Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here: ➼ nordvpn.com/blackbeltbarrister It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!

Government agencies do not answer to the law when controlling, harassing or downright lying to the public!!

They don’t provide a list because they WANT it to be equivocal. It’s one of the most frustrating things for me, because they know full well that thousands (if not millions) of people will just pay out of fear.

So, looking at this from a different angle - if you need a TV licence to watch Sky, ITV etc, why aren't these TV channels and others getting funding from the money that the BBC get from TV licencing? Surely, if they are charging people, then these companies should be paid by the BBC?

The thing that winds me up is that I can't watch ANY privately funded live tv like c4 or itv who are funded by advrevenue unless I pay for a BBC licence! It's like saying I have to pay Tesco Everytime I use Morrisons! WHY? HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT?

The fact that this video, along with many similar videos on KZfaq, is needed to explain what can and cannot be watched without a licence only reinforces the argument that the whole thing is designed to be as confusing and ambiguous as possible. The TV licence fee is based on fear and blackmail and it needs to go.

It's deceptive. I am sick of their threats.

What started out as a BBC TV license has mutated into a TV Tax or Media Tax. In doing so it has become increasingly difficult to formalise the actual rules in any sensible way. Shows how much power the BBC hold over the 'live' broadcast industry.

I wish people would realise there is no way they can prove you watch live TV.

My elderly mother didn't have a licence as she was over 70. When they brought the law in to fleece all pensioners, she was determined to see them in hell, first. She was waiting for the goons - she was looking forward to it, in fact. She had it all rehearsed and my money would NOT be on the goon! Sadly, she passed away during Covid. My elderly Father, who was suffering from a degree of cognitive decline, caved in immediately he got the first threatening letter because he was genuinely scared (I didn't know until it was too late). . That is how it works - FEAR - frightening old and vulnerable people. My Dad was registered blind...

Someone should bring them to justice for obtaining money by deception.

"Or might want to watch" You don't need a license for just "Wanting to watch", you can want to watch whatever you want as long as you don't watch it as it is broadcast.

It's such a stupid law to prohibit (non BBC) live streams from any broadcaster, even KZfaq. No wonder they have tied themselves in knots with the explanations of their legislation!

How can the TV Licensing agency not know what their license covers, and prosecute someone on the grey-area of it's coverage?

When I lived in student accommodation, every student in ever flat (roughly 6-8 people per flat with around 200 flats) received a letter. We were told to ignore them. The wording is purposefully vague and does not define the key terms like 'live TV' so that people pay out of fear of prosecution.

It should be law that those producing live TV are required to add a stamp to their live streams that confirm a license is required to watch. It would save a fortune and avoid ambiguity.

It is not reasonable for TV Licensing to contact you after two years. How would this not be considered an act of harassment? It is outrageous that TV Licensing thinks they have the right to randomly demand money from you in a very threatening manner and then to state, once it has been explained that you do not need a license, that they will contact you in the future. No other governmental agency behaves like this.

They can say and lie as they like, they pick on poor people who can not afford to challenge them. Remember, always slam the door and lock it when a TVL officer calls, better still dont answer your door to strangers you are not expecting.

Much like not opening the door to the TVL goons, I now recognise their letters and don't open them either....

The BBC say in their advertising of Wimbledon each year that live Wimbledon Tennis is “Only Free on The BBC”!! I nearly fell over when I heard this!!

Thanks B.B.B. It seems they go out of their way to make it so complicated that folk cough-up, unnecessarily, out of fear. It's high time this draconian licence was kicked into the long grass.

I'm a bit surprised you went by the BBCs interpretation of the law rather than looking at the actual wording of the 2003 Communications act governing TV licensing. (Which is what I quoted in my letter telling them to do one 😄)

I take exception to 'or might want to watch' in the letter. I want to drive a Ferrari but I'm not going to steal one to actually drive one. Is not having a TV Licence now classed as a 'thought crime', i.e. do they think I still require one just for wanting to watch a live TV program even though I have no plan to?

