[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

Spacial frequency was not what I thought it meant, thanks.

[guest39538]

If we pay taxes, and the government uses our taxes to support the BBC, aren't we technically the investors anyway?

[Bored chemist]

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.

Spacial frequency was not what I thought it meant, thanks.

It's usually a good idea to find out what a phrase means before you use it.
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.

[Bored chemist]

They are carrier signals

No.
They are modulated carriers.
It really would be better if you went away and found some stuff out, rather than posting nonsense here.

[guest39538]

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.

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.
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?

[guest39538]

They are carrier signals

No.
They are modulated carriers.
It really would be better if you went away and found some stuff out, rather than posting nonsense here.

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.
Nonsense is corrective , corrective is educational.

[guest39538]

It says here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

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.

[guest39538]

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?

They are fining people for something they own...

Do I win?

[guest39538]

And where is my share of Revenue   Increase£4.954 billion (2016/17)[1]?

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,

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

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.

[Bored chemist]

And where is my share of Revenue 

It 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?

They are fining people for something they own...

Do I win?

No,
No and No
respectively.

[alancalverd]

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?

They are fining people for something they own...

Do I win?

The BBC is owned by the licenceholders, not the government or the entire population. No licence, no rights.

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. 

[evan_au]

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...

TheBox

In 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...

[alancalverd]

And don't forget that the TV licence pays for all BBC "free to air" services including Test Match Special (the only civilising influence in the world), the shipping forecast (a better aphrodisiac than cocoa) and BBC local radio, including Radio Cambridge which is the  fons et origo (as we say in the local dialect) of this forum. So if you object to the TV licence, foro excede  statim.

[Bored chemist]

the shipping forecast (a better aphrodisiac than cocoa)

I'm trying to work out how much of that is irony.

[evan_au]

  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/

[guest39538]

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?

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. 

[evan_au]

The bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licence

Radiation 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...

[guest39538]

The bigger the radiation source the more expensive the tax licence

Radiation 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...

Since when do you need a licence to watch youtube?

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?

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.

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/

[Bored chemist]

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?

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.

Once again, you seem unable to tell a lightbulb from a TV set.