Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 06:28:51
They cover this deceit by the enforcement of the communications act 2003.
Quote
363Licence required for use of TV receiver
(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.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5)Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes—
(a)installing a television receiver on delivery;
(b)demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver.
(6)The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers—
(a)of such descriptions,
(b)by such persons,
(c)in such circumstances, and
(d)for such purposes,as may be provided for in the regulations.
(7)Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.
However they should not of ''upset'' me because now from a scientific viewpoint , I am going to simply show why nobody in the UK needs a licence.
Quote
(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.
A television receiver, I do not believe there is such a thing as a receiver of televisions apart from a television shop.
Now if they had called it an electromagnetic radiation detector, they would of not left it ambiguous to debate.
A television receiver is hilarious wording. The BBC think they are transmitting televisions and people have receivers for these televisions.
Nobody receives television, people detect wave energy . There is no requirement for a licence because the act does not state anything about wave-energy detection.
Post by: Colin2B on 25/02/2018 08:42:05
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 09:19:39
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.
Not actually true.
Why tell that lie?
Also, if you read the rest of the regulations...
2003 c. 21 Part 4 Section 368
Meanings of “television receiver” and “use”
(1)In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part.
(2)Regulations under this section defining a television receiver may provide for references to such a receiver to include references to software used in association with apparatus.
(3)References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes.
(4)The power to make regulations under this section defining a television receiver includes power to modify subsection (3).
and
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
tells you that "
9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.
"
So, you start by saying something that's plainly not true, then go on to fail to read the regulations which show that you are also wrong about something else.
Why do you do stuff like that?
Post by: evan_au on 25/02/2018 10:09:54
Australia followed the British model for many years, with license fees funding the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). However, I get the impression that in Australia, the government monopoly on broadcasting was relaxed much earlier than in the UK. By the time that colour TV was introduced in Australia, the ABC had a fairly small audience compared to commercial stations, and the government decided not to discourage introduction of this new technology by placing an even higher fee on use of colour TVs. So they scrapped the license fee. The ABC was to be funded out of government general revenue.
This had the result that every time the government wants to save some money (ie every 4 years or so), they cut the amount of money spent on the ABC. A couple of years ago, they scrapped the TV science unit, although they still produce a science show for radio.
So the contrast is a well-funded BBC, sponsored by TV licences, vs an anemic ABC, hanging out for every scrap the government can spare.
The nearest equivalent in the US is the Public Broadcasting Service, which is not directly government funded, and is continually looking for donations.
Quote
“television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.The BBC makes most of its shows available for streaming over the internet*.
Would I be correct in assuming that if you had no TV receiver with an antenna, but you did have a computer connected to the internet, your household would still need to pay the "TV receiver license"?
*For licensing reasons, we can't watch the BBC internet site from Australia (unless we have a VPN terminating within the UK).
The ABC often rebroadcasts a BBC show, and then we can watch it on the ABC website.
Streaming services like Netflix are rapidly eroding the market share of traditional television networks, government or otherwise.
Post by: Colin2B on 25/02/2018 10:37:51
Would I be correct in assuming that if you had no TV receiver with an antenna, but you did have a computer connected to the internet, your household would still need to pay the "TV receiver license"?It wasn't the case. but the rules changed as internet usage grew. Now you pay even for internet viewing.
Licencing outside of UK is because BBC sells it's most successful programmes.
I asume your local providers screen Blue Planet etc
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 15:40:21
I will look into this a bit deeper and make my full report when I have looked at some political information. I would be convinced in my own mind that the act is far from just and should be invalid by some other rule.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 15:42:47
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 it's true, why have the government got a vested interest in television to create an act? Our leadership is moonlighting as businesses.
Not actually true.
Why tell that lie?
No doubt the government are not paying tax on this business and are illegal traders.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
Television licensing failures should not result in a legal court case with no jurisdiction of rights. It is not a criminal offence because it is not stated.
added- I believe all people could sue the government for unwanted change of entropy by having electromagnetic radiation beamed directly at them.
A criminal offence has to have a victim, a business forcing a signal on you cannot be a victim, the people being forced to comply would be the victims, in an extortion racket.
extortion
ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
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 ΔS = BBC
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 16:16:03
These are bills which have been approved by the Commons, the Lords, and The Queen. The relevant government department is responsible for putting the act into practice.
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, every person has the right to ask the Queen or government to attend court and make their accusations known. Under common law a transmitted carrier wave signal that was entering your dwelling is an aggravated trespass once the signal provider have been notified to remove the signal.
Post by: Colin2B on 25/02/2018 16:43:53
Quite clearly the unwanted signal cannot be removed, believe me I have asked.It’s nothing to do with the signal, just you having a television.
No one forces you to watch television, or even own one.
If you give it away, or store it in your loft you dont have to pay.
If you buy or modify one so that it only plays DVDs, you dont have to pay.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 16:51:21
It is nothing to do with the signal? the signal you receive is what you get done for if caught watching it. Not only a BBC signal, but other signals as well such as sky or virgin, which you also have to pay for. Effectively charging you , extorting money from you for a different companies business.Quite clearly the unwanted signal cannot be removed, believe me I have asked.It’s nothing to do with the signal, just you having a television.
