquated, however the majority of people refuse to pay based on the fact that BBC is inherently economically right wing and regularly airs establishment propaganda without being suitably challenged. This at least gives us a way to protest that directly impacts the wallet of the offender. That being said, at least we don’t have to pay thousands of dollars to use an ambulance in an emergency, or 10s of thousands to give birth…
Well you have to pay for Cable TV , what is the difference?
@@Zefyna That's true. So don't you have to pay for cable "and" tax?
It’s fine our healthcare is free
@Cloudminster So is mine. I'm even frustrated we pay for streaming services and still have to watch commercials in the middle of a movie
When my mother had a free TV licence for so many years then at 99yrs has to start paying! Who is committing a morally unlawful act!
A warrant was issued because 'John' the enforcer says so ? This is madness.
Despite the quite obvious fact that he hands it over
The copy of the warrant was provided ... there is a police officer in uniform (with a warrant card) saying they are there to assist in the execution of the warrant - do you want a JP or Judge to accompany them ?
No, it was issued because the judge was given a compelling reason to issue one. This is done under oath, so it pretty serious.
@@gmo4250 People often lie under oath - especially if they stand to benefit (e.g. being paid a commission) and think the likelihood of being found out is little to none.
@@gmo4250 yes do you not think people lie under oath when there is a financial benefit?
loved the explanation of the relevant laws Black Belt Barrister and complication's of obstructing a warrant
The main thing that worries me is that the reason for granting the warrant seems a bit weak. Firstly, it is based off on the word of the TVL officer, who can’t be impartial because they have a cash incentive to say you were watching, and such situations do breed abuse even though they shouldn’t. The second thing is that having an image on the screen doesn’t confirm anything without any supporting facts, like he saw a bbc logo in the corner or a wire to an aerial socket. This may be fair enough, I would have just liked to find that more was needed to obtain the warrant. Capita could literally put that they saw what may, or may not, have been live tv through a window on every address they visit. Instant warrant! Maybe they should be fined for every time they obtain a warrant and fail to prove anything…
Although it depends on the issuing magistrate, generally they seem to be receptive to *very* weak evidence.
To add to this, it's mostly automated so each case isn't really given merit. Just like the prepay meter warrants
This is what they actually DO....they lie that they have seen live tv being played on the tv and the magistrates take it as fact....seeing as the goon makes ££ for everyone he catches or persuades to buy a licence surely make any charge illegal??? has anyone challenged this in court??
Surely that is the whole point of the warrant. Prosecution based solely on the word of the TV licensing officer is obviously dangerous, so the warrant provides for the testing of the householder's equipment to see if it is being used to watch live TV. The evidence collected during testing will be used in court if prosecution is deemed necessary. The warrant itself doesn't imply guilt, merely a suspicion.
@@stephengraham1153 To a great extent that is the reason for a warrant. The point is that it is not supposed to be so easy to get one, if all they have to say is that they saw something through a window then that can be abused. This is not an impartial witness reporting a wrong doing, it is someone getting paid for hitting a certain target, and salespeople like that go to many lengths to hit that target. My point is that seeing a tv in use alone should not be enough, there should be more to suggest that it was indeed live tv. Being granted the right to enter your home, private place, should be harder to obtain, especially when that access is to a private company such as Capita. When the police use a warrant it usually involves more evidence and is done so for the benefit of the public, when Capita do it, it is for profit. I may well be on a losing battle and the author may well have been doing something wrong, but he could just as easily been watching a dvd of a sport documentary. I would not mind so much if there was a penalty for capita getting it wrong. To go into someone’s home uninvited is a big thing, I would feel powerless and violated. If they get it right then fair play but if you totally show them up and prove that you have done nothing wrong, there should be consequences for that invasion, a big fine to them for example.
I am astounded at the notion that to watch something on TV that is being broadcast unencrypted is taxable.
Here in Britain it's much more than a notion - it's just always been that way. I'm 70 and remember even before we had a television my parents had to own a Radio Licence. Dog Licences were also required for owning a dog until recently.
Those perilous motorised kids' scooters don't require any form of licence though, apparently.
@@MyRackley amazing the differences from one society to the next . Even more interesting how the different peoples view the difference.
@@MyRackleyelectric scooters do require a license. They are considered a motorised vehicle under the highways act and road traffic act so need to be licensed and insured. But neither the licence or the insurance are available yet so their use on public highways is illegal.
@@tubularG I'm curious where you are supposed to put the license plate when you register it.
When we have senior politicians flagrantly breaking laws and getting away with it, this is a bloody sick joke.
And the author is not breaking the law?
Fallacy argument
You got so much strawman in this argument, I could make a field of scarecrows.
I'm more worried about the fact people are funding the BBC the pedo hirers.
Its great to see such level headed analysis of the video
The only licence which you are 'supposed' to tell someone you *don't* need.
Imagine the calls: "Hey, DVLA: I don't need a driving licence."
"Hey, Local Council: I don't need an alcohol licence."
"Hey, Some Place: I don't need a medical licence."
But at least those things are medical, the equivalent is Netflix turning up at my door after my cancelling a subscription it's insanity!
It would be never ending 😹😹
Parasitic behaviour... Basically... Welcome to Rip off Britain.
