you need a bbc tv licence after midnight again

[HawkEye244]

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.

That is evidence. My opinions are based on not one video it's based on reading about these various altercations and from a multitude of altercations which people have taken the trouble to film and upload over many years. So it is evidence of outcomes on which I form an opinion. In almost every event an indvidual gets the outcome they want from withdrawing their compliance/zero communication. You can post a link from a government website as though it means gospel truth and then say go on back this up with opposing information, but then we are arguing from a strawman point of view. So when you post that and I say it's a lie you need to understand my perspective and how it's formed. It's not me on my own planet, it's based on results. If people didn't get the results I wouldn't be interested, but as they do, I am. Suddenly you see statute legislation being an empty threat/hollow mass because watching those on the side of authority attempting to enforce it and failing makes you think this. What else can I tell you ?

 

[Himaginn]

That is evidence. My opinions are based on not one video it's based on reading about these various altercations and from a multitude of altercations which people have taken the trouble to film and upload over many years. So it is evidence of outcomes on which I form an opinion. In almost every event an indvidual gets the outcome they want from withdrawing their compliance/zero communication. You can post a link from a government website as though it means gospel truth and then say go on back this up with opposing information, but then we are arguing from a strawman point of view. So when you post that and I say it's a lie you need to understand my perspective and how it's formed. It's not me on my own planet, it's based on results. If people didn't get the results I wouldn't be interested, but as they do, I am. Suddenly you see statute legislation being an empty threat/hollow mass because watching those on the side of authority attempting to enforce it and failing makes you think this. What else can I tell you ?

The outcomes are not included in those videos, it's just the initial altercation and the day in court can not be videoed.

Almost 200,000 people were prosecuted last year for failing to buy a television licence. Should those who can’t afford to pay their bills be criminalised in this way?
About 20 people have turned up at Highbury Corner magistrates court, north London, to contest the imposition of a fine; the start time of 10am has arrived and passed, and nothing has happened. The court clerk comes to hand out means-testing sheets, so that defendants on a low income can request a reduction in their fine. Since almost everyone here is on a low income, they crowd around to take the sheets.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases
Note the word 'contest'. They are being fined against their will!

120 people convicted for not filling in census form
By this week the ONS had referred 369 cases to the Crown Prosecution Service; of those, 157 prosecutions have been brought to court, with 120 resulting in convictions. Those found guilty face a maximum fine of £1,000 and a criminal record.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/27/120-convicted-census-forms-2011
I think your advice is extremely suspect.

 

[HawkEye244]

The outcomes are not included in those videos, it's just the initial altercation and the day in court can not be videoed.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases
Note the word 'contest'. They are being fined against their will!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/27/120-convicted-census-forms-2011
I think your advice is extremely suspect.

Ahh you see now there you've given your postion away. Starting with all the fear porn again.

It's a shame you didn't bring a debate you just brought an arguement.

Let me just be clear though in parting that I am not anti-authority. I'm very much on the side of it, but I AM anti-big brother government and surveillance in all it's forms and I think these things are precursors to government tyranny. It is a great shame there are so many people like you that defend only what you know at all costs, at all odds, rather than step back and look at it all. There's nothing else to say now really is there? Any token abuse yet to come my way ?

 

[Himaginn]

Ahh you see now there you've given your postion away. Starting with all the fear porn again.

It's a shame you didn't bring a debate you just brought an arguement.

Let me just be clear though in parting that I am not anti-authority. I'm very much on the side of it, but I AM anti-big brother government and surveillance in all it's forms and I think these things are precursors to government tyranny. It is a great shame there are so many people like you that defend only what you know at all costs, at all odds, rather than step back and look at it all. There's nothing else to say now really is there? Any token abuse yet to come my way ?

You brought an opinion, supported by videos of doorstep altercations, which has been refuted by official governmental and journalistic article evidence. Let the people decide to take your advice or not.
There's no need for abuse, it's been a polite and respectful discussion, and I thank you for that. There aren't many around.

 

[HawkEye244]

You brought an opinion, supported by videos of doorstep altercations, which has been refuted by official governmental and journalistic article evidence. Let the people decide to take your advice or not.
There's no need for abuse, it's been a polite and respectful discussion, and I thank you for that. There aren't many around.

It's not been refuted in any which way and you've done a very poor job at trying to push your personal bias.

I'd have more respect for you if you said I don't care I like the BBC and I pay it, that's it. At least then I don't waste my time trying to convince someone that never wanted to be convinced.

 

[big-all]

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.

there are lots off dodgy practices like clamping[now highly regulated ??]' parking penalty etc
lots off local government/council "cons" like penalty tickets for driving in bus lanes' stopping at yellow lines or box junctions via "street security cameras" with the cameras only being allowed through legislation for security and or terrorism for security purposes but used for traffic and revenue purposes instead
dont get me going on the misuse off powers

 

[mikeey84]

It's not been refuted in any which way and you've done a very poor job at trying to push your personal bias.

