BBC EXPOSED, and Starmer Panics

BBC bias, fuel duty rip -off, which Starmer is now doing yet another U -turn on, and a new TV licensing letter that might just push them over the boundary into harassment, should anybody sue them.There is now talk about a potential group litigation.That would require a big firm to take that on, and I'd be happy to assist, probably on a pro bono basis.But there we go, I'll show you that letter a little bit later, because that was a new one on me.

But first of all, we'll talk about this alleged bias by the BBC.But it's not just alleged by just anybody.This is a previous director of BBC News.

So we'll get on to that, then we'll get on to Star Wars U -Turn, then this letter, and a few other things.So please do subscribe to the channel, I really do appreciate that.This first story is from the Telegraph.I urge you, as always, to go find it, go read it, read it in full, form your own opinions, don't just rely on this video, etc. I always say that so that I'm not biased and I'm giving you the full story.But let's talk about what's going on here.

You see, the BBC has spent years telling us that there's no bias problem.There's no progressive agenda, there's no groupthink, there's no culture of silencing views that don't fit a certain worldview.

Just rigorous, impartial, world -class journalism they would have you believe.And yet this week, one of their own most senior people blew the lid and blew that story wide apart.Fran Unsworth was the director of BBC News.Not a junior reporter, not a disgruntled ex -employee with an axe to grind.A person in charge of BBC News, responsible for the journalism, the standards and, I presume, the culture of the entire newsroom.Now, in a new interview with journalist Rob Burley for UnHerd, she's described in her own words

she found inside the organisation.She called it a culture of progressive madness.She said, and I'll read it directly because I want you to hear exact words that were used, it wasn't just the trans issue.There were lots and lots of bullying going round about all sorts of things.People didn't want to hear from certain points of view.They'd no -platform them.

All that safe space, expletive.

That was the director of BBC News describing the BBC Newsroom.And then this.And this is the line that probably tells you most of what you need to know.

not just this subject, but on all sorts of subjects.The person running the BBC News was afraid of being cancelled by the people working for her.And finally, on why she left, quote, I would actually say it drove me out.Just dealing with the progressive editorial issues and the bullying around them all, it was incredibly difficult.She wasn't pushed out by the audience.She wasn't pushed out by politicians.

She was effectively driven out by the internal culture of the institution that she was supposed to be working for.Now, some people will say that this is just one point of view, just one former executive's view, and that it's much bigger than that, etc.

But think about who this is.It's not a critic from the outside looking in.It's not just some other competitor tabloid or whatever.This is someone who spent years inside the BBC at the very highest levels of editorial leadership.

Someone described by a BBC director

of television and also quoted in this piece as an unflinchingly committed journalist with strong sense of public duty and a precise commitment to accuracy.This is the insider account that the BBC says, as always said, didn't exist.

That the critics were just imagining it.That the impartiality rules were working.That the culture was fine.But it wasn't fine by the account of the person who was running it.And another question that this article's author asked, himself being a former BBC director of television, as follows, if this level of activist groupthink had taken hold on the trans issue, could it really have been contained to just that one subject?What about immigration?

What about Brexit?

What about welfare?What about Israel?And so on.

Is this not evidence from the very top of the organisation that a progressive mindset had seeped into the culture and was actively undermining the BBC's ability to do one thing that it exists to do, which is reporting the news impartially, accurately, without fear or favour?And that brings me on to a general point about free press, free media, open speech and free speech, being free to talk and discuss.I've mentioned the last couple of videos because it's sort of tiring to get complaints levied against people, particularly against me when I like to think that I am fair and unbiased and so on.Bless you all.Many of you, most of you in fact, leave lovely comments to say that you think I am fair and unbiased and very balanced in my videos.I aim to be.

I aim to give both sides of the story, which is what we always should do.There are some highly questionable stories put out by the BBC in the last sort of 24 hours or so.

Some of them so muchso that I don't even mention them on here for fear that it may look like, even by talking about it, that I'm treading over lines and such.So you can go and find those yourself.People have levied criticism of the BBC for the headlines and the way they're choosing things.Those of you who know will know.If you know, you know kind of thing.

