[evan_au]

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.

The science of a t.v licence

There is a bit of technology around how the regulators discover unlicensed receivers.

But TV licensing is mostly politics, not science.

[Bored chemist]

I  am not in a court case

You 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 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.

[RD]

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 1963 times)
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

[guest39538]

They state something like, you have to have  a licence to watch the programming being broadcast  ''live'' at the time.

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 ?

[Colin2B]

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.

[atbsphotography]

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.

[alancalverd]

Consider this: you pay all sorts of taxes which the government misspends on your behalf. Whether you support a war or not, they pay the army. In a civilised country (not the USA) they pay for hospitals whether you are sick or not. There's no point in complaining because democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, most of us are happy with the mess we live in, and there are plenty of other places you could live with fewer taxes, though ownership of a television may be illegal where ISIL reigns, and the Popular Republic of almost anywhere takes a dim view of the BBC.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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?   

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.

[guest39538]

This is a list of government-owned companies. A government-owned corporation is a legal entity that undertakes commercial activities on behalf of an owner government. Their legal status varies from being a part of government to stock companies with a state as a regular stockholder. There is no standard definition of a government-owned corporation (GOC) or state-owned enterprise (SOE), although the two terms can be used interchangeably. The defining characteristics are that they have a distinct legal form and they are established to operate in commercial affairs. While they may also have public policy objectives, GOCs should be differentiated from other forms of government agencies or state entities established to pursue purely non-financial objectives.

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)
 

[guest39538]

Police state
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. 

[guest39538]

The people v government, the people request an immediate vote of no confidence.   

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 .

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

Old story, told by my mum.

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."

[guest39538]

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.

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

[guest39538]

Let us look at alcohol, the government allow the sales of this and get paid well in duties.  Now the government and everyone knows alcohol is the worse drug of all.  Everyone knows that people lose control when drunk.   Everybody knows the police are up town on a weekend, a part of their jobs to collect revenue in fines by using the previous mentioned ambiguous use of ''swear'' words.
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 .

[Bored chemist]

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 you

there 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.

[guest39538]

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.

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[The Spoon]

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.