Saw the bliters off the first time they came round. No tv, so no licence. Asked to come in and then said if you view live tv on this and that device. Told them I was not interested in the child buggering BBC. They left, some years ago, and the letters received a reply of stop demanding monies with menaces. No more letters

I still can't get my head around how the BBC are aloud to charge people for something they did not make, broadcast or develope themselves. And I find it unbelievable that the likes of sky, amazon, or any other broadcaster isn't taking the BBC to court. This is like me building an extention on a house and then someone else charging the customer for all the hard work I have done, I would be so pissed off that they are aloud to do that.

The last point on the letter states that you need a licence if you 'Enjoy watching or downloading BBC programmes on iPlayer'. So do I need a licence if I watch a programme on iPlayer and don't enjoy it?

funny story is there was a guy opposite who did not watch TV, listen to radio but had these clowns visit and he took great joy on wasting there time by letting them get so frustrated on his property when he had enough he would state they are now being asked to leave and if they were stupid enough to hang about call the local plod as he said he had trespassers on his property. A few times this happened he would just literally call them what they are liars and thief's, he would put this show on just for his amusement. Here's to him - Freddie ~Trooper

Any TV Licensing letters I receive goes straight in the bin, I haven't watched live TV for 8 years.

I’ve not had, nor needed, a TV licence for many years and no longer answer or reply to their queries. I have in the past told them I have no TV and they accepted that but later carried on writing to me. I note in the letter shown that they state : status “ no licence is needed” , but below that state that that status only lasts till January 2024. I have no requirement to keep telling them, or proving, that I need no licence every couple of years. I have no pilots licence, firearms licence, fishing licence, etc and have never been asked why so fail to see why I should keep being harassed by TV licensing.

It's wonderful that BBB has such a pleasant view of the impartiality of the courts & how the legality of letter - wording, etc could be argued when it comes to TV licencing. We all know that they have dedicated chunks of court-time dedicated to processing as many guilty people as efficiently as they can, without any real right to challenge or if challenged, ignored.

It’s not a Television Licence, it’s BBC Licence. Make live BBC broadcasts and online services subscription only (like Netflix etc). The reason the BBC require a TV Licence is due to them not wanting to advertise. Yet, the BBC do advertise……they advertise the content that licence holders have paid for. They also advertise content that you have paid for in other other countries around the world, with many on a subscription service, so the BBC is taking your money to create content and then re-selling the content you have paid for to third parties. Legalised Highway Robbery!!!!!!

Anyone paying should cancel the Lie-cence.

All people need to do to avoid problems is never ever talk to the goons. They get their money through fear. If people heeded this advice then the bbc would be finished. Open the door ask them who they are and present ID and say no thanks and slam the door

I think that if the licence were reformed rather than abolished, it should be simplified to the point where if a programme received licence fee sourced funding, a licence is required to view it regardless of transmission means, in addition to any broadcasts over the TV infrastructure which is itself funded by the fee. Having some form of ident to signify this on online content would let viewers know that a licence is required, and we would never be in a position of paying the BBC for content such as the live foreign broadcasts, to which it has contributed nothing.

Both KZfaq and Amazon Prime are ON DEMAND not LIVE and therefor should not require a TV licence. You don't need a driving licence to own a car unless you drive it.

In most countries a Commercial Television Company requires an operators licence. Now to provide commercial television services in the UK, you need a licence from Ofcom. Programme content, advertising and transmission technical standards are all regulated as part of the licence agreement. Surely, the BBC Press Office could state that Commercial TV Companies are required to have a Operators Licence, thus in theory only those companies that provide Live content on KZfaq is classified as a Live Broadcast, where as independents like Blackbelt Barrister of Blackbelt Secrets or similar Tou** TV are not classified as a commercial operation then NO TV Licence is required and OFCOM should be able to provide a list of Commercial Companies as the Licencing Authority.