No one forces you to watch television, or even own one.
If you give it away, or store it in your loft you dont have to pay.
If you buy or modify one so that it only plays DVDs, you dont have to pay.
They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling. This signal most definitely changing the entropy of my personal space, infringing mine or anybodies personal right of personal space.
Of course your Naked scientist broadcast probably uses the BBC, so I would not expect your approval.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 16:53:53
Under common law, it is not the dwellers fault if they detect inbound BBC carrier waves or any other inbound entities of space.
No country or governing body has a claim to space.
I here by officially claim the property and asset of space to now be a property of this freeman's court and define space to come under common law. I now propose the first act of this here by, free persons court, under the jurisdiction of common law, that a lawful licence shall be imposed on any business who wants to use the asset of space for commercial use. Thus use effectively changing the entropy of the common law space, having unknown affect's over a period of time, on the recipients.
math ΔS ∝ Δf where S is entropy and f is frequency
You would have to feel sorry for the prosecution if the BBC ever tried to take me too court.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:21:41
Quite clearly the act, is devised by the government for ''personal gain''.The government is not a person, so you are pretty plainly wrong there.
No 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 "
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.is plainly false.
No doubt the government are not paying taxTo whom would the government pay tax?
Television licensing failures should not result in a legal court case with no jurisdiction of rights. IIt is clearly within the jurisdiction of the UK.
It is not a criminal offence because it is not stated.Breaking the law is an offence.
a business forcing a signal on you cannot be a victim,No such business exists.
the people being forced to comply would be the victims,
And, once again, nobody forces you to watch TV so nobody is extorting anything.
As a business, the government is in trouble.It isn't a business.
I 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.
A violation of entropy and it may even cause a person to time dilate, killing us off quicker.Hogwash.
Quite 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.
Acts 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.
Under 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.
Under common law a transmitted carrier wave signal that was entering your dwelling is an aggravated trespassNo it is not.
They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling.They don't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:23:04
You would have to feel sorry for the prosecution if the BBC ever tried to take me too court.I'm sure they would be happy to charge you for their time.
Legal costs are usually awarded against the loser.
Misunderstanding entropy isn't going to win you a court case.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2018 17:33:50
So who are you gong to sue?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:40:54
Are you going to sue those too?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:57:55
The aether is filled with a lot more than BBC transmissions. There are probably 500 or so radio and TV entertainment channels receivable by your TV set, hundreds of emergency service channels, mobile phone and internet services....and I've just had to but a 2160 channel radio for my plane (to replace the entirely adequate 720 channel unit that everyone else n the world uses, thanks to the stupidity of the British Government insisting that frequency allocation is a matter of national sovereignty rather than international common sense). Plus 180 navigational aids and a whole other area of the spectrum assigned to radar and longrange communication.....I would sue the broadcasters. They blatantly are affecting the Earths entropy .
So who are you gong to sue?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:58:52
Every object in your house is emitting microwave radiation.Do I need a licence to detect microwave radiation emitted by objects?
Are you going to sue those too?
The pictures on a television are not even pictures, the pictures I see are in my head.
We do not watch television, our eyes detect the radiation, case closed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:08:12
I'm sure they would be happy to charge you for their time.
Legal costs are usually awarded against the loser.
Misunderstanding entropy isn't going to win you a court case.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:28:20
As I said,I am not in a court case for one. Second, I understand the many ways a system can change.
I'm sure they would be happy to charge you for their time.
Legal costs are usually awarded against the loser.
Misunderstanding entropy isn't going to win you a court case.
Post by: evan_au on 25/02/2018 20:40:07
Quote from: TheBox
why have the government got a vested interest in television to create an act?Traditionally, governments have controlled what citizens think by controlling what they know.
A tradition which modern governments seem keen to maintain.
So it makes sense that when mass electronic media were developed, the government would want to control (or at least influence) what it says. This could be done by the government owning the media, or controlling what the media find out, or by having legal controls over what the media can discuss.
In the newspaper game, private and commercial publishers were well-established before TV broadcasting started, so the government had to use some of the more subtle means of control - with the legal teeth of an Act of Parliament.
But there is a positive reason for having a broadcast network with national coverage: For emergency communications in case of natural disaster. It is very hard to fund this as a profit-making exercise, so again this is enforced via an Act of Parliament.
Quote
The science of a t.v licenceThere is a bit of technology around how the regulators discover unlicensed receivers.
But TV licensing is mostly politics, not science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 20:48:09
I am not in a court caseYou will be if you get caught watching telly without a license.
Second, I understand the many ways a system can change.
There are many things you don't understand.