So if you value the free speech element, if you value independent creators and journalists and free -speaking minds like mine, please do, if not even out of protest, subscribe to the channel.I fight against the tide sometimes because Some of you, many of you, well every day I read some of you say that you've been unsubscribed without you doing anything.So if you think you've subscribed, do check because maybe you've been unsubscribed by the platform, which I think is incredibly unfair.

I raised it at YouTube some time ago, they thoroughly investigated those so they said and found nothing wrong.And yet countless hundreds of you, it probably runs into thousands, have told me that you've been unsubscribed and it's not by your doing.So if you value free speech, you value independent creators and speakers like me on this platform, please do subscribe.

And that really helps the channel.There are other ways to support it, but I don't push those, you know, I've never done that.

But speaking of different ways of helping people and that sort of thing, then we come on to another U -turn by this government and by Starmer, because here's the question.

He says that he's postponing the five pence fuel duty increase for the rest of the year.Ironically, the BBC reports that Starmer is postponing this 5p increase in fuel duty, extending the freeze till the end of the year.

The BBC looks to verify it and everything else, and it had been due to rise between September and March 27.

And one might question, well, surely they can look at other ways of helping people by, you know, maybe reducing taxes and those sort of things.Have you heard the most ridiculous one just recently with Rachel Reeves trying to put pressure?I'll probably do another video on this either on Off The Record or on my Money Channel, Daniel Shensmith, because we're talking about taxes and costs and everything else.The latest one by Rachel Reeves, she wants the supermarkets to cap their prices on certain food.She's saying, please don't increase the prices of the food in your supermarkets because people can't afford it.But I'll tell you why they're increasing them.

I'll do more on my other channels here because this is going into money territory and personal opinions and whatever, but...The reason they're increasing those prices is because of all the taxes and the national insurance increases and all the other tax increases that are hammering businesses, causing businesses to close across the board.That's why the prices are going up.And yet she's saying her genius idea is to plead with the supermarkets, please don't increase your prices.So on Starmer's freeze of the fuel duty, one might say, well, why was it going up in the first place?Why not look at the taxes and all of the other taxes involved around there?

Why not lower those?

Why not look at so many other areas that they could actually help people?There's an idea.Who'd have thought that, eh?Who'd have thought that those could be great ideas?But anyway, we digress.

And just on the point about tax and costs and money and everything else, very quick plug.I've released a video this morning on my money channel, Daniel Shansmith, which I'll link below.Somebody asked a very good question.What would I do if I inherited a property worth £600 ,000 mortgage -free?What would I do with the money?

Now, whilst it's not financial advice, obviously, I will tell you on that video what I would do and what we have done for various things over the years to be to be debt free, financially free and where we would put money, where we would invest money and that sort of thing.So all of that discussed on my money channel video I will link below.Thirdly for this video another letter from TV licensing which I find very interesting because I've talked abouton this channel before and likened TV licensing letters to another case, which was where they were threatening two individuals in a housing association with litigation.They made all sorts of claims that turned out not to be true.Letters and letters were sent out and ultimately they sued them for harassment and they won.

because the court said that they hadn't actually commenced litigation and yet there were so many threats and indications that they had done.And so on that point, my argument here with TV licensing letters is when they send you out so many letters to say they are investigating you, they are doing something, they are sending people out, there's a whole trail and an investigation and so on.If all of that hasn't actually happened and it's all just intimidation that could amount to harassment using that case and if you want to look up that case and everything else you'll find them on my website pro .blackbeltbarrister .com along with membership to my AI which will help you draft letters and research things and so on.

I personally I think that's great value I would say that but I really think it is. I genuinely use that myself to to look things up for my own personal matters so if it's good enough for me it's good enough for you.Check that out, I'll link it below.But this letter here, sent to me by one of my lovely viewers this morning as a new letter.

It's not often I see a letter that I haven't seen before.I've seen countless dozens of variations.But this one was very slightly different in the wording, so allow me.It says, the big bold header, as we haven't heard from you, which there's no compulsion upon you to contact them by the way, an officer will visit your property soon.Now, the wording here is very important.I'll tell you why.

When you have a dispute with somebody, if you send them a letter and say, here's a problem, please fix it.Otherwise, you know, I may have to consider suing you.That is very distinct from another way of phrasing it as follows.If you have a dispute with somebody and you write to them and you say, here's the problem, please fix it or I will sue you.You see the difference?One of them is, well, I'm just setting out the problem here, this is just a friendly letter, that's setting it out and hoping that they comply and do something about it.

