The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. The science of a t.v licence
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

The science of a t.v licence

  • 105 Replies
  • 7107 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9019
  • Activity:
    76%
  • Thanked: 886 times
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #20 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 licence
There is a bit of technology around how the regulators discover unlicensed receivers.

But TV licensing is mostly politics, not science.
Logged
 



Online Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21418
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #21 on: 25/02/2018 20:48:09 »
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 20:28:20
I  am not in a court case
You will be if you get caught watching telly without a license.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 20:28:20
Second, I understand the many ways a system can change.

There are many things you don't understand.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:21:41
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:40:21
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:42:47
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 "
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 06:28:51
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:42:47
No doubt the government are not paying tax
To whom would the government pay tax?

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
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.


Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
It is not a criminal offence because it is not stated.
Breaking the law is an offence.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
a business forcing a signal on you cannot be a victim,
No such business exists.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
the people being forced to comply would be the victims,

And, once again, nobody forces you to watch TV so nobody is extorting anything.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
As a business, the government is in trouble.
It isn't a business.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 15:53:24
A violation of entropy and it may even cause a person to time dilate, killing us off quicker.
Hogwash.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:16:03
Under common law a transmitted carrier wave signal that was entering your dwelling is an aggravated trespass
No it is not.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 16:51:21
They have no right to beam a signal at/in mine or anybodies else's dwelling.   
They don't.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline RD

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 9092
  • Activity:
    12.5%
  • Thanked: 151 times
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #22 on: 25/02/2018 21:47:00 »
Quote from: Colin2B on 25/02/2018 16:43:53
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
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #23 on: 25/02/2018 22:20:26 »
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 ?

Logged
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5248
  • Activity:
    27.5%
  • Thanked: 430 times
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #24 on: 25/02/2018 22:46:44 »
Quote from: RD on 25/02/2018 21:47:00
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.
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 



Offline atbsphotography

  • Genius of stupidity.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 82
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I either have a brilliant mind or a very bad one.
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #25 on: 26/02/2018 05:44:24 »
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.
Logged
Find me on Instagram - atbs_photography. I sometimes post really cool pictures of the moon.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11034
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 635 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #26 on: 26/02/2018 10:17:24 »
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.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2018 10:29:19 by alancalverd »
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #27 on: 26/02/2018 10:52:20 »
Quote from: atbsphotography on 26/02/2018 05:44:24
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.
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #28 on: 26/02/2018 10:58:49 »
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.


Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #29 on: 26/02/2018 11:08:08 »
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)
 
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #30 on: 26/02/2018 11:15:49 »
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. 
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #31 on: 26/02/2018 11:37:36 »
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 .
Logged
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11034
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 635 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #32 on: 26/02/2018 12:40:37 »
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
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.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11034
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 635 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #33 on: 26/02/2018 12:46:31 »
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."
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #34 on: 26/02/2018 17:32:37 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 26/02/2018 12:40:37
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






Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #35 on: 26/02/2018 17:54:20 »
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 .
Logged
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21418
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #36 on: 26/02/2018 19:58:52 »
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:52:20
It is an act , not a law.
What do you consider to be the difference?
(The courts probably think you are wrong, BTW)
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
The common man considers the BBC a business,
So does the law. So what?
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
there should be no legal way a business can force a service on you

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
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?

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:58:49
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).
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 11:08:08
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 11:15:49
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...

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:32:37
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:32:37
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.

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:32:37
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.
Quote from: Thebox 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.
As far as I'm aware, the government is not in the business of running pubs or off-licenses.
Was that just you being wrong again.

Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 17:54:20
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #37 on: 26/02/2018 20:09:41 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 19:58:52
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?

Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #38 on: 26/02/2018 20:12:57 »
Quote from: evan_au on 25/02/2018 20:40:07
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.
Logged
 

Offline The Spoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 617
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The science of a t.v licence
« Reply #39 on: 26/02/2018 20:49:03 »
Quote from: Thebox on 26/02/2018 10:52:20
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.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.239 seconds with 81 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.