I have just moved out from living with a friend for a few years, to my own place and have received a gibberish letter adressed to The Legal Occupier. I have not held - or needed - a TV licence since 1982 as I have a great many much better things to do and do not possess a TV, or watch it online. There is no way of responding to this letter other than online; there is neither postal address nor telephone number supplied to contact them to make an NLN statement which I am willing to do once, and once only. I am almost 80; many people my age do not use the internet. Obviously I do! So I think I will wait until I have a few of the gibberish letters, then post them all back to TVL by registered mail or recorded delivery, with a covering note stating that it is my pleasure to inform TVL that The Legal Occupier at the address on the letters enclosed does not need a licence as there is, at that address, no device used for any purpose for which a TV licence is needed. And wait for any consequences... see how they've changed in the past 40 years.

surely, an 'online service' would include video-calling online services, so according to the wording on the letter, video calling on whatsapp, signal, facetime etc would need a tv licence!

It's been two years now, I should visit my local Police station and let them know I've committed no crimes. On my way now to Netflix' offices to assure them I haven't shared my password with anyone outside of my family. Just off to STV Studios in Cowcaddens, Glasgow to confirm I haven't gone off to purge my bladder whilst the anti-Christmas M&S adverts are on, which is of course, moot as I don't watch live television, anywayz. Next stop, off to Morrisons Head Offices to assure them I scanned everything at the self-service checkout last week.

I don't get any more letters since I reported them repeatedly for harrasment.

It's gobsmacking that I pay the license fee for wrong information and drivel to be sent to people.

Well i been watching talk tv, and some of the presenters are saying you need to have tv licence, just by owning a tv.which if course is incorrect..

The wording on this letter (I had it too) and the online form were both the same when my 2 years were up. It was one reason I didn't bother telling them again as I felt it was wrong.

I've been getting letters for the past 7 years, I just shred them along with junk mail which I use for packing in parcels.

I sent in the right document for my mum, they would not accept it and said she had to pay. Totally ignored them they sent another letter, ignored that aswell, not heard from them since, mum is now 93 and all this happened before covid. Will never pay no matter what they say

I just save myself the time and put their letters straight in the bin.

This letter highlights an equivocation with regard to their reference of Amazon prime video. In the Amazon prime video services there two distinct and diverse sections for 'live' television.. one is livestreams of things like sports that are aired live that can be viewed as and when they occur, but there is also a ''Live TV '' section.. that streams a scheduled selection of previously aired television programmes.. which isnt live and consists of pre recorded tv shows that are mostly also readily available on other free platforms such as youtube.

If legal qualifications are a prerequisite to have a say on the law how can the law claim authority over subjects it has no qualifications in...

I have often wondered why a blind person is required to have a TV licence for just listening to live TV !! As they obviously don't WATCH live TV On their website this : "A blind concession TV Licence costs £79.50 for colour and £26.75 for a black and white TV Licence" And this " If you are blind (severely sight impaired) and can provide the appropriate evidence, you are eligible to apply for a 50% concession" How on earth do they get away with this ??? 🤬

Should we all phone the police every two years to say we don't intend to beak any laws ?

I would have assumed that to be a genuine television company, you would have to be in possession of a licence to broadcast. Therefore just about everyone providing youtube content is not a broadcasting company. Not registered at companies house either.

I had someone come round to check, i was three years into renting my flat and came home with someone ring the door bell. Very polite and just checked if the tv was connected or tuned in. Took two minutes and left never had to get a license

There are too many contradictions. They say you need a lisence to watch KZfaq and then state you do not need a lisence if you watch a independent KZfaq channel

I watch live trials via Court TV or Law & Crime when LawTube aren’t covering the trial. I bought a TV license this year just so I could watch and not get fined! 😤

BBB, Such very complex wording, open to ones interpretation. I suspect even Legal Minds would also have mixed interpretations. I find your channel well done all around ! Good Morning from the U.S.A.