Quite clearly the act, is devised by the government for ''personal gain''.The government is not a person, so you are pretty plainly wrong there.No 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 "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.is plainly false.No doubt the government are not paying taxTo whom would the government pay tax?Television licensing failures should not result in a legal court case with no jurisdiction of rights. IIt is clearly within the jurisdiction of the UK.It is not a criminal offence because it is not stated.Breaking the law is an offence.a business forcing a signal on you cannot be a victim,No such business exists.the people being forced to comply would be the victims,
And, once again, nobody forces you to watch TV so nobody is extorting anything.As a business, the government is in trouble.It isn't a business.I 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.A violation of entropy and it may even cause a person to time dilate, killing us off quicker.Hogwash.Quite 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.Acts 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.Under 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.Under common law a transmitted carrier wave signal that was entering your dwelling is an aggravated trespassNo it is not.They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling.They don't.
Post by: RD on 25/02/2018 21:47:00
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.
Having a device capable of receiving BBC television in your home makes you liable to pay the license fee ...
Need licence if you have a device capable of viewing BBC TV broadcasts.png (33.57 kB . 1169x615 - viewed 4046 times)http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 22:20:26
However fundamentally the viewing is time dilated because of different distances , angles etc. One electromagnetic radiation detector device would not be in sequence with another.
As for watching catch up tv, how can they possible propose a licence for viewing history ?
Post by: Colin2B on 25/02/2018 22:46:44
I don't think the "loft" defense is going to work.It worked for our daughter who took 2 years off watching. Also friends of ours did it.
For other devices you have to make sure that the tuner is removed of disabled.
Post by: atbsphotography on 26/02/2018 05:44:24
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2018 10:17:24
The TV licence is (almost) unique: it is a hypothecated tax collected only for the provision of one service. If you don't own a television, you don't pay the tax. If you do, the choice is yours to use the NHS (BBC) or "go private", but however much you pay your private hospital, the NHS still takes a slice of your (and their) taxes.
Most revolutionaries (including me) are in favour of hypothecated taxes. And last night I actually found two BBC programs worth watching.
Something of an aside: the reason that the current rugby series is the 6 nations derives from the time when England had an exclusive and very lucrative contract with Sky TV. The game sponsors (Barclays at the time?) and H M Ministry of Sport insisted that Five Nations Rugby must be broadcast on national free channels, so the nascent Italian RFU offered a complete ragbag of players with at least one Italian grandparent,and a national free TV contract. Very much in the spirit of rugby - my kids' team always had a spare jersey so the opposition substitute could have a game - and to the eventual shame of England and Sky. Result: healthy growth of rugby in southern Europe, and a lot of free entertainment for the licensepayers.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 10:52:20
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.It is an act , not a law. An act they unlawfully class as a law.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
Why should the BBC charge a license for sky for example?
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 11:08:08
They are breaking the law.
Financial results
Cash returns of £210.5m to BBC (2015/16: £222.2m), a record excluding disposal proceeds, and equivalent to 12.2% of BBC spend on television content
Headline sales up 3.0% at £1,059.9m (2015/16: £1,029.4m)
Headline profit up 17.6% at £157.3m (2015/16: £133.8m)
Free cash generation up 138.3% at £90.8m (2015/16: £38.1m)
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 11:15:49
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the 1989 film, see Police State (1989 film). For the 2016 film, see Police State (2016 film).
Not to be confused with State police.
Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force. Originally the term designated a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century, the term has "taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning" by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities.[1]
The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force that operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[2] Robert von Mohl, who first introduced the rule of law to German jurisprudence, contrasted the Rechtsstaat ("legal" or "constitutional" state) with the anti-aristocratic Polizeistaat ("police state").[3]
The government is illegally using a police state to enforce business charges for pure financial gain of a ''fake'' licence.
It can not be lawful or legal.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 11:37:36
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Dear Queen, with all due respect ma'am you are not looking out for your people and allowing a police state .
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2018 12:40:37
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. Sky are under no obligation to provideprograms in the UK, but have chosen to do so for commecial reasons. The cost of doing business varies from country to country and those of us in business make our decisions on the basis of known conditions and competition. The interference of amateurs is not welcomed.
I have interests in private healthcare businesses. We pay taxes to support the NHS, as do our employees and customers. Not a problem. The alternatives are a fully market-driven "system" as in the USA where the poor just die, or a wholly state-controlled system where research and innovation are stifled by bureaucracy. "Public broadcasting"in the USA is underfunded and consists at best of recycled BBC documentaries and dramas, whilst the commercial stuff is unwatchable.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2018 12:46:31
A couple were leaving a hotel when the man looked at the bill. "£5 cruet charge" was added. He said "I didn't use any salt or pepper".
Manager: "It was there to be used if you wanted it".
Bloke punched the manager on the nose.
"Why did you do that?"
"For kissing my wife"
"But I didn't kiss your wife"
"She was there to be kissed if you wanted to."
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 17:32:37
They don't. You are under no obligation to own a television, so there's no "force" involved.True, you do not have to watch television, you could always jump off a bridge instead of boredom. On a serious note, regardless of having a choice to watch a television, there is no way lawfully the government should be allowed to use the police for their business needs, that is a police state.
The government and the police are civil servants that we the people pay their wages in taxes. They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police. There is no victim so it can not be a crime.
Want further evidence? Swearing results in an £80 fine, the government defining the words we can or cannot use. Using ambiguity and their police state powers to gain illegal and unlawful fines.
