Do they not realise them saying they caught you using BBC iPlayer is illigal to sniff packets from someone's address.

I reckon you should schedule a live on evening and go through things and question people answer be a good idea I think.

@@ZachSmall Doing live streams doesnt interest me much. Appeared on a couple and found it hard, these videos take a lot of editing due to the amount of waffle that comes out of my mouth when i get going

bbc have previously said they wouldn't link license to iplayer accounts

@@theatheisthammer Could you explain a bit more? (genuine question) If the iPlayer server has the information, could they not see who has logged in and compare it to the list of licensed households?

Same here! The BBC and crapita can get 🖕!

They should be fined with the amount of wasted paper resources.

Only one winner here & it ain't TVL.

your moniker intrigues me....

it's not their money. it's your taxpayer's money. that's the point. they're spending your money to extract money from you on false pretences and by intimidation.

They think it is. They don't believe that anybody could live without tv, but in reality, watching tv is fast becoming a thing that only the older generation do - very few of the zoomer generation actually watch tv - they all use streaming services on their phones instead. That's just something their parents do. I only watch technical channels on KZfaq and haven't watched tv in over 3 years and to be perfectly honest with you, I don't miss it in the slightest. For much of the past decade, the only thing I ever did watch was Doctor Who, and they absolutely murdered that when Chris Chinballs took over as show runner - that was the point at which I gave up watching tv. There is nothing worth seeing on tv anymore - all the good shows are on streaming services like netflix or amazon prime, and actual broadcast tv has become the dustbin overflowing with inane soaps, braindead game shows, woke so-called drama and extremist far-left propaganda :(

It is a truth that had become less relevant over the last decade or so. No matter how disingenuous you want to be the BBC, you have and do watch BBC content. Different people use the BBC at different times in their lives. For example in major conflicts, or national major issues almost every adult in the UK will have at some point watched BBC coverage of that issue. Just because you don't watch anything from the BBC 99.99% of your life, it doesn't mean you don't at all. You'll also use the BBC more at different stages of your life, with old people being a major audience for both news and daytime programming. Those same people may not have watched TV at all (or alot) during their working years. The arguments made against the BBC have been made for decades, often long before the arguments became valid. As of the last decade or so, its fair to say you can survive not watching the BBC, and not watching any live television at all. The argument that no human can resist watching live TV was pretty much true in the past, for the best part. They just haven't updated that view to fit with the modern world.

@@countzero1136 what an excellent summation ! I particularly like your reference to the contents of theover-flowing dustbin: how very apt.

I hear it is full of bames and degenerates...

@@countzero1136 I'm in my seventies and got an Amazon fire stick and cancelled my TV licence. Don't class all old people as the same. We remember history.

Or boyfriend or partner / don't be Transphobic now or against non-binary 🤣

And just like the crazy ex, they aren't bothered about losing you. Only pissed because they can't put their filthy paws in your wallet anymore.

@@kipp1231 😂😂😂 yh, that's true, they only see blokes as a meal ticket & a babysitter

A bit like the EU.

@@arthurmullard2788 How's that then, Brexiter ?

It is truly outrageous!

Its basically demanding money with menaces m8

Yes, if my business did this the police would be around as it's intimidation. However, if you report the BBC for the same thing the police clam up and don't want to know and won't reply to your correspondence. Police and MPs support intimidation only when it's the BBC. And I have emails from Nadhim Zahawi proving this. They are scum.

Next will be thumb screws for the non-paying over 70,s. FFS. ☹️

Just imagine the bbc brains trust sitting around a table coming up with all these intimidating threats; who's the criminal here?

Obtaining property by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland . This offence was created by section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Someone should use it.

Particularly as I don't know what an "i-player" is,let alone having one or the knowlege of how to use one. Come to that there is the burble about blue teeth and apps. The same applies: what the hell are these obsessional UK things????? (just returned to a world that I don't understand. 'On line'????? quoi?)

