I am Daniel ShenSmith, a Barrister of England and Wales. The #BlackBeltBarrister channel provides you with free legal guidance and explains different aspects of law, legal principles, and procedures. Legal advice can be very expensive. and you will usually have no knowledge when you encounter a legal problem.
This channel is not a replacement for formal legal advice. My videos will not solve all of your problems, but they will help you understand more about the law so that you are in a better position.
For formal advice, please contact [email protected].
Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
Check out my other channel: kzread.info
Where appropriate, our privacy policy can be found here: www.blackbeltbarrister.com/pages/privacy
BlackBeltBarrister is a registered trade mark. All rights and copyright reserved to ShenSmith Group Ltd.
Пікірлер
Years from now people will be amazed at this. What! Back then you needed a licence for TV and the government sent inspectors round to your house to make sure you had one.
I cancelled my TV licence over a year ago and heard nothing.
To get a warrant you need proof. They don't just hand them out like free vaccinations.
Put a lock on your garden gates and get a postbox
I have cctv and I don't communicate in any way with anyone at the door unless I know who it is and the door stays shut !
Am I right in thinking that all this invasion of privacy is to ensure I have a 'licence' to watch only BBC programmes and anything that is broadcast 'live'? Am I then ok watching commercial television (with adverts) or, say, pre-recorded KZread videos without getting a 'knock on my door'? Furthermore, how am I to prove that I DON'T watch BBC (or live broadcasts) in order to not be prosecuted?
My excuse is I don’t pay for left wing propaganda
That's interesting what happens if this laptop used for storing confidential information is the property of another individual or organisation. Would the TV licensing agency warrent allow them access this for testing, if it was on an employees property which was being scrutinised?
Slightly off topic, but here's my issue though... what exactly are they hoping to prove? It is not illegal (without a licence) to have equipment capable of receiving live TV, it is only illegal to WATCH live TV. How does inspecting your equipment prove this? For example, I get my TV exclusively through an Apple TV box. I have apps on there such as All 4 and Channel Five which have live TV sections but I just do not use them, only the streaming/catchup sections. They only thing I can think they are trying to do is, using this legislation, they will make you turn on the device and then insist that you click on the live TV sections to show that you can watch live tv if you wish (still not illegal). If you refuse then you are breaking the law, if you click on it as ordered then you have just broken the law. In that case would it then be enticement?
The main problem here is that Capita doesn't care. All they care about is selling licenses, prosecuting people and making money.
You can rock climb without ropes but speeding is a problem 😂😂😂😂
It just sounds like law makers made an uneducated ruling that needs to be revisited.
Well, when they pulled me in a few months ago in my car and asked that, all I said was no, I give in , what’s the answer! Seemed to bollocks them up for a minute or so! Mind you, most of them are pre programmed morons anyway!
I’m British but live abroad and haven’t got a UK bank account anymore. When I go back to visit family now, it’s getting increasingly difficult to pay for things. I don’t have tap-and-go and my own bank card isn’t accepted in the UK (it’s a Chinese card). I end up relying a lot on relatives to pay for things for me and then giving them the cash, but this makes me dependent on them. There was a time in the Cotswolds last summer when I literally couldn’t pay for anything as the only pub took no cash.
Hope she doesn’t have a job anymore
Mobile phones, tablets, laptops, consoles etc., while they could be used to watch 'live' TV are NOT regarded as "television receiving equipment" as per the conditions of the warrant. Therefore, the TV Licensing staff do not have any authority to examine or test them (unless you allow them). No need for any other reason to decline. To address the comments that they will seize your equipment - no, they won't: once again, the warrant does not give them that power.
My phone contains all my banking details etc as does my laptop. No one is getting onto them . Not a chance.
These ads slammed into informative videos should be illegal.
No one seems to want to answer one question that I have. If you use the Freeview function on your TV to listen to radio channel broadcasts ONLY, on Freeview, do you need a TV licence? Please can someone answer this because some areas in the country have very poor VHF radio signals which would normally be used for radio reception.
If the police and TV goon turns up with a warrant then keep out of sight . They won't kick the door in !
I’ve been training for over 20yrs and NEVER filmed or needed to. For those who are saying they need it to record their technique, your own body will tell you
Do as you likies
what about confidently to your self?, (anyone used device for online banking, shares, bit-coins etc, etc, and as you said family pictures specifically specifically maybe thing photograph, videos, and you would keep the copy rights to your self, none of the stuff that would being viewed by anyone, ?
BBC or their third parties are not what you would consider law enforcement parties although they may argue that they are. They are a corporation a money making in it for profit organisation.. I would refuse to allow them access to any of my personal data or any data on any of my machines.. Lets go to court and argue it there.
Don't open the front door! 😁
I had the situation whereby I was asked to see my tv license. I said I didn't have one. I didn't have a tv.. They were incredulous so I invited them in to look and they didn't find one.
Not all councils are using traffic orders though are they.
I recently got a letter stating "official investigation now started", which I thought was funny because they never concluded the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that - I've told them to come visit me anytime and I'll tell them to FO to their faces- they never have.
my answer is if they have a warrant then they must have evidence , i would be asking that see that evidence , IE a video of me actually watching live TV ( not just words on a piece of paper saying they saw me doing this ) if none is forthcoming then I would be saying no you cannot come in .
