you need a bbc tv licence after midnight again

[HawkEye244]

It's a bit like insurance, in a way. I happily pay the £145 or so, as insurance that I won't be prosecuted and receive a higher penalty.
Having said that, the amount of TV I watch is minimal so i wouldn't miss it anyway.

Is it still necessary to have a licence to listen to radio?

Yea but that's like saying you'd pay the school bully because he beats you up every lunch time and takes your pocket money, but for adults..

Radio I'm not sure, part of the BBC world service.

If the objective is to see if you are on the right side of the legislation it's worth checking out for your peace of mind but ultimately they are closing the legislative loophole in the hope people will be more fearful and buy a licence. It's a game. You play their game. If you know that you can't be hurt on the wrong side of legislation you don't care either way, and that's me. I don't have any fear because I know about this game, I know all the tricks they play, I'm untouchable

I don't want to appear a preacher on this issue, but if people like big-all are talking as though they know something about this and I know they don't, I have to respond to that. Again, the BBC employ a company called Capita to raise revenue. Neither the BBC or Capita have any powers. They have no powers of entry, they have no powers to demand any information. The only way you can end up in court is if you give a name to them so that they can take you to court. It doesn't matter about tv arials and looking through windows and all that rubbish, it's a revenue raiser for them. Often the judges are working on their behalf when it comes to court matters anyway and a defendant will never get a chance. It's a stich up. Often it's why the BBC pick on people that can't afford legal advice.. they don't know they are firstly being shafted by BBC and then the hired court rooms that shaft them again and add a fee on top. At the heart of all this is the fact that the communication act 2003 which underpins the BBC licence fee is basically not law at all, it never has been law, it's legislation. The difference between legislation and law which big-all is totally ignorant about, is that legislation requires consent in some way shape or form and Law does not, for example Common Law, that is an actual law. This is why the BBC need your written signature of their papers and your name to take you to court, it is a way they contract with you.... why do you all think you have to sign the electrol roll declaration... why do you think you sign for a driver's licence... hahah

 

[EFLImpudence]

Big-all - your philosophy allows Governments to do whatever they want.

 

[HawkEye244]

of you carry on thinking you are right as will i and let others judge whose right and whos wrong
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...9/Dodging-TV-licence-will-not-be-a-crime.html

Well seeing as you present no other information just personal bias and decision making based on fear, yeah I will let them judge.

You know deep down I really don't care that much what anyone does, I'm just explaining what I do and it works. I got the info from watching and reading about how to deal with tv licencing/Capita and the BBC and some methods are more effective than others. Zero communication works everytime. I'm not necessarily interested whether anyone here wants to pay for one or not, but there are people whose money is better spent on feeding themselves and their families and if they know better than to be tricked into being forced out of money I think that's a good step don't you ?

 

[Himaginn]

At the heart of all this is the fact that the communication act 2003 which underpins the BBC licence fee is basically not law at all, it never has been law, it's legislation.

These explanatory notes relate to the Communications Act, which received Royal Assent on 17th July 2003.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/notes/division/1

Once a bill has completed all the parliamentary stages in both Houses, it is ready to receive royal assent. This is when the Queen formally agrees to make the bill into an Act of Parliament (law).

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

 

[HawkEye244]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/notes/division/1
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

It's a lie ! Dig a little deeper my friend

 

[Himaginn]

It's a lie ! Dig a little deeper my friend

If you claim that it's not true, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. It's not for me to go looking for additional evidence when I'm satisfied with what I already have, or to try to disprove my own evidence when again, I'm fully satisfied with the evidence already available.

