Don't start shilling this garbo

On the second visit to the Judge for the RIPA application. Is that ex parte or do you get attend and contend?

You talk about the possibility of our ISP spying on us, mine (NowTV Broadband) blocks access to the NordVPN site!! I can access fine through my mobile data, but not at all through my Wifi. Still got 9 months on the contract.

I keep getting 2 letters at least a month this must be harassment?

could it be considered that providing such keys would violate the Communications Act, seeing as entering such a key would result in access to live TV

Oh you can enjoy it and say... NO THANKYOU,,😁, big smiley face, closes door laughing 😂😂😂😂

The method Chilli Jon Carne recommends. 😊

This is what I do, feels great! Except I find they knock on the door and repeatedly ask what may name is, even if you ask who they are. If they don't tell me I close the door in their face.

@@PaulKemp-kc3jq It's strange that they ask for your name because it's the property that is covered by a licence, not the individual. They shouldn't need your name other than to employ common courtesy during the conversation, but common courtesy would also dictate that they should introduce themselves first, they are, after all, the one that is instigating the conversation.

Boris proved that forgetting your password is not a crime.

😂😂😂

I reply Mr Lee Galocupier since that's who all the letters I've been ignoring for the past 15 years have been addressed to.

That is so funny.

I haven't tv in about 15 years. I have zero intention of giving the lice-covered BBC a single penny from me from now on. they write to me, but sadly they keep mis-spelling my name. Shame.

Same.

They could save printer ink by removing "legal". no-one ever sent a letter to "the illegal occupier"

Same

@redbearduk live broadcast, streaming is fine if it is not live broadcast. To be licence free you need to send back your set top box. That simple, and it insulates you from propaganda and other insidious bs. Win win.

I'd be worried if it was Boeing, the people that upset them don't seem to last very long.

@@Rhyd Funny, but also true...

Yes, you should get ahead of the problem by sending them a letter explaining that you've removed their implied right of access.

@yngndrw. I'll do that, and keep the curtains closed so they can't see it from the street 👍

I mentioned this to the man that came to my door recently. He huffed and stormed off.

People who cancel TV licenses would have had no interaction with enforcement officers, because they have a license.

Not paying Linker's salary for one

@@philipsharpe6913 didnt know he was still about

@@shaunpatrick8345 Wrong. I have not had a TVL in 15 years and I have never had any encounter with an enforcement agent.

​@@shaunpatrick8345enforcement officers 😂😂😂 lol - the milkman has more power!

Yea they’re just salesmen. I’ll tell em the hour long story of how Tesco doesn’t knock my door to check I don’t shop there. While answering not a single question.

I think he was mocking the common claim that they are salesmen. A salesman would convince you of the merits of what he wants to sell, whereas a license enforcer would ask if you are properly licensed.

@@shaunpatrick8345 that’s true. But they aren’t enforcers as they have no authority.

@@WotsisFace they do enforce licensing though.

@@shaunpatrick8345 they attempt to if you agree to speak to them.

After reading your comment ...! YES !

My postbox is outside on my wall so TV Licensing letters don't even get into my flat, they go right in the paper recycling box, which is right under the postbox. Like you, I could just tell them that I do not need a license, but where would be the fun in that? I like to let them live in hope that they may someday get a sale.

I recognise the letters without even opening them now. The whole unopened envelope goes into the bin.

@@stuartriddell2461 joke is i did tell them i dont watch any tv, but they seem to require telling every two years or they continually waste trees telling me they might visit on a certain day and if they catch me watching tv i'll be for it! shityapants scary eh.. do i tell the FAA i aint flying next year? no, or i'm not going fishing so wont renewing my licence? no, the BBC are unreal, how much could they save not sending millions of letters and employing contracted goons to visit houses... if there was good quality content then maybe i'd make time to watch some stuff but its same old tripe repeated over and over and over and over under the guise of "classic" tv, ffs..

I came to same conclusion....and I am a "Remainer". The quality of BBC neutrality and investigative rigour is shocking. Let alone the quality of the Entertainment side of their remit.

There's no institution ever that hasn't been perverted

Isn’t it a government thing now instead of the bbc?

