Cuban8 Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 As we were wandering off Topic a bit elsewhere (sorry) and there was mention of a way of circumventing the hated TV Licence, here is a paragraph from the reminder email that the Beeb sends out.... What is a Licence needed for? To use any TV equipment to watch or record any TV programmes as they are being shown on television. This includes watching or recording streamed services and satellite TV broadcast from outside the UK. If you only watch on-demand services, then you don't need a licence. Yes, if you could guarantee that none of your TV equipment would even for a moment receive a live broadcast, no matter where it may be sourced from, then I suppose that's true. In reality I doubt that it's easily possible......or is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marsh Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I never had a TV licence at all since I moved in. Don't watch brain dead TV. The only program I watched (downloaded it on Torrent Bay) was Top Gear and Air Crash Investigations. As Top Gear looks in jeapardy, I would not buy a licence for one program, which is only on 6 - 10 times a year. I buy Blu-rays(DVD etc) and watch what I want to watch when and no adverts. When The TV man came round a few years ago to follow up on my request not to have a TV licence, he agreed that he doesn't watch TV, and only has it for his wife. He said, as long as I can't receive a live broadcast it's alright. And had to prove, which wasn't hard, as the aerial was cut off and when press the keys on the TV remote -came "no signal". I shows him then watch I watch - in Hi def DTS EX 7.1 surround. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 They always tell us the quality and impartiality of the BBC means it's a bargain also you have no adverts...well most adverts are better than the programmes. Do's the BBC make a profit ? if so where's my share ? If not get shot of it, same as everything else we used to own. And why are they called Freeview sets when I still have to pay John P.S 32 inch Panosonic for sale BMFA insurance not required Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 You don't have to let the "inspectors" in if they call round anyway they have no more powers of entry than you or I calling at someone`s house, you can send Capita (A private company the BBC employ to collect their revenues and do their dirty work) a letter removing their implied rights of access to your property. Then if they do even come onto your garden you can treat them as a trespasser and remove them if you so wish The only way they could catch you was if they are able to stand on public land and see in through your window to watch you watching TV, then they would have to prove you were watching a live broadcasted program. The detection vans they pretend to have are a myth. There has Just been a court case where a man refused to pay his Licence but admitted to watching live broadcasts, who used anti terrorism legislation to fight his case, saying that where on 9/11 the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Centre 7 building, (the one that wasn't hit by any aeroplane, the only concrete and steel skyscraper to ever collapse due to just fire, that fell at freefall speed like in a controlled demolition, where the owner Larry Silverstein (who, every day had breakfast at the window to the world restaurant on top of the WTC but on 9/11 just happened to go somewhere else, and who`s 2 kids worked in the WTC buildings but just happened not to show up for work that day) said to the fire brigade take your men out we`ll "pull it" ) 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. He had to pay court costs and was given a 6 month conditional discharge, but the Judge didn't make him get a Licence or pay any money to the BBC Edited By Codename-John on 29/03/2015 20:10:05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Posted by Percy Verance on 29/03/2015 19:53:14: Well John, if the BBC's a bargain then what does that make the other tv companies, whom charge us nowt? And yes, I agree, get shot. For years now I've thought the BBC lacked drive and vision. They just don't seem to have the gumption to come up with novel, entertaining or vaguely interesting programmes anymore. How the head honcho justifies his huge wedge I'm damned if I know......... Edited By Percy Verance on 29/03/2015 19:55:07 When they are subsidised by us...where's the incentive to up their game ? John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I'm surprised no one's yet mentioned Sky. They really are rip-off merchants and they have adverts! Suffice to say we only have FreeSat & FreeView at our abode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I agree Bill, but you can opt out, which I did long ago. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Posted by Codename-John on 29/03/2015 19:58:10: There has Just been a court case where a man refused to pay his Licence but admitted to watching live broadcasts, who used anti terrorism legislation to fight his case, saying that where on 9/11 the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Centre 7 building, (the one that wasn't hit by any aeroplane, the only concrete and steel skyscraper to ever collapse due to just fire, that fell at freefall speed like in a controlled demolition, where the owner Larry Silverstein (who, every day had breakfast at the window to the world restaurant on top of the WTC but on 9/11 just happened to go somewhere else, and who`s 2 kids worked in the WTC buildings but just happened not to show up for work that day) said to the fire brigade take your men out we`ll "pull it" ) 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. He had to pay court costs and was given a 6 month conditional discharge, but the Judge didn't make him get a Licence or pay any money to the BBC I beg your pardon? I'm afraid you've lost me here, John! Why did the fact that a tower block fell down in the USA mean that an alleged licence dodger in the UK was not convicted for the crime? What am I missing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 What's John been drinking/smoking/injecting ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Section 15 of the 2000 terrorism act says - (1)A person commits an offence if he— (a)invites another to provide money or other property, and (b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism. (2)A person commits an offence if he— (a)receives money or other property, and (b)intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism. (3)A person commits an offence if he— (a)provides money or other property, and (b)knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism. (4)In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration. He based his case that by reporting the collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened ( you can look it up, the building is over the reporters left shoulder as she says it has collapsed ), the BBC must have had prior knowledge of the supposed "terrorist attack" and by pro actively covering up facts that contradict the official theory ( by making programs trying to ridicule any other cause ) since the event, they were aiding and abetting whomever actually carried it out. By him then giving the BBC money he would have committed an offence under section 15 above. Also if the judge made him compensate the BBC in any way, then he would himself be committing an offence under section 15. As I said, the bloke had to pay court costs but the Judge did not award the BBC a penny or make the bloke get a licence. Edited By Codename-John on 29/03/2015 20:52:50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Where is this case recorded ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Sunday Sport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Posted by PatMc on 29/03/2015 20:46:00: What's John been drinking/smoking/injecting ? Yorkshire tea, white, no sugar ? It was a bona fide court case you are welcome to look it up if you so wish - **LINK** **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Posted by PatMc on 29/03/2015 20:55:38: Where is this case recorded ? Not on the BBC Obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 The Daily Fail - the guy was found guilty - given a 6 months conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs. The BBC were not awarded any money because they wouldn't be in this case - they are not a beneficiary of the prosecution. Just another paranoid nutter in my opinion. - opps! sorry I meant charming English eccentric! File along side the "grassy knoll" crew and the "the USA never landed on the moon" crowd. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyh Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 did he wear his tinfoil hat to court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 There is a very simple answer. Reach the age of 75 years old! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted March 29, 2015 Author Share Posted March 29, 2015 I could get rid of my Tivo Box and remove the coax from the TV and then only rely on an internet connection to view catch up. Trouble is via the internet I can still get access to a live broadcast from the BBC's news channel or NASA TV's live feed from the ISS, for which according to the blurb from the BBC I need a licence! I doubt they'd believe you saying "I never watch them", so while I have an internet connection I can still get live TV and need to pay up. In the case of watching on a laptop, I suppose it would be classed as television equipment. Reckon they've got all the angles covered. Edited By Cuban8 on 29/03/2015 21:14:20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Posted by Codename-John on 29/03/2015 20:59:48: Posted by PatMc on 29/03/2015 20:46:00: What's John been drinking/smoking/injecting ? Yorkshire tea, white, no sugar ? It was a bona fide court case you are welcome to look it up if you so wish - **LINK** **LINK** The links are even nuttier than the Sunday Sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.