Swearing words such as Fxxx off and Pxxx off means go away . Apparently it is illegal to tell somebody to go away.
I hope UKIP or something like is reading this.
Quote
Meaning of “**** off” in the English Dictionary
English
"**** off" in English
See all translations
**** off
— phrasal verb with **** UK /fʌk/ US /fʌk/ verb [ I or T ] offensive
to 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.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/****-off
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 17:54:20
Not only are the government making money off this, they actually aid and abet this by selling the ''drug'' in the first place.
Alcohol is synthetic and not a natural thing. One of the worlds biggest killers and problem causes.
Why do they allow this?
It is a revenue for their police state.
The Police swear on oath to protect human rights, the public now requests the Police honour this oath and arrest the entire cabinet for breaching human rights.
Can we call for an entire government impeachment?
Any sort of incompetent order we can use?
p.s I needed a good old fashioned moan .
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 19:58:52
It is an act , not a law.What do you consider to be the difference?
(The courts probably think you are wrong, BTW)
The common man considers the BBC a business,So does the law. So what?
there should be no legal way a business can force a service on youthere 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?or/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.How 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.In 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).This 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.The 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...True, 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.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.Swearing 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.Not 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.p.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.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 20:09:41
They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police.The police are regularly involved and enforce it. It is not treated as a civil debt, magistrates even giving bailiffs such as Marston's, a power of arrest warrant. Marston's bailiffs have an arrest team . You still think this is lawful in anyway?
The police are seldom, if ever involved in collecting TV licenses- it's usually treated as a civil debt.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 20:12:57
But TV licensing is mostly politics, not science.It may be part politics, but the truth is we are being charged a licence to view light. Light is the science involved.
Post by: The Spoon on 26/02/2018 20:49:03
It is an act , not a law. An act they unlawfully class as a law.Looks like law is another thing on a very long list that you actually know f*ck all about then.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 21:43:19
True to exactly the extent that light bulbs need a TV license.But TV licensing is mostly politics, not science.It may be part politics, but the truth is we are being charged a licence to view light. Light is the science involved.
That's to say, not actually true at all.
Why do you post that sort of dross?
The police are regularly involved and enforce it. It is not treated as a civil debt, magistrates even giving bailiffs such as Marston's, a power of arrest warrant. Marston's bailiffs have an arrest team .
Make up your mind.
Is it a police matter, or are they using civil debt proceedings- such as bailiffs?
Marston's bailiffs have an arrest team . You still think this is lawful in anyway?Yes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/3/crossheading/powers-of-arrest
Why don't you put at least a hint of effort into finding stuff out before ranting about nonsense?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2018 22:40:29
They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police.Television licences are not "enforced". You are under no obligation to have a television.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 01:18:02
I am neither under any obligation to have signals beamed at my dwelling either, but they are trespassing with this signal.They are abusing their position by enforcing a television licence by way of using police.Television licences are not "enforced". You are under no obligation to have a television.
Do the UK charge a licence fee to other countries who can pick up the bbc etc?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 01:27:49
Yes.So you think it is lawful that a bailiff , not a high court bailiff can make an arrest in a civil matter? You have no morals Mr C.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/3/crossheading/powers-of-arrest
Why don't you put at least a hint of effort into finding stuff out before ranting about nonsense?
If any bailiff tried to put their hands on me, I would be placing them under a citizens arrest for assault. Bailiffs are not the police, the freeman does not recognise any authority from these individuals.
The government is really allowing them to impersonate police officers?
That is what they are doing. I witnessed this the other week, a single mum of four threatened by a marstons bailiff of arrest if she did not pay a tv licence fine.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 01:40:07
True to exactly the extent that light bulbs need a TV license.Actually based on government poor logic , they may as well charge a licence for a light bulb as it is technically the same thing but different frequency.
Anyway a question, does everyone have the right to experiment, to detect spacial activity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:03:40
So you think it is lawful that a bailiff , not a high court bailiff can make an arrest in a civil matter? You have no morals Mr C.Why do you think that my pointing out a fact of law (people can arrest people) is an indicator of my morals?
I am neither under any obligation to have signals beamed at my dwelling either, but they are trespassing with this signal.Feel free to take them to court.
The court will point out that it isn't trespass and that you are- as so often in this thread "wrong on the facts" as well as wrong on the law.
.
If any bailiff tried to put their hands on me, I would be placing them under a citizens arrest for assault.And, if they were acting reasonably and within the law (in the court's opinion- not yours) then you would be sued for false arrest (and possibly assault too).
The government is really allowing them to impersonate police officers?No the government is licensing them as bailiffs.
I witnessed this the other week, a single mum of four threatened by a marstons bailiff of arrest if she did not pay a tv licence fine.
Failure to comply with a court order such as a fine will leave you liable to arrest.
If it didn't, how would the courts enforce their decisions?
You seem not to have noticed that the difference here is that she is arrested for non compliance with a court order rather than arrested for not paying the license fee.