Not to mention covering for perverts like Savile and threatening any staff who pushed for his exposure. Of course it is easy to blame “The BBC”, but make no mistake the corruption was vested in the senior staff of that company, who’s names are a known matter of record. Incredibly, no blame or punishment was levelled at those who kept Savile protected….I have to wonder why!

The BBC hid Jimmy saville's child molestation for decades. They CONTINUE to hide child abuse amongst their highest-paid stars. They know exactly whats going on, but they use licence money to silence people with bribes. You'd be surprised which "celebrities" are being protected by good old Auntie Beeb.....

More accurately, you don't need to answer their demands.

It's amazing when they claim that they've opened investigations against households and they haven't even got the householder's name!

@@nelliemelba4967It’s an address that has to be correctly licensed. A name is just the contact name.

Just say you've forgotten your password and don't have access to that email address :) it's impossible to prove that you're lying.

@@adenwellsmith6908 Nothing to hide. Why not just tell the truth ?

But would they liston?

I've never had a visit in 20+ years at this point. Starting to think they don't operate in my area. That said a friend had a visit within days of moving in to his new house.

Never kissed a girl that big before....but will give it a shot !

Agreed, I picked that up straight away. One could also display that a charge of £25.00 is required if they ring or knock and you do open the door to speak. Payable before you communicate with them.

Should be a fineabol affence.

@@paulketchupwitheverything767 I'm imagining a spelling agent knocking on the door every other week, pointing out the error on that sign, and that one needs a dictionary license for that.

You missed an apostrophe in ‘thats’.

They didn’t youse spullchucker, if yoo don’t youse it u loose it

Bit difficult me, I live in a first floor flat, and at the back to which there's no public access.

they do tell lies in order to get you into court. i had a summons eight years back even after i had allowed the goon to come in to my property as i have nothing to hide. if the goon had done his job properly and checked to see if my old analogue tv and a dvd player that was in no way capable of any kind of digital tv reception instead of telling porkies, then time would have not been wasted and the case that was dismissed would probably never have been put in front of a judge. never let them in tossers.

They could, but lying on oath is a serious offence.

I've wondered this too. Are you really supposed to let them inside if there's no way the warrant could have been granted legitimately? The system doesn't really make any sense.

@@samuelburnett6811 A court warrant is a court warrant, ignore it at your peril.

I agree with everything you say here. I am entitled - because of my age and income - to a free (well, taxpayer-funded) licence. But I will not have a brass farthing paid to that shower of perverts 'in my name', which is what a 'free' tv licence involves. So TVL can continue to waste its money and time on sending increasingly accusatory and threatening letters to an address in which there is no TV and no need for one, either. If they are wasting time on my address, it means they have less time to use pursuing those who are perhaps more vulnerable than I am.

I couldn't agree more. We don't watch live TV so we don't need a licence yet we still get those begging/demanding letters every month. Then they missed a month and I felt quite abandoned and neglected!! 🤣 We get ours in English and Welsh so 'dear ole shredder' gets main course and dessert. What a waste of paper, postage and time. The best said is that it helps to keep the Royal Mail in business. My husband is coming up to getting a free one, courtesy of the tax payer, yet like @Sine-gl9ly, we don't want that waste of time, effort and space known as the BBC to get one penny from us.

If you tell them you don't need a license, you get a letter every 2 years. If you don't like getting letters asking if you need a license, tell them you don't need a license.

@@shaunpatrick8345 Yeah, I know the letters might stop for a while, but I don't tell them because I feel I shouldn't have to (like I don't have to inform other agencies about licences I don't require). The letters don't actually bother or scare me. I'm happy for them to waste their time trying to chase and threaten me. I have nothing to hide.

@@shaunpatrick8345That doesn’t always work. Our Mum died, we informed them and did all the requested steps and have received letters since then (to her address) No one else lives there by the way.

So, it could be a bloke telling you your car is smoking (on fire) Police telling you a loved one has been hurt. The pools guy ..Your a winner. A new neighbor introducing themselves. Lottery winner Rep. Someone who wants to inform you that there is smoke seeping from your roof... Are you getting the drift now Einstein ?

@@jimosullivan1389 How many of those things happened to you?

@@jimosullivan1389what’s with you and the lottery or smoke? Is that the only thing you can think of? 😂

@@manchegocheese997 3, need any more info ? I am not afraid to open my own front door.

