TV LICENCE why should people pay when paying for Sky?

[adamf]

But, even if it were possible, if those wishing not to pay the license fee simply get into the habit of turning down the TV when answering the door, then it becomes totally irrelevant, doesn't it?

 

"Vyv, eat the telly!"

[jimmyhoops]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by SAAB_

 

Yes. A big one too.

 

 

Its a lie. Its a big fat fib in order to get your money.

The "law" is an act.

The act requires your compliance

Dont give it?

They cant do a thing.

Oh and send them a letter. Say in the letter you have " removed implied right of access from your property"

Go on. Save some money.

 

 

 

Nope. Do the research.

Or ask me nicely and i may help you save money (and face )

 

 

 

Their is no face to save, please show us the evidence to support your claim

 

saab is right in what he says if you do the research you will find out for yourself i have never paid one and never will. the only people that do are sheep who belive clever wording and dont understand the "law" correctly

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Cyclone]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1231593.stm

 

They can explain it better than I can.

 

Anyway, the government created the BBC, it's not and never was a commercial company that 'talked' the government into passing a law to collect a tax to fund it.

 

There are good arguments both for and against the license fee today, I don't have strong feelings either way. I just don't like to see arguments based on ignorance or misinformation.

 

I thought I'd go back and see what I'd actually said gnvqsos, since you're not above taking things out of context.

 

And as I thought. I didn't say it's not a company, I said it's not a commercial company, an important distinction I think.

Do you agree that it's not a profit making body and is funded by the license fee?

 

I did repeat this sentence later and drop the word commercial, which was a mistake.

[TJC1]

Previously you've said that Acts aren't Laws...?

 

What are you my shadow?

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 15:43 ----------

 

You appear to be somewhat confused. Have you been taking the correct meds?

 

jb

 

Acts arent necessarily laws, laws arent necessarily acts.

[truman]

What are you my shadow?

 

Nope..just want to know if an act is a law or not..you seem confused by the two..

[TJC1]

Are you talking about GCSE level syllabi now?

 

I still believe that the BBC doesn't have a requirement to make a profit, which was what onewheeldave kept insisting it did since it was a business.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 11:33 ----------

 

Probably true, and not disputed by anyone on this thread.

It could, but maybe they could hear that it was Eastenders, and maybe they could hear that it was from the broadcast going out at the time.

Yeah, if you want to go to huge lengths to break the law and then avoid being caught, then yes, the law becomes irrelevant.

 

You realise that if you rob and bank, and managed to launder the money so that you can't be caught, that the law against theft becomes irrelevant, that's the same argument you're using. If you can get away with it then the law doesn't matter.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 11:36 ----------

 

 

Breaking the law doesn't have to be a criminal offence.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 11:37 ----------

 

 

You can require someone to get off your property at any time, by asking, without any notice. If they refuse it's trespass.

If a trespasser refuses to leave you can use reasonable force to remove them.

 

Evidence is whatever the judge being asked to issue the warrant believes. If they are told that eastenders could be heard in the background, or that a lit TV screen was seen through a window and they believe it, then that's evidence.

 

But tresspass isnt same as removal of implied access.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 15:46 ----------

 

Nope..just want to know if an act is a law or not..you seem confused by the two..

 

Sometimes yeh, sometimes neh.

[truman]

Nope..just want to know if an act is a law or not..you seem confused by the two..

 

Sometimes yeh, sometimes neh.

 

Plus, this is an act - it's not LAW. .

 

So when is an act law and when isn't it?

[andygardener]

I can't have Sky in my apartment. Nor can many others who live in listed buildings or have no line of sight, like my folks who live on the outskirts of a big wood. Not to mention those who don't want an ugly dish on their house.

 

The transmission medium is completely irrelevant to the decoder box.

[ECCOnoob]

An Act is a legal document (in written form) passed by a legislator to regulate certain area of social behaviour.

It is one of the sources of law.

 

Law is generally a system of rules of behaviour covering all sources of law (including acts).

 

Thererfore, no confusion between these words can be made - if you are referring to specific statute, use the word act, but if you are generally referring to legal regulation of certain situation, use the word law.

[gnvqsos]

I thought I'd go back and see what I'd actually said gnvqsos, since you're not above taking things out of context.

 

And as I thought. I didn't say it's not a company, I said it's not a commercial company, an important distinction I think.

Do you agree that it's not a profit making body and is funded by the license fee?

 

I did repeat this sentence later and drop the word commercial, which was a mistake.

 

All companies are in the private sector;some businesses are in the public sector,such as public corporations giving them some independence from government influence.IT takes some character to admit you are wrong-well done.