[guest39538]

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.

They cover this deceit by the enforcement of the communications act 2003.

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.

(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.

[Colin2B]

https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Television+Receiver

[Bored chemist]

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?

[evan_au]

I understand that a large part of the license fee in the UK goes into government funding the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which produces a range of television and radio programmes (I watch Dr Who & listen to Brian Cox, both BBC productions).

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.

“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.

[Colin2B]

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

[guest39538]

Quite clearly the act, is devised by the government for ''personal gain''.     Quite clearly the unwanted signal cannot be removed, believe me I have asked.
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.

[guest39538]

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?

No it's true, why have the government got a vested interest in television to create an act?  Our leadership is moonlighting as businesses.
No doubt the government are not paying tax on this business and are illegal traders.

[guest39538]

P.s And it does not state a criminal offence, it says only offence, an offence to whom exactly?


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

[guest39538]

Acts of Parliament
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. 

[Colin2B]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

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. 
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.   

[guest39538]

Any person can counter claim they are not watching television, they can claim they are detecting for space emissions under scientific experiment.
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.

[Bored chemist]

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 tax

To whom would the government pay tax?

Television licensing failures should not result in a legal court case with no jurisdiction of rights.   I

It 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 trespass

No it is not.

They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling.   

They don't.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.....

So who are you gong to sue?

[Bored chemist]

Every object in your house is emitting microwave radiation.
Are you going to sue those too?

[guest39538]

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.....

So who are you gong to sue?

I would sue the broadcasters.   They blatantly are affecting the Earths entropy .

[guest39538]

Every object in your house is emitting microwave radiation.
Are you going to sue those too?

Do I need a licence to detect microwave radiation emitted by objects?

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.

[Bored chemist]

As I said,

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.

[guest39538]

As I said,

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.

I  am not in a court case for one.  Second, I understand the many ways a system can change.