I'm convinced that the Communications Act 2003 has received Royal Assent, and I'm convinced that that makes it law.
For anyone who wants the licence requirements from the horses mouth:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/notes/division/5/4

 

[big-all]

ok i think by the reaction i am being misunderstood and indeed misunderstanding
i only ever try to inform in a helpful way [sometimes in my own clumsy way ]
if i am wrong its through mistake or indeed being out off date
it would be helpful to help me give good information to others if people where to point out where any off my thoughts are wrong but more importantly why and where the correct information can be found

 

[HawkEye244]

If you claim that it's not true, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. It's not for me to go looking for additional evidence when I'm satisfied with what I already have, or to try to disprove my own evidence when again, I'm fully satisfied with the evidence already available.

I'm convinced that the Communications Act 2003 has received Royal Assent, and I'm convinced that that makes it law.
For anyone who wants the licence requirements from the horses mouth:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/notes/division/5/4

That question is difficult to answer because the answer depends on your interpretation of law and even high ranking judges intrpretation of a law will differ between one another.

In my view you are referring to statute which requires your consent for you to be taken to court and fined.

Common Law, (harm, loss or unjury of another person) does not require consent. This is why the government does not need your consent if you commit murder whereas it does need your consent if it intends to enforce a monetary charge upon you through the leverage of an act like the communication act 2003. The act is given the term 'law' when it really isn't, it's statute legislation. I guess calling it law gives it clout and gives people fear. When you know it's a lie you lose that fear.

What else can I tell you ?

 

[Himaginn]

In my view you are referring to statute which requires your consent for you to be taken to court and fined.
Common Law, (harm, loss or unjury of another person) does not require consent. This is why the government does not need your consent if you commit murder whereas it does need your consent if it intends to enforce a monetary charge upon you through the leverage of an act like the communication act 2003. The act is given the term 'law' when it really isn't, it's statute legislation. I guess calling it law gives it clout and gives people fear. When you know it's a lie you lose that fear.

What else can I tell you ?

Statute and law are exactly the same thing:

A statute is an Act of Parliament. After legislation has been proposed it begins life as a bill, passes various readings in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law.

http://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/law/statute-law
You could tell us where you are getting your misleading information from.

 

[HawkEye244]

ok i think by the reaction i am being misunderstood and indeed misunderstanding
i only ever try to inform in a helpful way [sometimes in my own clumsy way ]
if i am wrong its through mistake or indeed being out off date
it would be helpful to help me give good information to others if people where to point out where any off my thoughts are wrong but more importantly why and where the correct information can be found

Fair enough big-all.

Primarily my opinions are formed based on the outcomes of various different altercation I've read and watched online.

I've noticed that where acts are concerned, the claimant (person or company trying to enforce that act, often for some surreptitious purpose) is almost always completely powerless to actually get the outcome that they want in the event of not compliance.

This has lead me to believe that statute legislation or law as the government would like you to believe it as, is actually a blunt tool which you can choose to ignore if you wish. This ranges for any act from the communication act mentioned here to the road traffic act, census act on and on it goes:

I see things like this and I think, actually, is there any real threat behind this? Most startling is that the outcomes that are most unfavourable to the individual on the defence are the ones where they are compliant (giving information). It seems non-compliance and silence seems to shut down an 'authorities' ability to enforce statute legislation. It will win you most altercations, I have observed.

 

[HawkEye244]

Statute and law are exactly the same thing:
http://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/law/statute-law
You could tell us where you are getting your misleading information from.

And as I said, that's a lie ! dig a little deeper

 

[Himaginn]

And as I said, that's a lie ! dig a little deeper

Is everything that you disagree with, a lie?
It's not much of a reasoned argument.

 

[HawkEye244]

Is everything that you disagree with, a lie?
It's not much of a reasoned argument.

Bother to take the time. At the moment you are pressing a point and I'm trying to explain it to you but you aren't getting it.

 

[HawkEye244]

 

[Himaginn]

Bother to take the time. At the moment you are pressing a point and I'm trying to explain it to you but you aren't getting it.

But you aren't explaining anything, you just keep repeating that the Act is unenforceable.
Please provide some meaningful evidence that the Act is not enforceable, not YouTube videos of licence or Census inspectors calling.