TV Licence debate - Statutes Vs Laws

[Conniff]

Could you please enounce the legal codes where you base what you're saying?

 

If you think I am going to play your stupid games, think again. Just try it and see. You want to see laws and statutes, you go dig them out.

[jdes26]

My mistake statues are not common law

Statutes are made by parlaimant

[Bazooka Boo]

You want to see laws and statutes, you go dig them out.

 

Ha ha

 

Gany, which part in particular are you referring to?

 

All of it?? Policed/governed by consent??

[Ganymede]

 

Gany, which part in particular are you referring to?

 

All of it?? Policed/governed by consent??

 

 

Yeah all of it.

[jdes26]

Bazooka boo

I think u are a true inspiration

I like your style!!!!

[Bazooka Boo]

OK Gany,

 

This might take a while!!

 

We are policed by consent, which is indicated when a copper reads you your rights OR asks you 'do you understand?'

Understand is synonymous with 'stand under'. So when they say do you 'understand' by replying 'yes' you are standing under 'their' rules.

 

By stating 'NO' I do not consent to 'your search' 'this arrest' 'the taking of DNA''Blood samples' or 'to be placed on any database' you then put them under strict oath, which is that unless you are committing a breach of the peace, committing harm or loss to an individual, they then have to stand under the oath they swore at their attestation to uphold common law, not statutes, not legislation, and certainly not what they have fabricated on the spot.

 

But the initial question was about the TV licence, which, if you fail to pay for, is, IN MY OWN OPINION, not against the law, it may well be against legislation, but is certainly not breaking the law.

 

A little like smoking on public transport, buses etc, it's not against the law, which is what all the signs state, it IS against legislation, and if you are caught then it will be legislation that they attempt to force on you first, then once they get Joinder (you confirming your name 'mr' mrs' miss' etc ) they are then able to use that legislation against you, because you have given it the force of law because you consented and we are governed.

 

Does that make sense??

[Ganymede]

And here's me thinking you were going to point me to some facts and not some crazy opinion.

[Bazooka Boo]

It isn't my opinion Gany.

 

Just because it goes against everything that you have been led to believe, doesn't make it a crazy opinion.

 

I am very confident in the knowledge that I know what I am talking about, I have used this method on more than one occasion.

 

I agree that because it goes completely against the grain of what we are taught and led to believe, it does sound off the wall, but I will stand for what I believe in, even if that means I stand alone.

 

So to try and get this thread back on topic, the BBC believe that every address in the country should have a licence, regardless whether or not you have a TV, if you have a computer a games console or even a mobile phone, they want you to have a licence.

 

The best way to deal with the BBC is to have no contact, there is no legal requirement for anyone to reply to any letters they or anyone else send.

 

 

 

 

 

So in conclusion of all the above, the BBC/TVL can ask for a response, but they cannot compel.

The expression 'TV licence' is a misnomer, as a TV does not require one, or they would be issued at point of purchase. The licensing requirements is for the receiving of television broadcasts.

 

The legislation ( Not Law) is worded;

(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

 

(2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

 

(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who -

 

(a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

 

(b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence.

(Communications Act 2003, chapter 21, part 4)

[Ganymede]

Why do you keep saying that legislationis not law?

 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an Act of Parliament is.

[jimmyley]

To whoever censured and removed my last post:

 

It was irony.

It was an exaggeration to highlight an exaggeration of another post, get it?

Why was it removed?

 

Also, this is supposed to be a consumer forum but the word **** is automatically replaced without warning?!

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

The site has language filters that are put there for considered reasons and yes, they change certain words automatically.

 

Trying to cirmcumvent the filters is only going to cause problems, I'm afraid. I've edited what you wrote above because it was designed to get around the filter.

 

 

My best, HB

[jimmyley]

Thanks for the reply HB.

Are we allowed to speak about those reasons?

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

I'm afraid all I can say is that the site owners have decided that they don't want certain words used and that they have their reasons. I hope you will appreciate that they have the final say in matters concerning the site.

 

HB

[Bazooka Boo]

Why do you keep saying that legislation is not law?

 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an Act of Parliament is.

 

Sorry Gany, I am very happy with my understanding of what is and isn't Law.

 

Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, the Law that claims you must have a licence under the communications act, is simply legislation, this is given the force of law by the consent of the governed.

 

Nowhere in that does it say it is law, it is given the force of law but it doesn't say it is law, statutes and acts of parliament are simply rules they have made in order to control our behaviour, whenever we do something which they disapprove of they then make up another rule (Act) to attempt to stop us from doing so.

 

This kind of healthy debate allows me to reinforce what I have learned and what I know, you don't have to agree, there are plenty of others who are unwilling to accept that they have been lied to all their lives.

 

I'm simply imparting some of my knowledge on this highly emotive subject of TV licencing and how they are duping people into believing that to not have one is somehow breaking the law, it isn't, it is breaking the rule that the government has made.

[Conniff]

This kind of healthy debate allows me to reinforce what I have learned

 

These are the jokes folks

[Bazooka Boo]

These are the jokes folks

 

Meaning?

[jdes26]

Bazooka boo is correct

Just like the CSA!!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 9, 2012 by honeybee13
Removing potentially contentious word.

[jdes26]

Obviously some people on this forum like being controlled

[Ganymede]

Sorry but you sound like some kind of bearded, left wing nutjob.

[Bazooka Boo]

Sorry but you sound like some kind of bearded, left wing nutjob.

 

I'm not sure who that snipe was directed at?

 

The OP posed a perfectly sensible question, about statutes and Laws, to which others including myself have given an opinion on.

 

You don't have to agree with it, continue following the rest of the sheeple and bow down to the lies you are fed.

 

I have shared my understanding and knowledge on what is and isn't law, your not being forced to believe it, and therefore I am going to continue giving other advice, IMO this post has run it's course as it has now degenerated into snide remarks from those who can't see the wood for the trees.

 

I wish you luck.