Obelix Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 wow you out did yourself with that one. I know your a very particular person when it comes to facts and posting and nitpicking when people are wrong, (I like to think of you as Jeremy Paxman ) However, It wasn't false information, there is no LAW regarding tv licence if there is I would like to see it, perhaps you could find it? Not tricky.... Communications Act 2003, S363 (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part. (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence. (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who— (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence. s365 deals with fees (1)A person to whom a TV licence is issued shall be liable to pay— (a)on the issue of the licence (whether initially or by way of renewal), and (b)in such other circumstances as regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide, such sum (if any) as may be provided for by any such regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 wow you out did yourself with that one. I know your a very particular person when it comes to facts and posting and nitpicking when people are wrong, (I like to think of you as Jeremy Paxman ) However, It wasn't false information, there is no LAW regarding tv licence if there is I would like to see it, perhaps you could find it? why is it nonsense? there is quite a distinction between acts and laws. He can claim that he does not fall within the jusdiction of certian courts. A human being is not to be ordered around by a person (which most courts are as they are corporations) it is an inalienable right to be free and that is not nonsense. also what evidence does he need to provide? how could he? The communications act 2003 was passed into law in 2003. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents There you go, that's the law in question. Acts become law when they are passed by both houses of parliament and approved by the head of state. There is no such thing as an inalienable right. There are rights that society gives you. Within the UK society reserves the right to pass laws and to enforce them, and when you break them to try you and then to restrict the rights that you are granted (for example it might take away your right to free movement by locking you up in a prison). It's not complicated, everyone in the country (with the exception of diplomatic members of foreign embassies) is governed by UK law, which is created by parliament via the mechanism of acts of parliament. He can claim what he likes, but it won't stop any court in the UK from trying him and if appropriate finding him guilty and punishing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 How is freeview and freesat free if you have to pay a licence fee ? As to sky,I would not have it for the same reason I would not buy a sun newspaper,I would hate to put even one penny in murdochs pocket, but the BBC licence fee should be voluntary like sky and virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 How is freeview and freesat free if you have to pay a licence fee ? As to sky,I would not have it for the same reason I would not buy a sun newspaper,I would hate to put even one penny in murdochs pocket, but the BBC licence fee should be voluntary like sky and virgin. It's reasons like that why many refuse to pay for the license- why should the BBC have the right to tax everyone who uses a TV? Why, if someone never watches BBC would they feel obliged to pay? Along with all the other issues concerning the BBC. While it's a law that people watching live broadcasts, from any station, must pay the fee, it's also a fact that many who don't pay are not motivated by just getting something for free- it's because they object to forking out £145 a year for a service that, given the choice, they would sooner do without (i.e. watching bbc). In their eyes, paying £145 just cos the BBC demand it (and somehow talked the govt into passing a law on it), is a mugs game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 It is voluntary - if you don't have a TV installed you don't have to pay it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 It's voluntary and therefore fair. You're paying for a broadcasting service. If you don't want the service, don't use it and you don't have to pay. What's more, you can still watch the select few BBC programmes you actually enjoy for free, on demand. iPlayer is one of the most generous on demand service available - no ads, yet it's free even for those who don't pay a licence fee. The licence is for people who watch or record LIVE broadcasting through an aerial/receiver (it's not difficult to understand). If you still don't know WHY you're required to pay for such a service, you have a pretty hopeless entitlement mentality and I wish you all the best in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HbroChris Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The poster is talking about the implied right of access to your property, which (AFAIK, and a lawyer can feel free to correct me here) only covers the postman (to deliver your mail) and people asking for directions. I believe (again, I am not a lawyer) that you can exclude anyone else from accessing your property. This is why debt advice suggests telling a debt collection agency that they have no right of access to your property. However, that's not relevant to the thread. It certianly doesn't affect the Police, and may well not affect other officials who are carrying out their legislative duties (eg, council officers, social services, enforcement officers for TVL). In short, I don't think it's relevant. Yes, I think I'm not right about unaccompanied (by police) TVL/Capita employees. But I'm still not a lawyer and they are performing a statutory duty. Acts of Parliament written into law have the same force as common law (the Common Law that freemen refer to is Not A Real Thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 It is voluntary - if you don't have a TV installed you don't have to pay it... It's voluntary in the sense that no-one has to pay it- if they simply refuse to engage with any visiting licensing persoanl and refuse to let them enter their house, then there's nothing that can be done about it. However, they would, technically, be breaking the law if they watched live programs. In that sense, it isn't voluntary, as, clearly, if someone had a TV that only received stations other than BBC, by the current law, they would be obliged to pay the license fee- even though that fee goes only to the BBC. It may be the law, but it's clearly absurd and unfair. TV watching is, for most, an integral part of our society- it's where many receive news and info about the world. That news/info is transmitted on stations other than BBC- why should those using ITV etc have to pay for a service (the BBC) that they would, given a choice, happily not receive? ---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 17:35 ---------- It's voluntary and therefore fair. You're paying for a broadcasting service. If you don't want the service, don't use it and you don't have to pay. What's more, you can still watch the select few BBC programmes you actually enjoy for free, on demand. iPlayer is one of the most generous on demand service available - no ads, yet it's free even for those who don't pay a licence fee. The licence is for people who watch or record LIVE broadcasting through an aerial/receiver (it's not difficult to understand). If you still don't know WHY you're required to pay for such a service, you have a pretty hopeless entitlement mentality and I wish you all the best in life. The bit in bold- not true: you're paying for one companies broadcasting service- the BBCs. The law says you need to pay the £145 if you watch any live broadcasts on TV- but, your cash goes only to the BBC. Why this blatent inconsistency persists, is an intersesting question in itself. Does anyone feel up to trying to explain it? Yes- iplayer is good- I like the lack of adverts however, not sure why you mention it, as no licence is necessary to use it (for recorded programs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I'm looking at it like this. £145.50 for 12 months BBC TV licence, but there are concessions. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2/ The cheapest Sky I can see from their website is £21.50 per month plus £14.50 per month line rental. (£432 per year) http://www.sky.com/shop?DCMP=KNC- I don't think this is really about the cost of TV but nothing more than political views. I seem to remember some bloke won a court case a few years back because he didn't have a BBC licence or used terrestial TV. That was soon changed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 It's reasons like that why many refuse to pay for the license- why should the BBC have the right to tax everyone who uses a TV? Why, if someone never watches BBC would they feel obliged to pay? Along with all the other issues concerning the BBC. While it's a law that people watching live broadcasts, from any station, must pay the fee, it's also a fact that many who don't pay are not motivated by just getting something for free- it's because they object to forking out £145 a year for a service that, given the choice, they would sooner do without (i.e. watching bbc). In their eyes, paying £145 just cos the BBC demand it (and somehow talked the govt into passing a law on it), is a mugs game. Why don't you educate yourself a little and actually find out why the license fee exists, I'm sure the history of the BBC and how it came to exist is available online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.