It's really very clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you stop cluttering up the site with your nonsense?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:06:23
Actually based on government poor logic , they may as well charge a licence for a light bulb as it is technically the same thing but different frequency.
Well, if you can't tell the difference then it's easy.
Buy a light bulb instead of a telly.
Then you won't need a license.
Of course, if it turns out that you find watching a lamp less satisfying that watching TV then you will have realise that you were talking nonsense. (The rest of us already spotted that)
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:07:43
Anyway a question, does everyone have the right to experiment, to detect spacial activity?
Probably best left to another thread but the answers are "yes" and "where else (apart from space) does activity take place?" respectively.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:11:23
One question, an empty box, we add radiation, have we just changed the entropy of the box?So you think it is lawful that a bailiff , not a high court bailiff can make an arrest in a civil matter? You have no morals Mr C.Why do you think that my pointing out a fact of law (people can arrest people) is an indicator of my morals?I am neither under any obligation to have signals beamed at my dwelling either, but they are trespassing with this signal.Feel free to take them to court.
The court will point out that it isn't trespass and that you are- as so often in this thread "wrong on the facts" as well as wrong on the law.
.If any bailiff tried to put their hands on me, I would be placing them under a citizens arrest for assault.And, if they were acting reasonably and within the law (in the court's opinion- not yours) then you would be sued for false arrest (and possibly assault too).The government is really allowing them to impersonate police officers?No the government is licensing them as bailiffs.I witnessed this the other week, a single mum of four threatened by a marstons bailiff of arrest if she did not pay a tv licence fine.
Failure to comply with a court order such as a fine will leave you liable to arrest.
If it didn't, how would the courts enforce their decisions?
You seem not to have noticed that the difference here is that she is arrested for non compliance with a court order rather than arrested for not paying the license fee.
It's really very clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you stop cluttering up the site with your nonsense?
p.s is this your job?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:12:47
So you are saying yes , that means if i claim a television is for detection of spacial activity or localised activity, then I am covered?Anyway a question, does everyone have the right to experiment, to detect spacial activity?
Probably best left to another thread but the answers are "yes" and "where else (apart from space) does activity take place?" respectively.
You know, it is not a television, it is my scientific detection equipment on a budget :D
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:17:43
p.s is this your job?No
I have taken the day off to get a washing machine delivered.
My job is working for bit of the government that doesn't like being mentioned on the web. It probably isn't any of the ones you are thinking of.
(That's also why I post under a fake name).
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:19:42
So you are saying yes , that means if i claim a television is for detection of space, then I am covered?No.
Not only did I not say anything like tat, but it's probably wrong.
It's also a bit silly.
Why would you want to "detect space"
It's there- it's not going to go away.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:23:34
television
ˈtɛlɪvɪʒ(ə)n,tɛlɪˈvɪʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a system for converting visual images (with sound) into electrical signals, transmitting them by radio or other means, and displaying them electronically on a screen.
"the days before television"
2.
a device with a screen for receiving television signals.
Neither definition true or accurate.
Visual images , really? are these people who wrote this slow or something?
television signals? no such thing you idiots.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:25:06
I edited, but you already said yes to the free practice of science.So you are saying yes , that means if i claim a television is for detection of space, then I am covered?No.
Not only did I not say anything like tat, but it's probably wrong.
It's also a bit silly.
Why would you want to "detect space"
It's there- it's not going to go away.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:32:58
Cool dude, respect to you for being something like a social worker then?p.s is this your job?No
I have taken the day off to get a washing machine delivered.
My job is working for bit of the government that doesn't like being mentioned on the web. It probably isn't any of the ones you are thinking of.
(That's also why I post under a fake name).
Or maybe you are newspaper reporter for the government?
Damn, I am nosy sorry.
Obvious not a spy lol.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:37:31
I edited, but you already said yes to the free practice of science.I said nothing about "free" practice.
You are allowed to experiment- but not to break the law to do so.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:38:38
Cool dude, respect to you for being something like a social worker then?Close enough.
This web page counts as social media and all govt employees are expected to follow the rules.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants/social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:40:45
There is a difference in breaking the law and using the law. If I re-define a television in being a spacial frequency detector, because as defined a television is not a spacial frequency detection, then claim it is scientific research, how can that not be legal?I edited, but you already said yes to the free practice of science.I said nothing about "free" practice.
You are allowed to experiment- but not to break the law to do so.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:43:51
television signals? no such thing you idiots.What does the BBC broadcast on the UHF bands?
The court would probably think it reasonable to consider them to be TV signals- because that's what they are.
If I re-define a television in being a spacial frequency detector,You can't because it doesn't detect spatial frequency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_frequency
It would be better if you stopped being silly.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:45:57
So you are an internet publicity person for the government?Cool dude, respect to you for being something like a social worker then?Close enough.
This web page counts as social media and all govt employees are expected to follow the rules.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants/social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants
OK, cool job, do you realise that most of common people of the land do not bother voting because ''we'' hate all of ''you'' who have a piss poor attempt at running a country?