@@icdgyixify I think that this fishing letter may come under "trying to obtain money by fraud and deception" but I may be wrong? They try to get you to pay even if you have not used the i-player app and trying to deceive you into thinking that they have proof that you have.

It amazes me how they can send a letter stating we KNOW this specific person have been using BBC player, while in the same letter stating they don't know if same said person has a TV licence or not.. Its like they are just sending these letters to people at random.. This is just a scare tactic. You can bet that if said person phoned them to ask about the cancellation, they will have no clue what he/she is on about.

@@maida-vale you just reminded me of that simpson's episode where the patient wakes up from a coma, finds out cher is still singing and sonny's a senator and he just pulls the plug on himself GOODNIGHT!

Or maybe a telephone call from John with a Punjabi accent?

🤣😂😂 You laugh but I've won the Nigerian lottery like 40 odd times since 2008.

@@yyy-875 I had to pay a small £75 and then another £200 to secure the paperwork ID.. Not bad for almost $7,000,000... I reckon it was fake 😂😂😂😂 but I did play along with them leading them down a rabbit hole delaying them asking for bank details, promising them western union, I actually sent them £1 but to get the reference number and screw with them saying I had a technical problem it should have been £100.. I promised them I paid £100 x 3 etc etc.. Mate they hounded me and hounded me I'm pretty sure I wasted three to four weeks of their time 🤣 I noticed from emails their English was broken so I worded things and spelt things that would've made it so so difficult for them to understand and work out 😏

If any at all! The sooner the last person in Britain cancels their licence the better!

I've been saying that for ages

And I'd guess the number of potential subscribers would be in the thousands rather than millions. And with that sort of revenue, the BBC couldn't afford the salaries and production costs for their current shows. So it would be game over for them. Good

@@ravensthorne4631 That would be fantastic! The thing to do is cut the highly inflated salaries and slim down the workforce. You don’t need to pay people to warm chairs and push pens around. The so-called “box tickers” would the first to go if I was in charge!

Agreed, they would have to produce "Quality Content", pfft fat chance, they would have to spend money then, all we get now is repeats and box tickers, and shite...

Seriously that's a very good Idea. In fact everyone should send a subject access request in monthly.

I also recommend this they are saying they have records proving you are breaking the law. Therefore they have information linked to you - you can request this information and then they have to respond to it.

Burden of proof lies with BBC ask for proof of the allegations

I did just this, and it resulted in me telling them to take me to court. Id humiliate them, at first they told me they couldnt give me the addresses they logged due to data protection, after some legal help and a few back and forth they sent me 11 IP Addresses that belong to vigin media (who aint my ISP)

@@AnIdiotAboard_ Well done, Mark.

18 months I've not opened one. I found them funny at first & then it just becomes same idol threats different month.

I do cuz the paper they use is superb for wiping my arse after a good crap.

It's great, the council provides us with special bins for bullshit letters.

I open then out of curiosity, then feed them into the shredder.

I open them and then make them into paper planes for the kids great fun

@S - Corr true 😭😭

@S - Corr haha I know right

Me too. And KZfaq has had fantastic content since covid lockdowns. Live streaming from Royal Opera House and theatres....films too at small cost.....who needs tv? (I have been doing wonderful classes with Dutch National Ballet) also YT has Sky News Australia - which is terrific - thus avoiding propaganda UK tv news! Doesn't leave enough time to watch the usual tv drivel. and perpetual repeats......

Ditch the lot of them I say, all that globalist propaganda brain sewage.

I don't think you are likely to get a visit. There are so many now in our position they don't have enough goons to cover it all. I have not had a licence for three years and not recieved a visit

@@harrish6 25 years at same address and never had a visit, it's so frustrating, I really want to slam the door in their face!

If it's a fishing exercise, I hope that their fishing licence is up-to-date.

@@andyb7963 I would love a visit just to see what they look like. A bit like the Yeti, heard alot about them but wonder if they really exist.