What I find despicable is that they charge blind people for a tv license...! If you can't see the screen where is the difference between that and radio where they don't need a license??

Yes, applying for exemption, they try to catch you out now, by suddenly swapping 'yes and no' abswers by changing the wording to questions on there.

Like many others, I receive these letters every 28 days. I look forward to receiving them, mostly because they are full of hilarious gibberish written and approved by clueless morons, but also because they serve as a nice reminder of how much I am saving by NOT having a TV licence.

I wonder if UK Column News would need a TV licence to watch them live, they have a schedule, they're continuous with editorial content and consistency, they look very much like a television news show, although afaik they're just small group of independent people and survive with donations, they used to be on KZfaq until they got taken down due to what they claimed was misinformation (I don't agree). With no definitive list this would be one of those that could be debated.

I've always thought the TV licence was only for watching live TV on BBC channels or using iPlayer since they don't have ads. For quite some time I've believed that because the non BBC channels have adverts every 10-15 mins which would those would be exempt from requiring a licence to watch since they make their money from adverts instead of taking a cut from the TV licence money

Why do you have to have a license for companies that are nothing to do with the BBC. I don’t have a motorcycle do I have to pay a motorcycle tax then. NO. How can they justify you need a license.

I agree entirely, but this type of wording is just what the licensing people are known for, and indeed should be taken to task for. It's how they push people to pay.

i have said this before it is intentionally vague so they get more people paying

No one comes to your door to give you anything, so DO NOT OPEN YOUR DOOR. Make all family and friends phone you 2 mins before arriving at YOUR DOOR to visit. Never forget is YOUR DOOR thus for you to decide who gets in and who DOES NOT.

That's what l thought when l received this letter. (Looks like they send this one to others too). I don't require a licence and made another declaration to the fact. They continue to send their letters though...l thought they stop for two years?! Am l now being harassed by this organisation/company? Do l have grounds to sue them, l wonder ?🤔 Thank you Mr Blackbelt. Keep up the good work 😊

Do you see the TV license changing to a media license ?

I phoned up to give them hell for wording that letter like that, because its always old folks or single women who end up in court or the vulnerable,to get the fines,do not let them in or answer questions if you don't need a license,its a tax,£175 to depress yourself on an east Ender's binge 🤡🌍

When is the UK going to scrap the TV license fee? It is so archaic and most other countries that had it, scrapped it decades ago. (I am in Canada where it was scrapped in 1953). We have our BBC equivalent, the CBC, and it advertises and also receives a government grant.

Ambiguous, yes! *Before being able to understand your 2 questions, I think it’s first important to understand what “live” TV means.* Having spoken to Citizens Advice today, I was given an explanation. And when looking back over letters, web pages and your videos I think their advice can still hold true - nothing contradicts it. They told me that all broadcast TV is live. The stuff you get over the aerial or dish through Freeview or Freesat. She said this includes soap operas filmed weeks ago but are aired today. In return, I asked: does this mean all channels on my TV are deemed live? Yes she said. My interpretation of that is all programmes that adhere to a scheduled - ie the TV guide - where the showing time is known and cannot be changed, these are what is meant by live. It’s also being sent over a ‘live broadcast system’ that’s switched on. In my nativity, I had thought “live” only meant events that are happening now, like sport or breaking news. Taking the definition from Citizens Advice, I can see what the majority of TV License letters are trying to say, but falling short. I think your second point in your email (7:00) then becomes important. Assuming all scheduled TV that is broadcast over an aerial is deemed fee worthy, what is deemed as ‘broadcast live’ content - ie where can I find this channel & programme on an official list. Pretending there was an official list, it then becomes apparent that everything else is not part of the umbrella of broadcast & fee. So, online catch-up TV streaming added a chink into the armour. And this is where (again assuming Citizens Advice definition is correct) the Licensing company have struggled further. If they made the definition of “live” and linked that to a schedule/guide that lists all the channels and upcoming scheduled programs… then the rest of this misunderstanding should go away. So if it were linked to a schedule, then we know what watching ‘what’s on now’ via a C4 app is going to show me the exact same as what’s being aired over the aerial / Freeview - and is therefore subject to the license fee. Whereas in contrast, I pick something in the catchup menu, this is not part of the fee. Same logic applies to KZfaq, Amazon etc because they all have parts of their service that shows some of these programmes (eg Sky News). (And to clarify it has nothing to do with them (Amazon) showing a live sport event - say boxing - that you CANNOT find on another & regular TV channel… it is exclusive to the likes of Amazon and is NOT on the TV guide and therefore is not subject to a fee). So as long as your YT sharing platform (avoiding the word channel) does not become part of the regular TV guide… then yes we are safe the fee does not apply. All assuming the Citizen Advice is correct. And for all I know this is your understanding too, all along.