Do you not know a likeable government will govern any country with ease and all the people would be willing to die for that country? At the moment most of the common people in the UK would let invaders happily have this chit hole country.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:49:27
The court would probably think it reasonable to consider them to be TV signals- because that's what they are.They are carrier signals or satellite signals, there is no such thing as a television signal. Anyway by the laws of this land, I will find a way to outlaw the TV licence. There is no problem re-inventing the licence under a subscription fee or even donation based. It should never be a criminal offence, there is no victim.
p.s or by way of science I shall outlaw the tv licence.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:52:04
You can't because it doesn't detect spatial frequency.Spacial frequency was not what I thought it meant, thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_frequency
It would be better if you stopped being silly.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 09:54:02
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:58:06
It's usually a good idea to find out what a phrase means before you use it.You can't because it doesn't detect spatial frequency.Spacial frequency was not what I thought it meant, thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_frequency
It would be better if you stopped being silly.
Otherwise you look silly.
If we pay taxes, and the government uses our taxes to support the BBC, aren't we technically the investors anyway?It's true that you are one of the many millions of investors and thus you have some tiny degree of influence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:59:12
They are carrier signalsNo.
They are modulated carriers.
It really would be better if you went away and found some stuff out, rather than posting nonsense here.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:02:31
If we pay taxes, and the government uses our taxes to support the BBC, aren't we technically the investors anyway?Of course I know one voice is not heard, but I do know once a seed is planted, it grows. Now I know you are politically minded, I think we might get on better.
It's true that you are one of the many millions of investors and thus you have some tiny degree of influence.
Yes the government are public ''servants'' and there to ''serve'' and protect our well being and human rights. So technically, we the people own the BBC?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:04:48
You have taught me several things already, I am ''spending'' my time well. I am on an American political forum, where I have had a few debates.They are carrier signalsNo.
They are modulated carriers.
It really would be better if you went away and found some stuff out, rather than posting nonsense here.
Nonsense is corrective , corrective is educational.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:11:52
Quote
BBC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the British Broadcasting Corporation. For other uses, see BBC (disambiguation).
British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC.svg
Official logo since 4 October 1997
Type
Statutory corporation
with a Royal charter
Industry Mass media
Predecessor British Broadcasting Company
Founded 18 October 1922; 95 years ago
Founder John Reith
Headquarters Broadcasting House
London, W1
United Kingdom
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Sir David Clementi (Chairman)
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (Director-General)
Anne Bulford (Deputy Director-General)
Products
Broadcasting Radio Web portals
Services
Television Radio Online
Revenue Increase£4.954 billion (2016/17)[1]
Operating income
Decrease£-39.3 million (2016/17)[1]
Net income
Decrease£-129.1 million (2016/17)[1]
Total assets Decrease£308.6 million (2016/17)[1]
Owner British public
Number of employees
20,916 (2015/16)[2]
Website bbc.co.uk
bbc.com (Outside UK)
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcaster. Its headquarters are at Broadcasting House in Westminster, London and it is the world's oldest national broadcasting organisation[3] and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees. It employs over 20,950 staff in total, 16,672 of whom are in public sector broadcasting.[4][5][6][7][8] The total number of staff is 35,402 when part-time, flexible, and fixed-contract staff are included.[9]
Please define public.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:15:09
They are fining people for something they own...
Do I win?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:19:53
Science is thinking, thinking is science!
If the BBC is owned by the public , anyone having a fine off the BBC can just pay themselves. Legally and lawfully paying the fine in full.
Sounds correct to me by the information.
added- Oh what do you know,
Quote
The high ideal is that it is held in trust for the public of the UK by the BBC Trust (the successor to the Board of Governors following the renewal of the BBC
Oh dear MR C, ..
I have legitimate legal ''red tape''.
added - The latest I could find, but they had better not be paying a public employee
Quote
Lord Tony Hall to earn £532,000 as new BBC boss by drawing pension on top of salary
He can have just above minimum wage and count himself lucky we don't sack him. Also he is not the boss, he manages the public company.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 14:05:34
And where is my share of RevenueIt went to pay your share of the costs.
As far as I can tell, the BBC owns itself.
Science is thinking, thinking is science!Not really.
The thinking needs to be informed and constructive for a start.
If I am a member of the public, I part own the BBC, therefore I do not want a licence because as a shareholder I have that right?No,
They are fining people for something they own...
Do I win?
No and No
respectively.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 01:11:25
If I am a member of the public, I part own the BBC, therefore I do not want a licence because as a shareholder I have that right?The BBC is owned by the licenceholders, not the government or the entire population. No licence, no rights.
They are fining people for something they own...
Do I win?
You might find it easier to understand by analogy with fishing rod licences. Or since you are determined not to understand anything, perhaps not. But failing to understand, or deliberate obtuseness, is no defence in court. You could try defining murder as "anything I have not done", but you will find that the judge's opinion is final.
Post by: evan_au on 28/02/2018 09:31:58
Quote from: TheBox
outlaw the TV licence.... It should never be a criminal offence, there is no victim.What about the 20,000-odd employees of the BBC (plus their numerous contractors and suppliers), who are staring at a year-on-year decline in revenue?