This whole tv license thing seems way over the top and invasive. I'm not from UK so none of this applies where I live but I'm actually shocked this happens to anyone!
Where do you live?
@@cplcabs Canada
So welcome to Great Britain!
I'm in Australia and this looks appalling...like something I'd expect to see in a communist country.
@@Brightangel55 Australia part funds ABC via government grants.
They really have a low bar for a warrant. I find that more concerning than anything else and the communications bill in general.
The authors biggest mistake was responding to the written threat... I mean letter, in the first place.
So you can shoplift up to £200 on a regular basis with no prosecution, but you can't get away without paying a TV licence that costs less than £200! What a shambles
Even if they had gained entry, I don't understand how they could prove that at [x] time on [x] date the guy was watching live tv as alleged? I think it's an intimidation play to get the guy to confess, hence bringing the thug looking guy and the copper. Dude realised the guy wasn't falling for it and withdrew.
If you have the ability to watch live tv (aerial cable, and a tuned in TV) that is enough. They do not need to prove you watched at a certain date or time. They seek to prove you have a TV that is tuned and or an aerial cable
It was clearly explained why the TV Licence officer left.
The author clearly has a tuned TV and an aerial cable. If he had not, then why the obstruction to a legal warrant?
I don't understand how it can be acceptable, and therefore admissible in court to look through someone's window when children or other family members may be getting dressed/undressed. That, in itself, is surely - at best, potentially immoral.
We have these things called curtains. If you want privacy, you need to create it.
Licensing agents are not allowed to intrusively invade your privacy looking for grounds for suspicion, but if he or she can glance through a half-closed blind or curtain whilst attempting to talk to you on your doorstep, that's entirely fine. And anything he or she sees when doing that, be it a live football match on TV or your children undressing... Well, that's down to you and the way you choose to let those things be visible.
Also, it's pretty bad form to reach for the "child undressing" defence when discussing this sort of thing. The agent casually saw the guy watching a football match on TV. No children were harmed or abused by him doing so, and it's childish to throw that into the mix as some kind of defence. It's right up there with "won't someone think of the children" and mentioning Hitler during any sort of political debate (ie, Godwin's Law).
@@dizwell You obviously don’t understand the concept of giving examples, which is all I was doing. I wasn’t suggesting making a child predation accusation.
Furthermore, your (sarcasm-infused) suggestion of keeping the curtains closed, although effective, is impractical. Keep them closed all day, just in case a visit should become manifest and despite broad daylight?
However, although I don’t appreciate your somewhat snotty, unnecessary sarcasm, I appreciate the general info.
@@BlueShadow777 You gave an "example" which is the one right-wing moral-panic loons reach for whenever they can't find a good one to illustrate their point.
Before you lecture people about not understanding how to use examples, I suggest you learn to use better ones that aren't so wildly out of disproportion to the point you're trying to make.
The fact remains: if you want privacy, learn how to create it.
@@dizwell I'd just like to ask you why you respond so vociferously and arrogantly? I made a simple comment with an innocent (and justifiable, considering the circumstances referred to) example and you immediately felt the need to insultingly label me a "right wing loon".
Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, in my experience, the reaching for the 'child predation' thing transcends right and left-wing politics.
You're obviously so insecure, obnoxious and of a bullying nature so as to pick up on the meanest issue to create ire.
I won't entertain you with any more 'tit-for-tat' over some inane, pointless and ridiculous nothing, so go on and have the last word.
Enjoy the pettiness of your innate superiority complex, good luck with the rest of your life and... kindest regards.
Happend to me and my two little boys in the 90s the judge was on my side thank God ok I got a small fine and told to get a licence
I thought the government was supposed to decriminalise TV licence non payment.
Another broken promise
Courts won't prosecute shoplifters unless its above £200 but they will for the licence fee. And the can find a police officer to attend, but if you're burgled it can take days for them to show up. This country is insane!
Yep this country is extremely broken , we our the only country in the world who has to endure TVL muppets at our doors . This video of the TVL makes me feel rather sick 🤢
SPOT ON WITH YOUR COMMENTS YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT STARMAR DONE OVER HURTY WORDS AND HIS INFLUENCE OVER THE SOUTHPORT ISSUE
THE LAW ⚖ IS AN ASS 😮 AND STARMAR 😊
Most of them time they won't show up at all. Just open and close the case straight away, then give you a crime number. Same with car crime.
Fear tactics …
I believe you made an assumption that they backed down due to a policy but isn't it also possible that they knew there was an issue with the warrant if scrutinised further? Was it a coincidence that the other capita employee present was a very large person, possibly there to intimidate?
I think this video just shows that the legal system is operating well outside the constitutional rights of citizens. When future generations look back and see that watching TV without a license is a crime it will be akin to us, today, being horrified at people being hung for stealing a chicken in the middle ages.
The video isn't in America mate.
We do have a constitution and Bill of Rights of which take their Constitutional rights from.
Maybe you should search for it before posting a lie
This is the problem this Legalese language is tricking the fundamental rights what every living man n women has
@@smudgerart which part is a lie ?
Don't they need evidence to get a warrant?
What a waste of time! Plus, stressing people out! The Police should be more focused on catching criminals not wasting their time on shit like this!