@@keithscott1957 phissing lol

there did used to be one there though i think

@@ChilliJonCarne You're right, I know because I grew up in Australia and the licence was compulsory for radio and TV. Sensibly, it was abolished in the early 1970s.

That’s a bit drastic for most people though 😂

@@Solitude11-11 I don't know. The way our Green / Lib Dem / Labour / so called Tory government, led by Carrie is behaving, it seem like a good option.

@@tocaat2410 Yeah, but they now have central taxation financing the ABC and SBS so there is no option but to pay whether you watch or not. That's the gamble of defunding the BBC (which I agree with). If they go to Subscription only, fine, but the BBC could end up being funded by general taxation which is not good.

"Detector van uses the latest in high end tech" Its nigal with a £200 paid of binoculars in a van

I asked them to supply evidence such as a. iP address within 14 days. Without evidence I said I would pursue them for harassment. No evidence arrived, but another letter did, more threats. My response was that they were holding inaccurate information on me and were stating that they were going to share that inaccurate information with third parties, the sub contract inspectors. This would be a GDPR breach. I started the complaints procedure, informing them that I was going to sue. I got a phone call apologising, £250 goodwill gesture and my email address is removed from their snotty letter database.

@@alecturner2008 So you'll have no problem showing a capture of the letter accompanying the £250 cheque they sent you so that everyone can have evidence of the precedent they set in shelling out £250 for 'getting a snotty letter wrong', right? I mean, that could be a really useful tool for the rest of us getting straight in touch demonstrating that we all know that this is how the matter is settled and asking for our £250... But just to check... They write to you and say you've been caught using iPlayer... And instead of saying 'I think you've got mistaken identity and I don't know what you're talking about' you instantly replied with 'IP address or it never happened...?' So.... by your standard then, my request above is tantamount to 'documented proof or it didn't happen', right? Good news for me, then... Hopefully we won't have to wait as long as 14 days... I just always find it peculiar... So many people who are naive and innocent of trying to illicitly stream BBC content whose first response to the suggestion of impropriety is to bypass 'ignorance' and dive straight into a defensive and detailed demand for specific reporting... Isn't that a bit like pleading the fifth or insisting that you've nothing to say without your lawyer present? But what a great bluff on your part... They didn't show you what information they had but you claimed that the information that you didn't know that they did or didn't have was inaccurate... And somehow convinced them that it would be unlawful for them to share inaccurate information with a third party, which technically it wouldn't be because (a) the information would be inaccurate and therefore wouldn't constitute the transmission of personal information and merely constitute a non-enforcible error on their part which could be easily demonstrated by yourself and cleared up in respect of the involvement of the third party and (b) if it would have been lawful for them to share accurate information with the third party then sharing inaccurate information with the third party would not be any less lawful because (c) there is no legal requirement for you to participate in confirming the evidence against you in the pursuit of enforcement of a criminal offence. But great for you that it worked out so profitably because if I'd been the BBC I'd have probably laughed at you down the phone and made a mental note not to set frivolous precedents by rewarding you for being obstructive evasive. Really hoping that they send me some fishing letters because with that proof of your payout I'm thinking I could probably treat myself to something nice when I get my £250...

@@helmutsilver5006 No I didn't keep the letter as it was over a year ago now. I'm sorry I didn't have time to drone on like you have and fill in all the details. I started the claims for harassment after reading the FOI that was published on the number of harassment cases Tv Licensing have settled due to way they conduct their business.

@@alecturner2008 Such a shame. That could have really helped so many people. I mean, with such a victory as that for receiving some letters that could just be thrown away, I mean.... I'd have framed the fucker and posted it on the interwebs to... you know... deal them a death blow and give fuel to a class action.

Brilliant. 😊😅

@@astartewise8615 like it.

Question: - How did they (BBC) get your email address ??? .

@@stevemacbr you have to give email when you tell them no license needed

@@dshe8637 - YES,... that's why NO interaction is best,... because, you will also then have to give your home address. .

I love it. 😂😂😂

)8

theres nothing free concerning peoples login information. A record would simply be a login attempt to their server.