I think at the moment they are feeling rather victimised by people who benefit from BBC productions, but don't pay the TV licence fee...
Quote from: TheBox
TheBoxIn Australia, we have another name for it: "The Idiot Box".
There is undoubtedly a wealth of educational material shown through TV images that you could not get from reading a book or visiting a (non-moving) web page.
But a lot of people spend a lot of time watching seemingly inane material.
Oh - some threads on this website have a lot of seemingly inane material, too...
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 11:02:34
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 11:27:03
the shipping forecast (a better aphrodisiac than cocoa)I'm trying to work out how much of that is irony.
Post by: evan_au on 01/03/2018 20:47:50
Quote from: alancalverd
fons et origo (as we say in the local dialect) of this forum. So if you object to the TV licence, foro excede statim.The Romans never made it as far as Australia.
I think I'd better listen to a few more programs from BBC Radio 4!
Or maybe some more episodes of http://historyofenglishpodcast.com/episodes/
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 07:13:16
Surely the poorer people of the nation who cant afford huge televisions would then benefit from this and not mind paying a lesser fee that equates to their status in society.
Richer people with big televisions should pay more than a poor person with a small television. A fee could be set at x amount per inch, around about the £2.50-£3.00 an inch being a honest price.
So if somebody has a 10 inch tablet they use for watching tv programs on catchup etc, they would pay approx £25.
Then the tv detector ''goons'' could go around checking inches.
30 inch television's would become popular again and be less damaging to the environment. The same sort of principle is used with road tax.
Post by: evan_au on 02/03/2018 09:08:43
Quote from: TheBox
The bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licenceRadiation sources are the TV transmitters, mobile base stations, hand-held cellphones and WiFi-enabled computers.
Television sets are a radiation sink - they absorb the intentional radiation, while accidentally emitting a very small amount of electrical noise from their electronics.
I think you are proposing a measure of the size of the television receiver, not the size of the television transmitter tower?
In the past, TV detection vans could prowl the streets, looking for this accidental radiation from radio & TV receivers to see who was listening to radio or watching TV. Today, with better radiation shielding in consumer electronics, and the dominance of digital devices producing wideband noise, it is probably not so easy.
But an increasing amount of content is now being consumed online (Youtube, Netflix, BBC iPlayer, etc), so the license police now just make a list of all the IP addresses visiting their site, and compare that to the IP addresses that have paid for a license...
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 10:02:07
Since when do you need a licence to watch youtube?Quote from: TheBoxThe bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licenceRadiation sources are the TV transmitters, mobile base stations, hand-held cellphones and WiFi-enabled computers.
Television sets are a radiation sink - they absorb the intentional radiation, while accidentally emitting a very small amount of electrical noise from their electronics.
I think you are proposing a measure of the size of the television receiver, not the size of the television transmitter tower?
In the past, TV detection vans could prowl the streets, looking for this accidental radiation from radio & TV receivers to see who was listening to radio or watching TV. Today, with better radiation shielding in consumer electronics, and the dominance of digital devices producing wideband noise, it is probably not so easy.
But an increasing amount of content is now being consumed online (Youtube, Netflix, BBC iPlayer, etc), so the license police now just make a list of all the IP addresses visiting their site, and compare that to the IP addresses that have paid for a license...
and yes I was on about the size of tv sets.
as far as I am aware you can watch net flix and youtube without a license?
Quote
You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or download BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. This applies to all devices and providers.
Don't forget, you also need a TV Licence to watch or record programmes on any channel as they are being shown on TV, or live on an online TV service – on any device.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/check-on-youtube
I understand you can have a television and use it for game consoles and youtube without a license, it is only if you can receive terrestrial it is an offence, i.e no aerial, no virgin or sky , no license needed.
Quote
Do I need a TV Licence to watch YouTube?
No, you do not need a TV Licence to watch YouTube videos: you are not watching live TV content as it is broadcast. TV programmes that are uploaded to the video site following their broadcast follow the same rules as catch-up TV.
Do I need a TV Licence to watch films?
A TV Licence is required to watch films only as they are broadcast on live TV. Films enjoyed following their broadcast via on-demand services, and those provided via DVD or Blu-ray, are not subject to the licensing requirement.
Do I need a TV LIcence to watch Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video?
No, you do not need a TV Licence to watch Netflix or LoveFilm. The content provided by these services is offered on-demand; that is, it is not streamed as it is broadcast. If either service starts to stream live TV then a TV Licence will be required.
https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/how-to/digital-home/do-i-need-tv-licence-how-save-money-on-your-tv-licence-catchup-iplayer-2016-3423808/
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:11:54
Why not make the licence a honest licence. By this I mean have the licence as a sort of radiation tax, the bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licence?Once again, you seem unable to tell a lightbulb from a TV set.
Surely the poorer people of the nation who cant afford huge televisions would then benefit from this and not mind paying a lesser fee that equates to their status in society.
Richer people with big televisions should pay more than a poor person with a small television. A fee could be set at x amount per inch, around about the £2.50-£3.00 an inch being a honest price.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 11:14:29
Again you have gone back to your trollish ways and are being silly.Why not make the licence a honest licence. By this I mean have the licence as a sort of radiation tax, the bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licence?Once again, you seem unable to tell a lightbulb from a TV set.