I'd have more respect for you if you said I don't care I like the BBC and I pay it, that's it. At least then I don't waste my time trying to convince someone that never wanted to be convinced.

Can I just get something clear? Is your argument that the communications act is legislation and not a law based on anything other than the YouTube videos you posted? Himaginn posted both government documents and evidence of people being prosecuted under the act. I'm interested what counter evidence you have as it's an interesting topic

 

[HawkEye244]

Can I just get something clear? Is your argument that the communications act is legislation and not a law based on anything other than the YouTube videos you posted? Himaginn posted both government documents and evidence of people being prosecuted under the act. I'm interested what counter evidence you have as it's an interesting topic

.. and I'm saying I base my interpretation on many hundreds of cases documented online where people have withdrawn their consent and avoided facing whatever legislation they are having verbally beaten into them or by proxy in written form.

As already said, law is interpreted, and that interpretation can vary even amongst high ranking judges. If you go looking for 'evidence' there is no evidence for or against, just intepretation (speculation on what is and is not law). In the case of no tv licence there is no injured party, there is no harm, loss or injury, nobody has suffered loss from a person not having a tv licence besides the BBC who rely on your money but they are a private company and in order to be paid a person much enter into a contract with them to pay them. In order to create these forced contracts they use doorstep fear and intimidation, lies and deception to trick people into contracting (this is known as joinder). They do all this on the common misconception that statute is law and is mandatory when it is not. Statute requires the consent of the governed (us) for it to be enforced. If it didn't require consent THEY WOULND'T NEED CONSENT !!!!

Perhaps you should ask yourself what to expect when you go looking on a government website who pushes everything as an absolute.. what do you think they are going to say? Do you think if you asked tv licensing is it lawful to watch tv without a licence you would get a cogent explanation ? No. You would get robotic claptrap, just some generic mantra read out to you from a policy/handbook.The same is true of every private company with a profit motivation. When you take out a tv licence you enter into a contract with tv licensing which gives them all the consent they need to fine you for falling foul of their rules. It is a system designed to control on the basis of consent. This is how it works in principle throughout all statues. We give power to legislation through mass compliance. This is not the thing which is open to discussion in the mainstream, you are not going to see many debates in mainstream media about whether it's lawful to watch tv without a licence or whether the tv licensing agency can just be ignored without any consequences, instead they frame the debate around what is and is not acceptable implying consent has been granted and there is no choice...implying as though a person does not have the option to withdraw consent and that they only have a limited amount of choice options under cover of that assumed consent. This is a lie !

All mainstream solutions will be within that framework of compliance.The mainsteam does not discuss these things because these are too sensitive an issue, too dangerous an issue to ever discuss openly. If you asked a police constable if you are obliged to provide any ID to them when driving a car, what do you think their response is going to be ? .... Do you think anyone would bother complying with legislation if they think they didn't have to ? Of course they wouldn't. So coercion is at play. In a democratic, free society the government does not dictate it rules through diplomacy.. except when diplomacy and democracy fails yet the charade needs to be kept up (revenue needs to be generated) a government will turn to coercion, deception, trickery to a greater and greater extent.

I'm just trying to explain what underlines all this. You have to understand that the term 'evidence' does not really apply here. If you want to see countless examples of where people have avoided punitive fines or avoided being scammed into buying such a thing as a tv licence there are many countless examples of this online. You won't see this documented anywhere offical of course. Likewise there are countless articles (fear porn already posted by himaginn) who do fall foul of the legislation and get caught out, this is because they don't know their rights, people like you. It is not because the methods of prosecution are infallible, in fact the exact opposite. It is because people do not know their rights, they are decieved into thinking they can't withdrawn their consent. The question to your answer then depends on who you ask and where their interests lie.

As I say, if people knew their rights they would know they don't have to comply and can maintain zero communication and they will win against tv licensing everytime.. The primary objective is never to go to court - the way you don't go to court is to never identify who you are, then you cannot be taken to court In every single case mentioned with that fear porn weblink posted every single on of those people found guilty of having no tv licence consented to being prosecuted. They will have given their name and they will most likely have signed tv licensing forms which are never based on evidence, their forms read something along the lines of 'I am responsible for paying this, I am entering into a contract, please fine me for not paying it'..then it's game over for them. Sadly most people do what they are told to do in the heat of the moment under threat of arrest and criminal conviction, whether they agree or not, whether it involves people around them being harmed or distressed, they comply when they shouldn't. So this term 'evidence' - get your focus off of it, it's a propaganda war that's what it is.

 

[noseall]

So the upshot folks is still exactly the same.
Watch television and buy a license or else you will be prosecuted along with the hundreds of thousands successfully prosecuted each year.
Oh hang on......I think Swamy got away with it because he lives in a tree!

You couldn't make it up!

 

[Himaginn]

Some laws are embodied in Acts of Parliament, for example Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The Communications Act 2003 is no different in law, in that it has the same legal weight and bearing, and penalties are proscribed within it.