I think you may be thinking of asking for a 'subject access request' instead as it's personal not public information.

@@toppjonty Interestingly, I believe that you would be allowed to log in and browse the menus at iPlayer without a licence, as long as you don't watch anything. In fact, across all of your devices, think about it - how easy would it be to accidentally open iPlayer? How many times do you accidentally phone or receive a phone call unintentionally? BBC can feck off. ;)

It is patently obvious that they do not and cannot have such a "'record'" of what you watch.

I thought you had to put in our TV licence number to be able to access iPlayer. Not sure though as I don't watch live TV.

@@beccabbea2511 last time I used the iplayer it just wanted your email and a password to access it.

@@beccabbea2511 no just a ccreen name

Screen

@@beccabbea2511 It asked me for mine a while back when I tried to access it so i didn't bother finishing the setup and uninstalled it all... since then I've gone "license not needed" and removed the plugs from the aerials so that the Goons CAN'T plug them in if they ever turn up with an access warrant. If they don't have one it'll be the door for them.

Me, too, especially as I refilled my No Licence Needed statement last week! Lol

Not only now do 75+ year olds have to pay the licence fee, but women in the UK have been swindled out of up to 6.5 years of state pension payments. I know because I'm one of them. I'm in the last year of birth group to actually get our pensions. Mine was at 66 years 6 months and 6 days!!!!!!!!!!! The government is determined to keep adults working into their 70's shortly before they become eligible for their pension. It would have been fairer to say as of xxx xxx date, any woman born during or after yyyy year will only get their pension on or after their 65th birthday. That would have been clear and brought both sexes in line for their state pension date; thus leaving all women born before that year in receipt of their pensions at the expected time. Removing the tv licence exemption on age grounds has been done simply because too many of us are living well beyond 75 years of age and it got the Government squealing that it's not fair, not enough pennies coming in to fill the coffers. I say Government because any increase in the cost of the licence has to go through and be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it can be brought in.

I meant 'get our pensions' withheld until we are passed 65/66years of age. Those whose pensionable age were moving got it earlier but the age/date of birth rose each year.

No they do get returned to darlington,when rhey recieve the letter back they knoq rhw address is live,so dont send them back,as you are giving thwm unfo by default

Hope you put some more junk Mail in the envelope.

@@thurstable1119 I personally add a ream of copier paper to the unstamped package complete with a years worth of unwanted threatening letters and a note pointing out that I don't bow to intimidation and I don't pay the wages of Peadophiles or Communists.

Me too... Ive been doctor death, sue pollard, iva bigone... The list goes on. Makes me chuckle

Did just that

Why are people declaring they don't need a licence? You don't need to declare you don't do something.

@@MikeEves I gather its so that the BBC will stop bothering them with the very sort of mail this channel and others talk about. After all, if the BBC didn't make up silly excuses to send these letters, (they don't have any offical authority to do anything), there wouldn't be any need to declare anything to them in the first place. This entire TV licence fear situation is just a long ingrained hoax that people think is real. The ultimate aim would be to get the population to fully ignore them in heart and mind once and for all.

Your last sentence sounds just like the government!! 🤣🤣

Tax free for nearly a decade, they send love letters occasionally, but as yet no visits?!

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 • 🤣😅😂😉 Great comment, loved it. Gave me a good giggle. Have a good day. 😘

@I'd rather be a blind moth Yeah I know. I've not accessed the app or have an account, so I should be fine. They have to prove I have an account and I use the app first. They can't.

@@margaretblack8538 You’re welcome?!

You're right, I have over 60 threat letters, it's all bluff.

I pay £8.5 PCM to the Telegraph, but unlike the BBC it's quite good, and I have a choice whether or not to pay for it!!!

@@zippymark and you don't have to pay the telegraph if you read the guardian.

@@rjmunt The Guardian 😅😂🤣 people are waking up to there Left Wing crap, their readers have more than halved in the last decade.

@@zippymark couldn't care less. I don't read them.