The only reason I pay for a licence is not because my wife and I watch live stream TV but we cannot be sure what our 21yr old daughter watches.

There are only 2 ways to prove that you do watch live TV. 1. You’re stupid enough to grant them access to your home. They record you watching live TV from outside your window. Let me tell you, the compensation you’ll get once the BBC admit they’ve purposely recorded you in your private residence from outside will not only pay the fine but will also give you a nice bundle of cash. To add, paying for Sky etc does not actually mean you watch it, otherwise you’d be legally bound to use everything you purchase.

I watch a guy making (rather impressive) model aeroplanes regularly live ON YT and i 'might' need a tv licence for that? What a load of BS. Why is it the courts accept 'thats not what i meant' from corporations but would be thrown out if an individual said that. The BBC makes me want to break the law!

I can confirm this letter is real, I have the exact one sitting on my desk with a post it next to the same point and I was very close to sending in a copy but someone has beat me to it! Thank you for answering, I will extend my no licence required!

I think they are making the wording as AMBIGUOUS as possible in the hope people will just keep paying for their tv licence. So a football content creator that does a live stream every day Do you need a TV LICENCE if you watch????

BBC have recently started demanding licence details to listen to radio online via their Sounds link.

In fact it was the definition of "live" that lead to Berlusconi setting up nationwide TV stations in Italy. Originally he was licensed to broadcast locally in some areas, but not nationally. He avoided the law by claiming the broadcasts where not all live because they deliberately introduced a few microseconds delay in rebroadcasting. Then the question of "live" became relevant to TV licenses, which were replaced by an automatic charge on each electricity bill. If you do not watch TV in Italy, you can opt out of this payment by declaring that you do not watch TV. But Italy is a democracy unlike the UK which is not really democratic (most votes do not count because of the first past the post system).

The last tick box states you need a license if you enjoy watching or downloading bbc iplayer content,.does this mean its fine to watch as long as you state you didnt enjoy the content

What about dab? I stopped listening tening via alexa as it said I couodnt without sighning in and or creating a bbc account... I didn't feel I should have to so I got my dab radio out. Why is it I can listen via a dab radio but not a device like Alexa? I also stopped buying electonics at certain shops as they seem to want too many details. Just take my money and give me my purchase thank you very much, the rest is non of your buisness

To all sensible and informed people out there, seriously, just get rid of your T.V..... I offloaded my device and i can assure you our lives in the household improved no end.....most of the stuff on T.V is pure rubbish. If you receive any letters from the T.V licence bods just put on "return to sender" unopened of course. You won't thank me now, you will however be notice that your life will improve....you talk more, go out more and more things get done.....and the BBC will take notice. If the "licence fee" is imposed as stealth tax then it no longer becomes a T.V licence. As others have mentioned on other threads the BBC should and could be self funded.

I have always take "live" in this context to mean a one-to-many communication sent out unrequested by the receiving parties at a time set by the sender and available to be accessed at the set time by a broad audience. "Broadcast" might be a better word, that which is thrown out broadly, as opposed to "narrowcast" on-demand communications.

