Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee

On 2025-07-11 12:02 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

 

Americans who complain about the inconsequentially small subsidy given
to public television and radio licensees have no idea how good we have
it in this country. In the UK, there's been a mandatory licensing fee
for receiving radio and television via the natural electromagnetic
spectrum and expanded to receiving a signal via other methods. The BBC
receives a phenomenal public subsidy of close to lb 4 billion.

 

And I thought our CBC got an obscene amount of money ($1.5 billion a
year under Trudeau, increased by $150 million under Carney, probably to
thank them for their enthusiastic coverage of his recent election
campaign.)

 

It's very difficult to avoid being not subject to the licensing fee. A
man chose not to watch tv and informed BBC that he was not subject to
the licensing fee.

 

The video was educational for me. I knew about the license fee but not
the precise terms. I always thought it was only for BBC channels but
apparently it's for the commercial channels like ITV and Channel 4 as
well. BUT you don't have to pay it if you don't watch live TV and you
don't use any services like iPlayer to view programming on a delay.

 

That means if you use your TV simply to watch DVDs, BluRays, VHS, etc.
you don't need to pay the license fee. But it's not clear how they know
that you're not watching live TV or if you have to notify them to be
exempt from the fee.

 

BBC sent the police to arrest him. Not watching tv is criminal behavior.

 

They had videod him looking at a video with a still taken from a BBC
program that the man found on the Internet. They obviously couldn't
prove this was live tv (in fact they knew that it wasn't being
broadcast) and the judge threw the criminal case out.

 

But that meant they had to peep through his windows, trespassing.

 

I'm not so sure about that. I was under the impression that they have
trucks with direction finders or something similar to tell if you are
receiving a TV signal.

 

That wouldn't work for people with smart phones or tablets using cellular data
or wifi to watch Netflix or the Prime.

 

And is YouTube considered something you need a license for?

ft

Something along the lines of the vans they used
during WWII to see if someone was operating a radio transmitter and was
presumably a foreign spy.

 

I've seen videos in which UK barristers explain that BBC license
enforcement has an implied right of access to enter the premisis to look
for contraband unlicensed radio and tv receivers.

 

The man was sick of the nasty letters and pounding on the door to be let
in, so he wrote to BBC in order to withdraw the implied right of access.

 

Seems like simply posting a sign saying "All implied rights of access to this
property are expressly revoked and trespassers will be prosecuted" would do
the trick.

 Hey! Someone took your advice!
 They set a trap for tv licensing!
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o46BHr19Dw

After I sent my first reply to this, I noticed that another video on this topic was visible in my YouTube recommendations so I just watched it. I think you'll find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C58OR8XBAPs [11 minutes]
The presenter argues that revoking permission for the licensing people to come to your door is NOT effective and can even be counter-productive. He also points to a case of someone who won a case around his refusal to pay the licence fee. He gives rather different advice than the Black Belt Barrister and swears by it; however this guy is apparently NOT a lawyer so the reliability of his advice is open to question.
[Not that lawyers' advice is always reliable as I know from indirect experience. Back in my university days, I lived in a student housing co-op and we had ongoing legal issues with regards to hosting pubs where alcohol was served. At one point, the General Manager consulted a lawyer to see if there was any way we could legally hold a pub without risking anyone's arrest. The lawyer thought about it and advised the GM how to go about it. As an afterthought, the GM asked if he could have this advice in writing so that he could show it to the Board of Directors. Much to his surprise, the lawyer's written advice completely contradicted his verbal advice: his letter said there was no way we could host a pub legally and we shouldn't even try!]
In any case, I was surprised to hear this presenter's allegations that the people who are working for the licencing body get a commission which actually incentivizes them financially to go after people who don't pay the licence fee and even lie through their teeth about what happened when they were let into people's homes.
--
Rhino