No news on the Daily Star haha!

I know thats exactly what i did false postcode and a false e-mail not had any letters yet

Plus, how many postcodes cover only one house? How do the TV Licence mafia know which property was watching iplayer?

@@ravensthorne4631 They are certainly logging your IP address along with the date and time you access the iplayer service, but of course they would need that information in order to successfully prosecute, so if you're genuinely NOT using the service, then they won't have your IP address logged. That's the way you challenge this stuff - demand to see their access records - or if it ever got to court, get your solicitor to demand these records - chances are they would drop the case rather than expose their info gathering tactics in open court (remember that anything that happens in court becomes a matteer of public record, and that's not something that the bbc or crapita could ever tolerate

@@ravensthorne4631 most postcodes cover various addresses. There are very few houses in the uk that cover just one house. And most would be farms or big houses in the country. BBC hoping that people will read it and cave in to their demands.

@@countzero1136 agree use vpn problem solved..

My point exactly. Hard evidence = court date.

Yep Stasi officers and their gulags.

I'd suggest... just a suggestion... That if you're playing the 'I don't need a licence' card... Stick with 'I don't need a licence because I don't use iPlayer at all.' Keep it simple. Challenging them that you're pushing to see what they can do in court is sort of a dead giveaway that you're not pleading ignorance or innocence. 'What time did someone use my email address?' is a bit different to 'well, if that's happened I've no idea how but if I've been hacked then clearly I need to disable that email account immediately...'

Copyright "troll" used that trick quite a lot in the hope that people would pay up. Many did. Some fought back only for the troll to quickly drop the case. Some even refused to let it drop and called their bluff winning tens of thousand in court. So, in summery IF they have your details and the beeb "claim" to know that you've used their services, call their bluff. Otherwise, just ignore it.

It is not the BBC that need to be convinced, it is parliament. They can revoke the charter at the end of each renewal period or at anytime in extreme circumstances. So we all need to keep harassing parliament to get rid of the TV licence. If all the commercial channels including Sky , Freeview etc can make money ( and they do ) then the BBC should have to operate in the same arena and not be funded by forcing people to buy a TV licence that they don't want

Top and bottom, it's an outdated idea that should be scrapped and the BBC should commit to becoming commercially viable without a government sanctioned advantage. No disagreement there. Until then, the law is the law.

you are allowed to request all data about you that a company holds, so I would imaging people have done it

@@ChilliJonCarne Perhaps everyone who got the email and letter should do it. That would clog up their time and staff.

Threaten them back with a Class Action against harassment will be taken - if you persist with these letters

@Steve Gee is it a crime ? I thought it was a civil matter.

@Steve Gee huh! I'm so out of touch with the news - maybe I need to watch BBC news lol

as well as the MAC address of the equipment used to prove that it was you, but in order to so this they need to hack the host which is illegal.

@@petebeckham8562 Absolute bollocks. They don't need to prove that the content was accessed by anything other than the pipe to your address. Demanding a MAC would be as idiotic as a murderer trying to get off by insisting that the police should be able to determine which one of ten identical knives was the one used to murder his wife on the floor of their kitchen resulting in him being covered in her blood and her body being found there by the police with him standing beside her following calls from the neighbours about a row resulting in screams and the sound of the knife drawer being tipped on to the floor. But if they wanted the MAC, iPlayer can happily report it to them without any hacking and no danger of illegality whatsoever since the user consented to use the iPlayer app and service. Not sure what your agenda is in hammering these threads with these erroneous claims, but glad I could be here to help correct them.

Well... not necessarily. as it won't be IP related and will have nothing to do with your ISP... just very basic silliness from people who have actually watched it after cancelling. You sign up for your TV license online and give them your email address. You log in to iPlayer using an email address The BBC just need to have a system that'll run a script for logins and compare that to a database of email addresses registered to cancelled TV licenses. That isn't illegal. Using IP addresses isn't fool proof as you're more likely to have DHCP IP address from your ISP, so the BBC would have a record of IP addresses that have connected, and the email address associated to the logon. So more than one household would connect using the same ISP issued IP address.

