aris Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) Here is a video. NHK are the Japanese equivalent of the BBC. Make of that what you will :-) I still maintain it is technologically possible to do - particularly for CRT's. But i don't think the BBC have ever done it. Edited July 5, 2013 by aris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 If it was Indeed possible to do given the massive budget the BBC have and the many thousands of broadcasting innovations they are responsible for worldwide over the years why would you think they haven't done it? Surely being at the forefront of broadcast technology it would have been a walk in the park for them? And more importantly if they don't have the tech as you believe and all the evidence suggests than what else have they been lying to the population about for the last 40 years and why? It similar to withdrawing a statement made to the police, when they know you have lied once you become an unreliable witness and nothing you say will be believed , like telling people they need a licence to watch any other channels when the charter states differently? It's just a giant stealth tax that pays for all the government propoganda they feed people on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delburt0 Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 Ooh, I bet travellers don't have tv licences ...........+ 1 boils down to the working man rolling over again to pay every walk of life including peodophiles , my views anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 can you show me where in this act it says that part four seems to be the relevent section http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents Section 363. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 until i see it in the act i wont believe it any thing else is not the law, anyone know of any case law or presidents that support this? I don't recall Mr Obama ever voicing an opinion on British TV licensing law. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 I would recommend that you write to TVLA, which is Capita btw, and tell them that you withdraw any implied right of invitation to attend your property by them or any of their agents and, should they do so, you will call the Police to remove them under a complaint of trespass. Never allow anyone into your property to check your license. The reason that I say this is because they are agents on commission. They make a profit if they can convince you to buy a license, whether you need one or not, or they make a profit out of any prosecution. In other words, they stand to profit from the visit and it's up to you to prove your innocence. A very dodgy legal precedent. Detune yout telly because if they can get any reception at all, no matter how bad, then they'll prosecute or sell you a license for the above reason. Capita (TVLA) will normally write to you respecting your wish but say that still retain the right to prove, by any other means, that you're watching telly. P.S. You don't need a license to own a television any more than you need a license to own a car. It's only if you drive the car on public roads that you need a license. B) You do NOT have to prove your innocence. They have to prove that you were breaking the law by watching TV without a licence. There is no need to detune your set. If you don't switch it on then you are not engaging in a licensable activity. If the man from Capita comes round and switches your telly on then he will commit thw offence not you! J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 If it was Indeed possible to do given the massive budget the BBC have and the many thousands of broadcasting innovations they are responsible for worldwide over the years why would you think they haven't done it? Surely being at the forefront of broadcast technology it would have been a walk in the park for them? And more importantly if they don't have the tech as you believe and all the evidence suggests than what else have they been lying to the population about for the last 40 years and why? It similar to withdrawing a statement made to the police, when they know you have lied once you become an unreliable witness and nothing you say will be believed , like telling people they need a licence to watch any other channels when the charter states differently? It's just a giant stealth tax that pays for all the government propoganda they feed people on The Communications Act says quite clearly that you need a licence to receive any television broadcast, not juust those by the BBC. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy bingo Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 do not let them in your house and do not admit to owning a telly at all also don,t tell them your name when you answer the door and don,t tell them if you live there or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 do not let them in your house and do not admit to owning a telly at all also don,t tell them your name when you answer the door and don,t tell them if you live there or not Reasonable advice but if they can see a TV switched on through the window you are screwed. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 The Communications Act says quite clearly that you need a licence to receive any television broadcast, not juust those by the BBC. J. i realise that , but the charter was only granted to the beeb which is why they don't need to survive from advertising , somewhere along the line a royal charter got turned into a royal scam where they can charge everybody for every channel which defeats the purpose of the fee , does an act of parliament over rule a royal charter? all the money collected from the fee was supposed to pay the beeb to ensure the people of this country recieved an unbiased honest perspective of what goes on in the world today which they very clearly dont. I dont know about royal charters or claim to have any real knowledge of legislation and law but unless its been withdrawn arent there some underhanded tactics afoot here ? if the beeb and government are subverting a royal charter in order to extort money from everyone is that not in itself illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy bingo Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Reasonable advice but if they can see a TV switched on through the window you are screwed. J. common sense springs to mind and depends what is showing on the tv could be a play station etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 common sense springs to mind and depends what is showing on the tv could be a play station etc Well, obviously. If you are watching TV programmes though then you are screwed. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy bingo Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Well, obviously. If you are watching TV programmes though then you are screwed. J. the whole point of this thread is giving up the tv licence because you don,t watch tv ,if you are watching tv as you posted then its obvious you need a tv licence or you will be liable for prosecution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopDown Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Only if it is live. Catch-up on iPlayer or similar is perfectly permissible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Section 363. J. still dont see anything that says it has to be live tv or that no licence is required to watch recorded tv from catchup or the internet, show me where it says that, or is there a case law where the judge has made that decission if so that would be acceptable Edited July 7, 2013 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 still dont see anything that says it has to be live tv or that no licence is required to watch recorded tv from catchup or the internet, show me where it says that Here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 And here are some fibs http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/detection-and-penalties-top5/ Hand held detector devices and a fleet of vans no less! I can build a DF loop and track down transmitted signals by triangulating but received ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 ok jonathanl may have a point it seems possible that he is correct heres the legal bit http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/made but theres still issues of burden of proof dont know if theres any case law on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8/ thats not law, im only interested in where it says it in law i think we found it but thanks anyway Edited July 7, 2013 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 " 16. The BBC state that to release information which relates to the number of detection devices and how often they are used will change the public’s perception of their effectiveness. If the deterrent effect is lost, the BBC believes that a significant number of people would decide not to pay their licence fee, knowing " The answers given for exemption to the FOI act , " will change the publics perception of their effectiveness" that's bovine fecal matter if ever I read it ! Here is the FOI request document it came from http://www.ico.org.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50154106.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) The BBC with its licence fee is a typical old-world state leviathan: huge, wasteful, jealously resentful of the commercial sector, shamelessly political, driven by a sense of entitlement and funded by extortion. Why is it not possible to do away with the licence fee and democratise the national braodcaster by encoding all BBC transmissions so that they can only be viewed, or heard, through a decoder which is paid for by annual subscription by those who want to receive commercial-free BBC programmes? If Auntie Beeb is the national treasure it imagines itself to be, every household in the land will have a decoder and its funding will remain little changed. Of course I'm a cynic and everyone else knows the Beeb is scrupulously impartial and fantastic value for money, untainted by nepotism, driven by a public service ethos and staffed by real-world professionals; and not a charlatan organisation at all, or a free soapbox for the establishment Left. What have they to fear from open competition? Edited July 7, 2013 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 still dont see anything that says it has to be live tv or that no licence is required to watch recorded tv from catchup or the internet, show me where it says that, or is there a case law where the judge has made that decission if so that would be acceptable Dealt with in section 368(3). Using a television reciever is defined as using it receive television programmes. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 the whole point of this thread is giving up the tv licence because you don,t watch tv ,if you are watching tv as you posted then its obvious you need a tv licence or you will be liable for prosecution Yes, but the post of your's to which I replied gave the impression that you were detailing what you should do in order to not get caught using the TV illegally. If you were not using it illegally there is little reason to lie about owning a TV as you do not need a licence for that. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy bingo Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yes, but the post of your's to which I replied gave the impression that you were detailing what you should do in order to not get caught using the TV illegally. J. no j sorry if mislead my point is if you give up your tv licence and do not watch live tv and a rep comes you do not have to let him into you home to chech anything and you do not have to answer any questions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northamptonclay Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 What if you watch sky go on a device in your house from your mums sky account ? , is that covered by her licence as its her sky account 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.