@@mawangshallhang Is playing children's games and silly videos YOUR limit ? You are supposed to be a grown man. I am not afraid to open my door and deal with any situation. Dr Jordan Peterson called it being a "man child" at 30 years of age.

No they're investigating a possible offence.

The legal principle is that they must have a search warrant. So, giving the password facilitates the search.

It's like disclosure in a court case. If a judge orders disclosure, you may have to provide passwords or documents to help the other side prove your culpability. It's not for you to prove your own innocence.

@@timg1246 The chances of a magistrate granting one is extremely slim.

@@shaunpatrick8345 What court case is this?

But the TV people wouldn't swim out to you to knock on your boat... ;)

@@chrisjlocke Oblivion style lol.

Presumably if you sail 12 miles offshore you can watch all the TV you like.

@@stephengrimmer35 luckily yes I can as my boat is sea going as well as canals and rivers 🙂

@@chrisjlocke I wish they would, I would even offer them a coffee lol

It is the other way round

Unfortunately, the 'evidence' they need is as simple as the visiting officer saying he saw something, and that's enough to grant a warrant.

@@arc5015 But the question remains: how did he 'see something ' if the right of access was withdrawn? Either he broke the law in entering (and then further, by peering through a window or whatever) or he lied to the judge. If the judge knows he's being lied to but still grants a warrant, are they not both then guilty of offences? The trouble seems to be that all this goes on but nobody in the legal profession questions it.

@@user-et1id3hd5i How would the judge know he lied? It's just the guys word that the judge would then rubber stamp a warrant on - which is totally bogus, and this whole thing needs scrapping.

@@arc5015But you just have a doorbell camera. Clearly would show they’re outside and can’t see anything.

@@arc5015 No it isnt you need to sign his form.

😂👍

Spot on. Some people just don't get it, they feel they have to explain their lifestyle choice.

Better yet, make it boot into a virtual machine!

Log on, switch the language to Hebrew. Are they allowed to modify your system by changing the settings?

CORRECT!

In many countries the state TV is funded by direct taxation or a surcharge on electricity or internet, so you can’t avoid paying. (Canada, Sweden, Australia etc.).

@@fredbloggs5902 - or wall to wall advertising, and that includes state TV.

And make no mistake, they're never going to do away with the licence. They'll instead just swap to a media tax and force everyone back on it.

The problem is that there are a massive number of freeloaders watvhing the BBC whilst not paying. They are robbing the rest of us. It would be far better to go after these people rather than this storm in a teacup.

Austria until this year had an almost exact copy of the situation, including the preposterous behaviour of the license agency and agents. Likely directly influenced by the BBC setup originally. They have now switched to the German model of a household tax (which in many ways is even worse).

This would only occur if they had a judge decide to issue the second order, not a magistrate. And then only if the third judge decided the whole thing was other than utterly petty.

There is no good in any of these people, don't kid yourself. They work for a company that sends threatening letters to thousands of people for not wanting their product and actually physically harass them by visiting.

😂😂😂😂

You don't need to tell anyone that, just don't do it.

Wider wording would be better. 'No entry and no enquiries permitted without express prior permission from the owner.'.

A no cold callers sign should do it.

Prosecuted? What was the aggravating factor?

@@rogerborgRemaining on/entering the property against the order, smart ass.

Fly tipping 😁

I'd have thought that was the case too but reference was made to TV Licensing obtaining a warrant, having had no communication whatsoever from the resident of the property to which the warrant applies. In the absence of this, how can a warrant be issued?

@@anonnemo2504 There has to be justification for a warrant to be issued. Otherwise its just a fishing expedition which I believe is unlawful.

@@davidwebb4904 That was my understanding too. Hopefully, BBB may see the question and give his interpretation too.

@@anonnemo2504 Easy, the initial "evidence" they can use to get a warrant is only ever the TV licence officer saying he saw something. Easily made up without ever interacting with the home owner.

@@arc5015 In that case, I am glad I have a video doorbell, footage recorded by which would prove that the inspector either got no response to his ringing the bell or knocking on the door, or a quick "No thanks", before closing the door. It would not surprise me, however, that these people may not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in obtaining a warrant.