Interestingly i recall highly embarrassing two licence inspectors 25 years ago. They knocked and asked to come in, my wife graciously allowed them. They were shocked to find that indeed we had no tv set. It caused an immediate change of attitude. I did have a video recorder with the broken tape loader taped up though, as i used to listen to tv not watch it! We had no video tape for it either. We were told that we were the first ones visited that did not have a tv. We have a license now for very occasional use of iPlayer or news. I tend to think i get the value from advert free radio, i don't like the gambling ads on commercial sport radio for instance.
I used to watch the BBC the word to look for is "used" it is so full of "Woke rubbish" they couldnt pay me to watch it.
Do as you likies living in a house
No signed contract simple
This shouldn't take that many minutes to say "Buy a bloody licence"
Best thing is shut the door after telling the TV licence guy your not interested. There for they have no name , no chance of a warrant! At the end of the day the BBC waste the gulable people who still fund the shite TV licences money. I for one aren't funding a bunch of numptys who make no decent programmes and shove nothing else worth while just repeats . £167 a year for as Paul Daniels used to say "not a lot"!
I was hounded by Transport for London (TFL) for allegedly parting in a loading space while not loading. But I was loading. I wrote back and each time I refused to pay they doubled the fine. The case was scheduled for court and they tried to enforce payment _before_ the court case! At court they didn't turn up and the case was thrown out. I have tried to start disciplinary proceedings against the staff member (known only as RN 101) who was operating the CCTV but TLF now ignore all letters from me.
There is vast army of people working from home - civil servants and the like, they also have confidential records on their PCs - for example somebody might work for the benefits agency or dare I say it - the police !!!
This current government apart from being useless at stopping illegal immigrants entering the country, posing as asylum seekers, also promised to do away with the TV licence, I think it was "lack of integrity" Johnson who said it. It is a question I will pose to any candidate I come across during the election build up.
We have all heard the accounts of 'boiler room' warrants. Can you define what a warrant is, what it looks like and what tells there are to unvalid warrants?
What if I refuse to unlock my computer, using only the following argument (and also later in court if I get prosecuted for obstruction): The warrant allows the licensing people to check only TV receivers, not other things. A TV receiver is defined as any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving TV programs. My computer is not installed nor used for that purpose, therefore the TV licensing people have no power to check it. If they press charges for obstruction, the burden is on them to prove that my computer is installed or used to receive TV programs. Just saying the computer can be used for it is not sufficient because people do install computers for other things and not for receiving TV programs, and plenty of people don't watch TV programs on their computers. Actually I'd say that's the majority. Would that defense work?
If the BBC is so great, they should have no issues surviving as a subscription service paid by people who actually want it, right?
In the case where the crooks take steps to destroy the equipment where the footage is stored, or for example use corrupt officers to unlawfully seize the equipment, the only real option to protect the footage and ensure that it can be easily retrieved, is to use social media (among other means) as a diy storage mesh. Because of the tendancy of crooks to gain unlawful access to social media accounts of witnesses, it is necessary to repeat the process across multiple websites. The case files can then be reassembled from scratch without the need for any authentication. That is the reasoning behind this actual channel, because of a series of crimes involving the police, including exfiltration of classified materials to hostile states. Allied states can then simply be supplied with the public URL without being detected, and to alleviate the necessity of notifying each agency individually. There really is no other way for an average person to protect themselves from foreign spy / hatd crime networks.
I pay my tv licence by direct debit, every couple of years I get a letter asking me to pay my TV licence. If they are that disorganised I would be highly suspicious that they have got their facts correct if they turn up. I wonder if the act is really referring to TVs, and should be modified to exclude personal devices, eg laptops and phones, as I can't see a case where they could look at them without breaching your privacy. Interesting vlog though, thanks.
It appears, in my experience, cameras are the trigger. I use discrete or body cameras. When shooting buildings l frequently say l am recording architectural styles. Plods buildings are similarly dealt with by recording how money has been used to make a building attractive or if a building is a utilitarian design. Number plates are public information. If someone expresses a wish to examine pictures, simply explain your pictures are transmitted back to the office and no record is kept on your equipment.
So you have to let them into your house, but they can't look at any devices because there's 100s of reasons why you don't want them rooting around your data. It's all such a farce and just preys on the poor and the uneducated. When is this outdated law going to be repealed?
BBB is, as ever, informative and even dare I say entertaining. But he has one drawback- at least so far as he presents himself- and that is he has faith in the law. He has faith in justice, freedom and democracy. I have recently been the victim of an action by a third party for something that was nothing to do with me. The police turned up and sided with the official, despite me offering evidence to the police. Now in the scenario BBB describes, it would be insufficient to simply refuse as they'd likely have police with them who are lacking in legal training, lacking in experience and lacking in moral fibre and they will take the official's side- likely even arresting you. In BBB's case perhaps he could then seek retrospective redress, but by then it's too late. Your 'phone or laptop has been seized and you have the devil of a job getting it back. BTW in my case, the police later on apologised and admitted they were at fault. I thought I'd add that in case someone thinks I'm just bitter. I'm not, just angry and looking forward to suing them.
I would not let them in!
Doesn't filming on a dash cam and then posting it as an example of bad driving the same thing ?
I called BBC TV Licensing in 2019 letting them know that I don’t need a TV License. The phone call took only a few minutes…. I haven’t heard from them since!
why should they be allowed to test anything. You only need a TV license if you watch live TV, testing your equipment's ability to watch TV has no bearing on whether you do actually watch it or not.