Surely the poorer people of the nation who cant afford huge televisions would then benefit from this and not mind paying a lesser fee that equates to their status in society.
Richer people with big televisions should pay more than a poor person with a small television. A fee could be set at x amount per inch, around about the £2.50-£3.00 an inch being a honest price.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 12:09:39
Again you have gone back to your trollish ways and are being silly.It's not trolling to point out that the radiation (deliberately) emitted by TV sets is light, and that they resemble light bulbs in this way.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 12:20:14
I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light, obviously a light bulb emits light the same as the television does.Again you have gone back to your trollish ways and are being silly.It's not trolling to point out that the radiation (deliberately) emitted by TV sets is light, and that they resemble light bulbs in this way.
I think we just got our wires crossed , it is how we read each others posts sometimes.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2018 12:38:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:12:17
I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 10:49:21
Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 10:59:29
Carrier signal = photonsNo. It really doesnt. Something else you are wrong about then.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:01:40
Yeah ok, there are no pictures on a television screen, don't you know how sight works?Carrier signal = photonsNo. It really doesnt. Something else you are wrong about then.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:07:15
Are you really that much of a fool?Yeah ok, there are no pictures on a television screen, don't you know how sight works?Carrier signal = photonsNo. It really doesnt. Something else you are wrong about then.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 12:53:00
Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 13:07:24
It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
You know that.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 13:10:00
If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
You know that.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 13:13:54
No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them . You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
You know that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 13:15:27
It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
You know that.
Why do you do that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 13:16:55
No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range.Astoundingly, he's right about this
All em radiation is quarantined- the photon emery for radio waves is tiny, but they are still photons.
The rest of it is still a crock.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 13:17:41
Electromagnetic waves are carrier signals, it contains information at the right frequency .It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
You know that.
Why do you do that?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 13:18:55
But according to your nonsensical idea, we see a picture on a tv screen because the transmission is of photons. You are therefore implying that the transmission is in the visible range. Do you also think that cable or You tube videos are transmitted over a wired network using photons?No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them . You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
You know that.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 13:21:33
A television emits wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation in the range of 400-700nm i.e visible light. And of course a network uses photons sent up a wire, the same as fibre optics work with sound.But according to your nonsensical idea, we see a picture on a tv screen because the transmission is of photons. You are therefore implying that the transmission is in the visible range. Do you also think that cable or You tube videos are transmitted over a wired network using photons?No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them . You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
You know that.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 13:28:23
You claimed that the carrier wave consisted of photons - now you are saying that televisions emit visual light. This is nonsense.A television emits wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation in the range of 400-700nm i.e visible light. And of course a network uses photons sent up a wire, the same as fibre optics work with sound.But according to your nonsensical idea, we see a picture on a tv screen because the transmission is of photons. You are therefore implying that the transmission is in the visible range. Do you also think that cable or You tube videos are transmitted over a wired network using photons?No you wouldn't , the photons are not within your visual frequency range. So you can't see them . You can detect them by having better eyes, i. e a device.If the carrier wave consisted of photons we would see TV transmitter aerials glowing due to the emission of visible light as a consequence of the photons emitted. They dont.It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.Arguably; but the carrier for TV signals is a UHF radio transmission. It certainly isn't light.Carrier signal = photonsI already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,You said this before.
And we pointed out that it isn't true before.
So why say it again?
Is this another of those cases where you're using a word, but don't know what it means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
You know that.
Fibre optics work with visible light yes - the clue is in the name. Transmission of a signal via a wire is completely different.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 13:29:32
But you said specifically that photons are the carrier.Electromagnetic waves are carrier signals, it contains information at the right frequency .It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
You know that.
Why do you do that?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2018 13:35:18
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 13:39:36
All the talk of carriers and photons makes no difference.
This is still wrong.
I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,
What gets transmitted and detected is a radio wave, not light.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 13:46:32
Well they are technically, they are super cool bits of information, information that can be detected and decoded by the brain or device.But you said specifically that photons are the carrier.Electromagnetic waves are carrier signals, it contains information at the right frequency .It is electromagnetic radiation, it is non-observable light by the eye, television emitted wave-lengths of light are what we detect in our brains as pictures.So, the bit about a carrier was just you putting a "sciency sounding" word in for no reason.
You know that.
Why do you do that?
But when I say photon, I am talking about field perturbations and energy spikes travelling through the field.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 13:47:39
hmm, a radio wave is light as well dude. Of the invisible spectrum type.
All the talk of carriers and photons makes no difference.
This is still wrong.I already said earlier the thread they are charging us a license fee to detect light,
What gets transmitted and detected is a radio wave, not light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 14:19:59
a radio wave is lightNo
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 14:28:00
Stop being stupida radio wave is lightNo
Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. ... At 300 GHz, the corresponding wavelength is 1 mm (0.039 in), and at 3 kHz is 100 km (62 mi). Like all other electromagnetic waves, they travel at the speed of light.