@@TrevM0nkey they use cookies to see what devices are using iplayer, if your signed in to another service like bbc sounds for local radio on your device, they can tell t instant you navigate to iplayer. This uses the single sign on cookie. they can then use a database like the electoral roll to cross reference your name to your address. Sounds complex but its a few lines of code and this could be checked automatically.

@@troythrust 2 words.. privacy badger

@@TrevM0nkey Not strong enough to stand up in court though. Also, as IP addresses change on a handshake protocol, the IP you signed up with would most probably differ from the one being used to watch, so the only correlation will be an Email login which, as we all know, might have been hacked or lost. If it's under a generic hotmail or gmail account, probably even harder to prove. They'll also need to prove that it was someone in the house using the equipment watching it and that it belonged to them via MAC Address, and they'll never be able to get that.

@@troythrust Depends what name and details you gave when signing up, plus they need to prove that you owned the device using it, or were the person using the device at the time.

I was thinking the same. If they have data on you aren't you able to request a copy of the information they hold? If so, if everyone did request this, they would be snowed under with admin! lol!

@@mechanoid5739 Unfortunately they can charge a "reasonable fee", I believe around a tenner, so whilst it would be worth it as a one-off to find out what exactly they do hold (and to prove the letter is based on a blatant lie) it wouldn't be worth it for everyone to do so or they'll be raking it in (especially if they don't really hold any information at all other than the address - as there would be no real work for them to do for their "fee").

@@philogden3083 but if they charge a fee and do not produce the stated evidence could that letter be considered to be a threat and fraud

@@tonyhicks635 I would have thought so, it would certainly put them on the spot!

Bbc are scum

That might seem like a simple answer, but it's also not an accurate one. If you're logging into iPlayer with your user account and you're behind a VPN you're still logging into iPlayer. You are still liable under their terms and conditions. You are still logging in with an account that associates your home address where your TV Licence should be registered with a user account using their iPlayer. If you don't have the licence or you're not registered, you're not supposed to be using iPlayer... I know in the imaginary world of thinking your cyber-anarchy is invincible that it might seem that a really simplistic question might confound the Communications Act and all legal proceedings around it... but they kinda got lots of ways to have you dead to rights. And I think it will be the giveaway, if you do ever end up in court over it, that you'll be pulling out a whole lot of hypothetical arguments for how you can get around the law which demonstrate a keen familiarity with attempts to confound the systems by which legitimate user access is determined... "But your honour... how can they possibly know when all my devices have spoofed MAC addresses and I'm hidden behind twelve firewalls and two VPN's..." - "Do you work for MI5 Mr Big Gob? Is there a reason why you need to be more secure than GCHQ but then want a quick watch of Doctor Who?" You don't think the court might get the idea that you were taking the piss? I do. And then... What if the person is on mobile iPlayer and have a licence at home but they logged in via your WIFI? Well, first - and with consideration to the Communications Act - if it's someone else's account logged in on their mobile device, the BBC aren't going to be detecting YOUR email address logging in to the iPlayer system, are they? That's like saying 'the Police wrote to me that I'd been caught on camera speeding... It was someone else driving their own car but they did it in front of my house...' That's not how it works... The letter is about why - in the metaphor - YOUR car was caught speeding. You can then argue that someone else was driving it... but if it was indeed YOUR car that was captured then it's on you to reveal who the driver was or demonstrate that the car was reported stolen. If they come after you because your mate used YOUR ID to log into iPlayer from their device on your wifi then nothing has changed... Your account... your address... your wifi... Without a licence you had no business lending someone else your account on the promise that they also had an account and a licence at their home address... It's kind of a self-defeating defence, really... Under the law YOU are responsible for your use of a service for which YOUR email address is registered unless you can prove that some fraud of your account details have taken place. You are also responsible for the traffic transmitted over your internet connection. Honestly, I know it's a disappointment and we may be behind in many things but neither the laws nor the UK Digital Content Service Providers were born yesterday nor are they some years or decades behind the times when it comes to the many possibilities of internet technologies... Presume that when you access their services, when you use an internet connection - ANY internet connection - that every piece of identifying and incriminating information CAN and WILL be gathered to protect any and every possible aspect of that service provision in respect of legal and financial liabilities. They ain't giving you the keys to the cyber-city and trusting you to help yourself in the most ethical ways...

