0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
why have the government got a vested interest in television to create an act?
The science of a t.v licence
I am not in a court case
Second, I understand the many ways a system can change.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:40:21Quite clearly the act, is devised by the government for ''personal gain''. The government is not a person, so you are pretty plainly wrong there.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:42:47No it's true, It is not true that you are forced to watch television and, if you choose not to, you are not forced to pay for it, so your opening statement that "Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 06:28:51In the UK we are forced to receive a signal in our homes of program viewing. For this forced act and dictatorship, we have to pay and are extorted a license fee. is plainly false.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:42:47No doubt the government are not paying tax To whom would the government pay tax?Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24Television licensing failures should not result in a legal court case with no jurisdiction of rights. IIt is clearly within the jurisdiction of the UK.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24It is not a criminal offence because it is not stated. Breaking the law is an offence.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24 a business forcing a signal on you cannot be a victim, No such business exists.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24the people being forced to comply would be the victims, And, once again, nobody forces you to watch TV so nobody is extorting anything.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24As a business, the government is in trouble. It isn't a business.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24I charge the government with a criminal offence of aggravated trespass by use of signal .That's not a crime on the statutes- you just made it up.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24A violation of entropy and it may even cause a person to time dilate, killing us off quicker. Hogwash.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03Quite clearly the government are passing acts for personal gain in their moonlighted businesses. i.e extortion. It still isn't personal, isn't a business, and isn't extortion.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03Acts that benefit their companies but are not lawful under freeman laws. Gibberish, in particular there are no "freeman laws" it's another thing you made up.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03Under common law people have the right to face their accuser, The accuser would be the representative of the TV licensing authority. They would be there in court to face you.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03Under common law a transmitted carrier wave signal that was entering your dwelling is an aggravated trespass No it is not.Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:51:21They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling. They don't.
Quite clearly the act, is devised by the government for ''personal gain''.
No it's true,
In the UK we are forced to receive a signal in our homes of program viewing. For this forced act and dictatorship, we have to pay and are extorted a license fee.
No doubt the government are not paying tax
Television licensing failures should not result in a legal court case with no jurisdiction of rights. I
It is not a criminal offence because it is not stated.
a business forcing a signal on you cannot be a victim,
the people being forced to comply would be the victims,
As a business, the government is in trouble.
I charge the government with a criminal offence of aggravated trespass by use of signal .
A violation of entropy and it may even cause a person to time dilate, killing us off quicker.
Quite clearly the government are passing acts for personal gain in their moonlighted businesses. i.e extortion.
Acts that benefit their companies but are not lawful under freeman laws.
Under common law people have the right to face their accuser,
Under common law a transmitted carrier wave signal that was entering your dwelling is an aggravated trespass
They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling.
It’s nothing to do with the signal, just you having a television ... store it in your loft you dont have to pay.
I don't think the "loft" defense is going to work.
I didn't need a tv license for two years even while watching other channels, being the person I am I argued that why would I need to have a TV License if I didn't watch anything on Freeview or any other device capable of receiving a BBC channel. Their counter-argument was that if I happened to watch BBC channels then I would need the licence. Again I just said I streamed everything to Chromecast apart from anything by the BBC ( This was before they brought in that you need one for streaming). As of January I have been meaning to answer their letter to say they need to confirm my Licensing needs or whatever, but since I can no longer say I don't watch TV I will pay for it, it may be extortionate but it is the law whether we like it or not. It could be worse if you think about it, we may not get free TV but least we have free healthcare. An that is more than some countries can boast isn't it.
The common man considers the BBC a business, there should be no legal way a business can force a service on you or/and charge you for somebodies else's service you already pay for. Why should the BBC charge a license for sky for example?
They don't. You are under no obligation to own a television, so there's no "force" involved.
Meaning of “**** off” in the English DictionaryEnglish"**** off" in English See all translations**** off— phrasal verb with **** UK /fʌk/ US /fʌk/ verb [ I or T ] offensiveto leave or go away, used especially as a rude way of telling someone to go away:Just **** off and leave me alone!He's fucked off somewhere and left me to do all the work.
It is an act , not a law.
The common man considers the BBC a business,
there should be no legal way a business can force a service on youQuote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49there should be no legal way a business can force a service on you They don't.Why do you continue to say this?Who is forcing you to watch the BBC?Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49or/and charge you for somebodies else's service you already pay for. They don't.The BBC doesn't charge you to watch Sky.The government tax you for having a TV.They also tax you for having a car or smoking cigarettes - it's the same idea.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49How can the government be just, if they are moonlighting business for profit and racketeering? Because you are wrong about the ideas that is based on, you are wrong in your conclusion.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49In my eyes I see the government to be no better than the North Korean boss Kim. That says more about you than about them. (and what it says isn't good).Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 11:08:08This is a list of government-owned companies. .... objectives.That would be interesting if the government owned the BBC.It doesn't.Things would go a lot quicker round here if you actually checked on the facts, before posting nonsense.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 11:15:49The government is illegally using a police state to enforce business charges for pure financial gain of a ''fake'' licence.If this was a police state you would have been arrested for saying that...Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:32:37True, you do not have to watch television, you could always jump off a bridge instead of boredom. Or surf the net. or play football or - well pretty much anything.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:32:37They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police. The police are seldom, if ever involved in collecting TV licenses- it's usually treated as a civil debt.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:32:37Swearing words such as Fxxx off and Pxxx off means go away . Apparently it is illegal to tell somebody to go away.No. It's legal to tell them to go away.It's not legal (in a public place where it may offend people) to tell them to f*** off.If you don't like it, talk to your MP / local council about getting the relevant legislation repealed.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:54:20Not only are the government making money off this, they actually aid and abet this by selling the ''drug'' in the first place. As far as I'm aware, the government is not in the business of running pubs or off-licenses.Was that just you being wrong again.Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:54:20p.s I needed a good old fashioned moan .Perhaps you would be a little less upset about the world if you started out by finding out how it works.Then you could avoid wasting effort being angry about things that are not real.
there should be no legal way a business can force a service on you
or/and charge you for somebodies else's service you already pay for.
How can the government be just, if they are moonlighting business for profit and racketeering?
In my eyes I see the government to be no better than the North Korean boss Kim.
This is a list of government-owned companies. .... objectives.
The government is illegally using a police state to enforce business charges for pure financial gain of a ''fake'' licence.
True, you do not have to watch television, you could always jump off a bridge instead of boredom.
They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police.
Swearing words such as Fxxx off and Pxxx off means go away . Apparently it is illegal to tell somebody to go away.
Not only are the government making money off this, they actually aid and abet this by selling the ''drug'' in the first place.
p.s I needed a good old fashioned moan .
They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police. The police are seldom, if ever involved in collecting TV licenses- it's usually treated as a civil debt.
But TV licensing is mostly politics, not science.
It is an act , not a law. An act they unlawfully class as a law.