For question 1 I went down the rabbit hole in the legislation but be warned, it is very very dated and I'd argue slightly circular. The general gist is TV receiving equipment is for receiving radio frequency television broadcasts. If you get into the weeds this also covers coax cable to the property. Interestingly I couldn't see where it covers fibre to the property, which uses light frequency not radio. There is a higher level genetic catch all though about any other device designed for this purpose. But it is somewhat ambiguous whether the purpose is receiving an radio frequency broadcast, or a television broadcast, in the question. To me it reads the former, whereas the latter is what we assume makes much more reasonable sense. In a good signal area you don't even need an aerial plugged into your TV and the receiver inside the TV will pick some stuff up. Even if that's only plugged into the mains and a Nintendo Switch (no Netflix, iPlayer, etc, games console.) I think that's where the difference between "is capable of" and "for the purpose of" is hugely important.

I worry about the 'any equipment installed for the purposes of watching or recording live television'. I have a TV, when I bought it my intent was to use it for watching live content and I had a licence to do so. However, nowadays (and for the last 5 licence-free years) I don't watch or record live television or use iPlayer but I still have the same TV. As that TV was originally bought for the purposes of watching or recording live TV does that mean I either need to buy a licence for it or replace my perfectly good, working TV with a new one that HASN'T been purchased for the purposes of watching or recording live TV? I've asked this question on this channel a few times and have yet to receive a definitive answer.

@@Galerak1 Yep, I have a TV, but I use it as a PC monitor. I don't have Sky, Virgin or any other TV provider, so can't access TV channels in the 'normal' way. I could watch something on my PC, but I don't know if I could access, say, Sky News without needing an account - everything needs to have you assign up for an account these days. The sooner the licence is gone, the better, imo.

@@Galerak1 I don't think there is an answer. The word "purpose" is quite different to the word "ability" in my opinion. I have lots of equipment that has the *ability* to receive TV broadcasts or show iPlayer but none of them are installed for that purpose. My TV aerial was installed for that purpose but circumstances changed and I disconnected it. It is still installed though and had no other purpose than to do nothing. It has the ability though. It's very wishy washy and I hate having to leave my faith in the court should something happen. The process would destroy me, despite being innocent, trying to defend myself if TVL were having a bad day and decided to scream and shout.

@@DrGreenGiant Thank you, you're the first person I have ever seen even acknowledge the question lol.

I know the Video. They can get a Warrant if they had spoken to the Home Owner before and that Person had incriminated themselves. If someone does not answer or closes the Door they have nothing to take to a Judge. Courts don't rely on hearsay.

Yea they try to look for “proof” That includes locating your tv and turning it on, plugging any wires into it that you weren’t already utilising. Then they find your remote control so they can try their hardest to tune BBC into your TV. Even if they have lots of trouble tuning, and it takes 2 hours - That is the “evidence” they are looking for to prove you were watching it. If you are able to even access any of their listed channels, they will accuse of you stealing and you will be going to court. But they can not come into your house without a police officer. And that can only happen if you’ve spoken to them first and raised suspicion. Do not identify yourself, or answer any questions. “No thank you” is more than enough. They send intimidating letters that pose a false aroma of authority, which probably works on people who don’t know the game. I’m really glad that my TV does not have any of the British terrestrial channels.

@@Marty2011uktheir whole investigation consists of asking you questions you don’t even have to answer. If you tell them to Eff off… investigation is over.

​@@WotsisFacethat' not evidence. If your TV has been tuned in then you need a license even if it's not turned on.

@@shaunpatrick8345 that isn’t true. If you don’t watch the listed channels, you’re not using their service.

You mean Div 🤣🤣

The BBC is an unofficial branch of the government.

Anywhere semi civilised got rid of them dacadess ago. They hav certainly not been a thing is Australia since at least the 1970s.

Baffles me why Australia doesn't need them any more

@@IANHANDS Because the ABC is funded by taxes, the commercial ones from advertising, and SBS a mix. Plus goon squads and bean counters cost money.

@@IANHANDS Probably no BBC.

@@JulianSortland > Anywhere semi civilised got rid of them dacadess ago. So in Europe alone you consider the following countries not even semi-civilised: Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom Do you think that saying things like that makes you look more, or less, like someone who has any opinions worth taking notice of?