Imagine they were held accountable, and actually had to send out a retraction to all the people they tried to deceive.

The bbc want to keep it all as grey & vague as possible. This causes confusion and they know very well that some people will just pay it - cer ching!

We've worked out that we don't need a TV licence under the law, but the process to cancel seems to be designed to trip people up.

Genuine question... who gave the BBC authority over services and products that have zero relation to the BBC?

I think the BBC are really panicking now from the amount of people stopping or cancelling their licence. I phone them last month when I got my reminder ask wheres the part on the letter to say i dont need one. They've phoning me back in 2 years time to see if I'll be needing one, luckily im moving home soon anyway so they wont have me on file for my new address. Im now free from the unfair TV tax

The reality is that the law doesn’t specify whether online services are caught by the legislation and so we will only get clarity when tv licensing attempt to prosecute someone for watching a KZfaq livestream/premiere without a license. Incidentally the TV company is certainly KZfaq not the content provider directly, same as an independent programme maker who creates content for ITV is not a TV company but ITV is a TV company. The BBC has no access to see what people are watching on KZfaq so unless you tell them voluntarily then there’s not really much they can do so I wouldn’t worry about it.

It's interesting to see this shady stuff happening in the UK as well. I live in Sweden, and some years ago, the TV license became an issue when they started charging people for having any device with internet access, simply because one _could_ use it to watch SVT online. The actual wording of the law made a lot of people very sceptical of that claim. In the end the whole thing was struck down by the supreme administrative court and they had to stop misinterpreting the law, and pay back quite a lot of money. Now the system is changed, so that all adults have to pay the license as a TV tax instead unless they have a very low income.

Surely it's illegal under WTO rules for a country to involve themselves with a private company like the BBC especially as the letters sent out are misleading and often intimidating.

BBC should pay me, if they want me to watch their programmes.

Google is notorious for storing your browsing data. Use another search engine.

I've noticed that some websites such as Sky News now play live TV the moment you visit the site and you don't know if they are playing it or not on any said day, nor get around it. How do people stand with this?

It’s long overdue that a compulsory payment to this company’s indoctrination is ended, I don’t pay for any subscription TV and I don’t watch BBC much, so why should I be forced to pay for a service I can live without.

Conviction rates are so high because people incriminate themselves when the TVL goons come knocking Instead of simply telling the licence salesman to jog on the bloody fools sing like a canary and end up in court

It's deliberately psychologically confusing to try & make people just buy a licence.

I have never bought and will never buy a TV licence, when asked why I reply I do not fund organised crime

I do not have a licence to sell tobacco or alcohol. Nor do have I have licence for a gun or for course fishing. None of the relevent authorities has ever sent me threatening letters or threatened to send an agent to my home. That being the case, why are Capita allowed to harass peopel who dont have a TV Licence? I am aware that there is some dubious legality to this but it i, in my opinion, morally wrong. These letters that they send go straight into the recycling bin, via the shredder. I have told them that I am correctly licenced and withdrawn the implied right of access.

Is there nothing in consumer law which states you shouldn't have to pay for something until you know exactly what it is you're paying for? Buy a car. Has it got a CD player? Unfortunately the state of the car changes from day to day, and we can't be sure if it will have a CD player when you receive it.

Here is a scenario for BBB - I am sitting on a park bench watching a live programme on the British Biased Corporation on my iPad. A TV licensing officer happens to be passing by and sees me watching a live TV programme. Can I be taken to court for watching a live TV programme outdoors in a public area without a TV license?

That last point from the BBC about the list you requested is just saying "It's not that we can't, we just don't want to produce a list", I would assume it's so they can continue with deliberately misleading statements on their website and letters.

They know it’s wrong but want to scare KZfaq, prime etc customers into getting a license. So, watching a webcam needs a tv licence does it? It’s pure deception.