unless your iplayer sign in has all your real details and they can log on there system who signs in then they cant do it

They can't fine you.

BBC hasn't the legal right to fine you only a judge in one of her majesties courts can fine you

@@robwatts9437 and a magistrate.

Except that they'd need to know the address linked to the IP of the device connecting to iplayer and they'd need a court order to get that so not going to happen. I do agree that devices might be able to connect to services as part of automatic updating but there should be a way of turning that off in the settings.

@@Thurgosh_OG I disagree. Sure, if you have NEVER used iPlayer on a device which required you to log in to your 'BBC Account' then they have no way to link the IP address you connect with your TVL record ... BUT if you ever have logged into iPlayer on a device which needs an iPlayer login then when a smart TV connects they see the same IP address from the TV as they did to, say, your PC assuming both devices used the same ISP and router. As a related issue, if they ever manage to gain access to a smart TV connected to a router (say you watch Netflix) there's no way you could 'prove' to don't use iPlayer and THEY can give evidence in any court case that your TV installation CAN use iPlayer and as I read the related section of the relevant law that's all they need to demonstrate you need a TV licence. Am I wrong?

Sounds borderline for extorsion to me... obtaining funds through threats.

@@RogueWraith909 Don't forget that Capita's acting on behalf of a government agency. They're allowed to get away with stuff that most of us shouldn't and wouldn't even think about trying.

@@englishciderlover7347 No excuse... should still be held accountable for their actions.

@@RogueWraith909 They should be held accountable, but we know they won't be.

I think that they fear that such an action would be seen to resemble a subscription service. I think that they are terrified of becoming a subscription service (too few takers) and would avoid doing anything that hints that they could become one.

I think they would need a court order and some evidence to get said order..but who knows these days..I think they would have to do an awful lot of expensive legal work for very little return..as has already been said if they could take you to court they would if they had any evidence ..maybe GDPR covers people from outfits like the BBC.

Now that sounds like a plan...I also note these communications don't provide any times or dates to back up the alleged offence..ergo this sounds like trying to obtain money by deception which has now been superseded by the fraud act..however the general principle i would assume still applies?

Don't hold your breath when dealing with the ICO. They just want us to roll over too. The ICO is very busy - cos' of The Covid.

Did this a couple of years ago, still getting regular fraudulent demands.

Did John Lennon sing `Imagine, no TV licence system...`

It’s not hard to use a fake name and fake address, use a supermarket address I watch iPlayer all the time for movies snd football and my Mrs does to catch up on eastenders and river city soaps lol

@@gaz8177 00 Exactly my point though is that the letters sent out said they have wacthed it but in order for bbc to know that the person would have had to have signed up with their OWN address

@@Secret_Squirrel_Scottishgamer ah yea sorry read your comment wrong understood 👍

Yes it is packet sniffing and that is illegal. Even if it was legal using a VPN would screw up the IP address. Nice try TVL, but its BS.

@@danmarkham2929 Cool. Thanks for the confirmation 👍

Here, here !

Absolutely, they can't

From your IP address. That would then require to go to your ISP to confirm the user of that IP. ISP log internet use but they also might not for all services. Plusnet advised their statistic of internet usage would not be accurate for certain types of data.

They need proof to show a judge. They need to tell a judge they saw you watching tv or heard the tv to get a search warrant. They need proof that you watched it.

Also you could just say that a mate was round watching the iplayer on hes phone and using your internet connection and becuase he pays for hes tv licence there is shit they can do