Please look into attendance payments, it's the pension age equivalent to Personal Independence Payment & you may be entitled to more financial support than you think, it's also not classed as 'income ' so universal credit can't touch it!...Benefits & Work is a good site for support & stepchange & turn2us are also good places to start. Thank you for your service 🙏 ❤ our veterans are sorely neglected sadly. Wishing you best. 🤞🙏😊

So no mail then

Mail is expected, cold callers are not.

​@@GoosePlays20 You missed the "Unwanted" part of what i said, Mail is wanted.......but saying that The amount of junk that comes with one letter these days is a joke

@@Tommy-he7dx bills are unwanted lol

@@GoosePlays20 Very true, but i've not had a paper bill for years now, it's all Emails.

Correct. This is also why there are other things you can do to change the risk reward for them. 1. Report every letter as harassment. Record the date, crime reference number on the letter. That's easy. Very little effort. You even name the person running BBC licensing. Her name is easy to find. 2. When you get, say three or more. Write a letter to the BBC. Cease and desist. List the dates and crime reference numbers. 3. Withdraw implied rights of access. 4. Demand the removal of your data, the right to be forgotten. 5. If they say no, take it to the ICO. [One time I did this, I requested the file on it. 200 plus pages of lawyers letters - it was the Cabinet Office]. That cost a pretty penny. 6. Do the same with Capita. In my case, no letters.

And it's one reason they sit in their offices, firing off letters, approx. once a month.

That's very true. We do not have live TV so don't need a licence. There is very little reward against risk as we live out in the sticks, post code is messed up, so that means finding us and as we also watch ChilliJonCarni we know we don't need to say anything. We did have one visit and my husband told him "No, not interested and shut the window." We didn't even bother to open the door. He went on his not so merry way and we haven't had another visit. The distance is not worth the reward.

@@redbearduk Handed them a letter when they knocked and closed the door. No discussion.

You could make the same declaration for your next door neighbor to or somebody at the other end of the country. You can also give them an obvious fake name for the address such as a name of a politicians, film actor etc. TVL will usually disregard such names for addresses that are below a certain social class status and in 2 years time they will send out a letter to the legal occupier rather than the name you false game.

We are a socialist state prison. We are even accepting all the undesirables from all over the world and refuse to deport them. We have criminals, terrorists and worse plague the streets of London weekly and it’s ignored.

Beats living in the USA where children regularly get shot at school

This is the example youre going with to demonstrate that?

A prison people break into

@@_koko420_ Criminals being told to go there because its the best place on earth. Where they can loot, pillage, get everything for free all the time why the locals are oppressed.

A warrant doesn't need a wet ink signature.

There are other videos on this very channel that point out the fallacy that you are basing this on. The police, generally speaking, will not break your door down over a TV licence search warrant. But they might. And your legal wafflery will not stop them.

Electronic warrants are valid

Don't worry, it won't happen.

No, that would not be admissible in a request for a search warrant. Standing on your rights can't, of itself, be used against you. Search warrants tend to be issued if a visiting agent claims they saw or heard a TV when visiting an address but they are barred from entry by the home owner.

@timg1246 "can't, of itself" of course. I'm aware that WOIRA cannot be grounds for a warrant. What I'm asking is if it would be part of a body of evidence submitted for a warrant. I'm thinking along the lines of inferences being made from a person's silence, that sort of thing happens in English courts.

@@timg1246 > Standing on your rights can't, of itself, be used against you. No, but reminding jurors of their absolute right to acquit according to their conscience can be.

​@@anonnona8099TV licence cases are heard by magistrates.

Right, they should be paying us for transmitting stuff through our private property

@helifynoe9930 > Well we have been attempting to charge these horrible TV stations for their unapproved > sending RF TV signals into our private house properties. We gave no consent at all to allow > them to send TV RF signals into our privates lots and houses. How dare they do such things. Just build a Faraday cage around your house. Or wear tinfoil hats and underpants.

No such thing as a tv detector van.

@duncanbradshaw8993 > The BBC lose the TV licence fee ASAP and fund its self like Sky and Neflix do. What an appalling prospect.

If you're using their local internet connection then yes. If you're using a phone or other device that is connecting to the 'net by another method external to the house then no.

Yes.