Government by consent is a political philosophy, not an individual's agreement to be penalised for transgressions. It refers to general society agreeing to the governance, not individuals agreeing to it. There will always be individuals who want anarchy. Society, in government by consent, wants, expects, and urges the government and its orgnisations to penalise the transgressors for the smooth and proper functioning of that society.

In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
It differentiates a democracy from, say, a military dictatorship.

Not all transgressors are penalised or prosecuted.
Prosecution relies on two distinct phrases: the probability of conviction, and public interest.
If someone is not paying their TV licence, and probability of conviction is high, they will be prosecuted.
If however, probability of conviction is lower, and the cost of such conviction far outweighs any public interest in continuing with prosecution, the prosecution may not continue.
However, individual cases of flat refusal to comply are usually pursued in the public interest.

BTW, within such Acts of Parliament, the power of enforcement is by legal representatives, or their agents. Thus a private company empowered by government have the similar legal powers. Similarly, baliffs will have similar powers when empowered by courts, (police may also attend to provide support and prevent any other transgressions) and in USA, bounty hunters are agents empowered by government.

 

[HawkEye244]

Some laws are embodied in Acts of Parliament, for example Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The Communications Act 2003 is no different in law, in that it has the same legal weight and bearing, and penalties are proscribed within it.

Government by consent is a political philosophy, not an individual's agreement to be penalised for transgressions. It refers to general society agreeing to the governance, not individuals agreeing to it. There will always be individuals who want anarchy. Society, in government by consent, wants, expects, and urges the government and its orgnisations to penalise the transgressors for the smooth and proper functioning of that society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
It differentiates a democracy from, say, a military dictatorship.

Not all transgressors are penalised or prosecuted.
Prosecution relies on two distinct phrases: the probability of conviction, and public interest.
If someone is not paying their TV licence, and probability of conviction is high, they will be prosecuted.
If however, probability of conviction is lower, and the cost of such conviction far outweighs any public interest in continuing with prosecution, the prosecution may not continue.
However, individual cases of flat refusal to comply are usually pursued in the public interest.

BTW, within such Acts of Parliament, the power of enforcement is by legal representatives, or their agents. Thus a private company empowered by government have the similar legal powers. Similarly, baliffs will have similar powers when empowered by courts, (police may also attend to provide support and prevent any other transgressions) and in USA, bounty hunters are agents empowered by government.

You can keep repeating that but it's not going to make the blindest bit of difference to what I've said.

 

[HawkEye244]

So the upshot folks is still exactly the same.
Watch television and buy a license or else you will be prosecuted along with the hundreds of thousands successfully prosecuted each year.
Oh hang on......I think Swamy got away with it because he lives in a tree!

You couldn't make it up!

Perhaps if you are unable to empathise with other people perhaps you can empathise with the blight of one of those children of yours, and were they to fall victim to such a scam as tv licence perhaps it would give you some much needed emotional intelligence.

 

[Himaginn]

You can keep repeating that but it's not going to back the blindest bit of difference to what I've said.

I appreciate that. However you have provided not the slightest bit of evidence to support your theory. Granted you have supplied several YouTube videos of the doorstep altercations taking place. But you have not followed this up with any evidence as to what happens subsequently.
As I said, I appreciate that I won't persuade you, but I think that others who might be tempted to try to avoid paying for a licence, and then suffering prosecution ought to be warned.
A defence of "hawkeye told me I could" is hardly likely to stand up in court, or on the doorstep.

 

[HawkEye244]

I appreciate that. However you have provided not the slightest bit of evidence to support your theory. Granted you have supplied several YouTube videos of the doorstep altercation taking place. But you have not followed this up with any evidence as to what happens subsequently.
As I said, I appreciate that I won't persuade you, but I think that others who might be tempted to try to avoid paying for a licence, and then suffering prosecution ought to be warned.
A defence of "hawkeye told me I could" is hardly likely to stand up in court, or on the doorstep.

If you are trying to convince people here then you need to do better than quoting links from government websites and calling it evidence. It doesn't matter what value you place in the intepretation of something by the state.
You are going to keep creating strawmen to try and exacerbate and derail what I'm saying. You can have the last word if it makes a difference to you. It's not going to change anything of what I think and what I've said. You can keep coming out with all that fear porn rhetoric, I've completely debunked it via stating that zero communication works, and you continually disregard this which makes me think your purpose in talking to me is to spread disinformation. Don't pretend as though you care about people being prosecuted over x,y,z. As I said zero communication means zero communication, that is all the evidence you need. It works everytime. If you choose to disregard this then you do that. You are not listening to a single word I say and I think that's on purpose

 

[Himaginn]

You are not listening to a single word I say and I think that's on purpose

I can assure you that I've read every single word of your comments. In fact I've scrutinised them looking for some evidence to support your assertion.
I've found none.
Refusing to cooperate, with legitimate requests, is not a sound defence, and I wouldn't advise anyone to pursue it with a vengeance.