The other one is a pre -action letter of sorts.It is, there's a problem, here's what I want you to do about it.If not, I will sue you.And that puts the person on notice.And notice being, you know, in any simple case, 14 days and anything that is not a simple case, typically three months.A lot of situations fall into three months and so you need to give them that time to, you know, properly come back with a response.

Interestingly enough, just digressing for a moment, I've had a huge problem with a massive nationwide letting agency, who I will not yet name, but I will at some stage if I don't get anywhere.Huge problem with this letting agency.

And it's given me cause to go through the complaints procedure.

There are two stages, mandatory stages.They get 15 working days to respond in the first instance, and then there's stage two.Then it goes to the property ombudsman that can make awards and so on.So again, all of that, you can find assistance on my website.But that's it.Those are the things, that's the distinction.

And so the distinction here on this letter is very important because it says, as we haven't heard from you, there's the problem bit, as we haven't heard from you, an officer will visit your property soon.Now, they're not saying, just to be clear, they're not saying they are going to sue you.They're not saying they are going to prosecute you, but it's not a case of we might visit you.

Some of the letters say,we might visit you soon.

This is, we will visit your property.So you can expect someone to come out.And then it goes on to say, your property is unlicensed.There's the problem.An officer has now been scheduled to visit this address to confirm your circumstances.Now, first thing I would do, this is not legal advice, it's guidance.

But the first thing I would do is I'd write back and say, when?Because you say, when?an officer has been scheduled.I would write back and I would say, when?When have they been scheduled for?Because you haven't told me when in this letter, and yet you've told me they will be coming out.

So I want to know when.And by way of data subject access request, they absolutely 100 % should tell you that, because it's your personal data.It's information that surrounds you and identifies you and concerns you.And so they should absolutely tell you.My guess is, it hasn't really been scheduled and my guess is it will go into a pile maybe they'll come out maybe they won't and if they do it'll be random and it won't have been pre -scheduled as they indicate here that's my guess might be wrong but i don't think i am i think it will just go into a pile and a list of people to go out and visit but i would ask them well tell me when then when you've scheduled this for And then it says why you are being visited with no ambiguity as to the fact that you are being visited.

We must ensure that everyone who needs a license has one.That's fair enough.It's a criminal offense to watch or record live TV without a license on any device, which is true.This includes all TV channels, pay TV services like Sky and live TV and streaming services like Amazon Prime Video.Not quite so true because some of those have on demand services which don't attract the license.

You also need a license for to be covered for everything on BBC iPlayer, which is also not true, because even on the TV licensing website...says it does not include S4C.Now I can't say that I've in my life watched S4C and I don't know anyone that has but this statement therefore is not true because S4C is on iPlayer, and you don't need a license for it.And that's from their own website.Despite someone once emailing me saying, you're wrong, and I'm like, no I'm not, because it's on their own website.You know, I trust their own website, it's accurate.

And if it's not, that's their own fault, right?So, you know, I get some strange email.

But then it goes on to say, if an officer finds you to be watching, recording, or downloading TV illegally, you risk prosecution and a fine up to £1 ,000, plus any legal costs, etc.How to stop a visit, buy a license, move an existing license, or tell us you don't need one.

But you don't need to.Tell them that you don't need one if you don't want to I mean it might help they might just go away but the other way you can stop this is by Withdrawing the implied right of access to your property and again, you'll find a template for that on my website pro .blackbeltbarrister .com linked below Among the templates there are various templates on there So I found this to be an interesting letter which may actually cross the threshold for harassment.I thought that was interesting Oh, and the last thing The first thing really, last thing mentioned, first thing on the letter is the top right hand side says visit authorised.So they've authorised a visit to the property.

Interesting.And it's from a Louise Short, not the other guy that's normally on the letters.

So if you've received this letter, that it's a new wave, a new variation, if you've received any that I've never talked about before, email them to me.Don't send them through the post.I've had enough of those sent through the post over the years.Email it, and I'll discuss it.But in the meantime, let me know any of your thoughts on any of this discussed in this video.Do subscribe to the channel, even if you've had a protest for free speech, if nothing else.

And as always, thank you so much for watching.