​@notjustforhackers4252 Yes, you are covered to use BBC iPlayer when you're on the go as long as YOU have a TV Licence at your home address and the device you're using isn't plugged in. If the device is plugged in at a separate address, there needs to be a licence in place at that address.

Good question. My guess is they would need reasonable suspicion. Maybe hearing the Eastenders theme tune playing at the appropriate time, coming from your window? 🤣

@@fredbloggs5902 Even if I'd not cancelled my TV licence (some years ago now), that is one tune I would not allow to sully my TV speakers! I agree with the need for reasonable suspicion but it would be interesting to get the BBB's take on it.

Lie?

I think a better question (to ask first), is how many warrants are actually issued per year, because if the answer is zero (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was) then how they would get one becomes moot. I’m guessing this would be a freedom of information request, and that they would avoid answering.

@@fredbloggs5902 Warrants ARE issued for the purposes of TV Licensing entering a property and are usually served on the resident in the presence of the police. There are many videos on YT as evidence of this. I have no idea, however, how many warrants or whether any have been issued with no previous communication between the resident and TV Licensing.

A bailiff booking you and making you spend a night in the cells! Yeah right.

@@JackOfski that was how it used to go down

​@@davidwells7279 And which decade are you claiming that this used to happen? I assume you're talking about the UK.

You did used to be able to pay fines with nights in jail in the UK but it has been stopped now

@@localbod .. "Licence free for 33 years." 2024 - 33 = 1991. Since you're struggling to math.

I worked in a care home and we were told that should a resident have a TV in their private room they would need their own TV Licence. Talk about greedy and uncaring.

Look up Applying for a new ARC Licence

That is correct, it is classed as a commercial screening so you need the correct license. Most satellite companies offer a commercial package for places like yours that has the requisite licences included so you need to get one of those. The communal areas are not classed as the residents home which is why this is an issue.

​@@schrodingerscat1863United Kingdom living up to it's "Oi, Bruv! You goy a loicence for that loicence?!?" reputation. Absolutely farcical that the nation persecutes it's people like this. Charging them for what should be freedoms.

I'm going back some years but I remember being told we could not have the radio on in the office AND the windows open at the same time without the college obtaining a public performance license - it's probably technically correct, in the most anal way possible. It was funny when I told the same manager he'd need to register his CCTV system with the information commissioners office, list 'watching employees' as the purpose of recording and display appropriate signs before asking about any of my actions witnessed via the CCTV 😂

Its whether they click the iPlayer and it logs into an account and says, "Do you want to continue watching Eastenders. You have three profiles and 'The Apprentice' has been watched four times today."

Good point! A lot of apps are pre-installed and cannot be removed which are capable too.

no.. its about how you use and set up the equipment.. if your tv has a cable going into the wall, thats connected to say, a saterlite dish, then your TV is set up to recieve live programs.. even if you DONT actually watch any so.. remove any cable capable of sending live feeds to your tv and de-tune the set however.. be aware that if they enter your property they are not beyond plugging their own cables in, re-tuning and THEN taking you to court for breach of the communications act (which if successful gives them a monetory bonus.. so not exactly impartial).. there is a case where the goon stated that stopping him from doing this was obstruction.. luckily.. the police officers in attendence for the execution of the warrent, protected the home owner by saying it wasnt.. but would you want to rely on a police officer to come to your defence? i'm no legal expert, but my understanding is they need at least two seperate peices of evidence to obtain a legit warrent (and they are NOT above just get one signed by their direct manager.. not a true magistrate) to enter a property.. and to get that, they will say anything to get into your building.. so.. dont say anything when they knock on the door.. and dont let them in remember also.. THEY have to justify why they are on your property in the first place.. as soon as you open the door, they MUST identify on request.. if they just keep asking things like "who are you?" or "are you the legal occupier?" before ID'ing.. just close the door.. just like you should as soon as they say that they are TVL.. most successful convictions are because the occupier dropped THEMSELVES in the proverbial.. legally, they are classed as proffesionals, so who do you think the court will side with??

​@@KemPeck1701The top post is correct. It is how you use the equipment, not what it is capable of. That is why they demand access to your phone. Almost all smart phones allow access to things that require a licence. Some youtube channels do. So they are trying to prove you have watched something specific. Search warrants can only be issued by courts, not by managers at TV Licencing. They might be issued on the basis of a statement by a visiting agent that he saw a TV playing a licensable programme.

​@@timg1246the law states that you need a license to install TV receiving equipment. It's not about how you use it.

It's tragic you even have to do that.. When I cancelled sky that was the last contact I had with them

I just felt the former online just so much easier. Life is stressful why do we need more stress? Fill the form out on the BBC website And just leave it there not a problem

@@elixier33 I called them because I wanted them to know how much I loathed them ..I didn't swear however I told them uncomfortable facts ..

Why did you make all the drama? Simply ignore them.

A bigger issue is that when asking the password, they either already know or are likely to find out the person's email address. Which for most people will have the same password. This giving them access to their email account and (for many people at least) the majority of their online accounts. The type of people employed to bash on people's doors and demand payment are not always the most savoury of characters. One of them is likely to do something they shouldn't with that information. It will lead to larger problems.

Wouldn't they simply insist you go through a password reset exercise in that case?

That would only be honest if you genuinely could not remember.

They should be able to tell from their own end if you have logged into and watched the BBCi player, so it makes the request a bit pointless

​@@jaybe2908There are other things online that legally require a licence. Amazon Prime sports, or certain youtube channels, for instance.

The physics isn't different but the purpose is. The amateur radio licence doesn't cover you to decode and watch cinematic video from television broadcasters live using the equipment you describe, afaik. I presume you're also not licensed to transmit on those frequencies allocated to public television broadcast.

Only if the video is an ‘official’ broadcast at a scheduled time, like any ‘live’ TV broadcaster.

@@DrGreenGiant No. I cannot transmit or receive on frequencies allocated to public broadcast TV. But I wonder if a listener would need a TV licence on those frequencies I can.

@@SteveBrace I don't see how that would be any difference to the receiver, amp and speakers of consumer TV, so probably license required? It's been a long while since I liked through the license regs, curious if they say anything. M3OOH by the way! Not that I've used it in many years lol

​@@SteveBraceI wouldn't worry about it too much they are finishing to rest your TV anyway all going online

Exactly, the ownership of equipment that is capable does not mean you're using the equipment for a certain purpose, that would require the equipment to be setup with the correct connections, plus configured (or tuned) in such a way to meet TV Licencing criteria. All 3 are needed really, technically everything could be wired up, but not tuned, or tuned but not wired up, either way it's going to prevent you receiving live broadcasts.

Even if they can,they can’t

As always, the video contains really useful information but I'd have liked an explanation for how TV Licensing may obtain a warrant, having had no communication whatsoever from the resident of the property to which the warrant applies. In the absence of this, how can a warrant be issued?

​@@anonnemo2504As rare as obtaining a warrant are, in answer they can't, because in theory they will not have any proof you were watching live tv or accessing BBC I player. In theory whoever signs off the warrant needs that proof, and if they did issue a warrant based on basic hearsay or in this case they might be watching live TV or accessing BBC I player , then it wouldn't be lawful. However, thats not to say they wouldn't get said warrant, as they are probably bulk issued on demand by Capita.

​@@anonnemo2504rare as hen's teeth. It's fear mongering. Nothing will happen

Yes they can wen you don’t listen

@stevecoles399 > Absolutely fantastic advice. As biased as hell, and given without any disclosure of his personal interest.

The Post Office did indeed adminstate the TV licence for the BBC, including goon visits, for many years. They did used to say "I'm from the Post Office" when introducing themselves. Dirty trick. Had it many times. They lost the contract some years ago and Crapita took over. I believe a lot of the nasty reputation comes from the way the Post Office BBC agent goons used to behave. Don't get me wrong, Crapita goons are bad enough but the old lot were much more arrogantly officious in my personal experience. The Capita ones are easier to deal with. They aren't so persistent, apart from the odd few. I'd say because they haven't got time to chase a commission they're unlikely to get, if you won't give them anything to work with such as your name etc.

@@christracy2144 He was not a Postie, who call themselve 'Royal Mail' not 'Post Office' - they wear at least a vestigial uniform. I remember the silly PO vans with a white plastic drainpipe on the roof claiming to be 'TV Detector Arials'!!

⁠@@uingaeoc3905Prost man

Please don't give them ideas