BBC Unsolicted Goods and Services Act 1971

[jimtib]

Hi Farmer,

I contract with VM on a monthly basis, I can cancel any VM services with one months notice. I can, for rebuttal purposes, go down that road (later if need be) and cancel my TV service only and just keep Broadband and 'Phone on-going. I didn't misunderstand your good idea, it's just that I prefer to go down the road of telling the Bullshitting Bastards Corporation up-front, on a one-off, don't come back basis to "sod-off because I dont want your BBC products, so I'm not paying for it". On a matter of principle, I see no reason why I should give up my TV and the entertainment it gives me, just for the sake off not wanting half-a-dozen BBC low quality and repetitive channels that I no longer watch. If you go down the "rebuttal" path, the org-bots will, as you know only too well, keep on chasing you, regardless of how many times you tell them to "sod-off".

I'm not sure of the legal aspect here as regards owning a TV (I'll look it up in detail later), I think it goes something like: "If you own a TV or any device capable of receiving TV signals, you MUST have a TV Licence. If that's the case, then we are paying for a licence to receive ALL TV signals and so the ONLY way out legally, is to get rid of (or hide) all TV receiving equipment. In other words, if you're not prepared to pay for a TV Licence to fund the spiteful useless pratts and crap programmes at the BBC, then you can't watch the bloody telly at all. The other thing (borrowed from Veronica) is that: If it (a TV) is fundamentally lawful to own under Common Law, then you don't need permission (a licence) from anyone to use it, particulary if I own it lock, stock and barrel.

What I'm looking for is HOW to go about it, i.e. how to construct such a letter/s that traps the BBC and/or TVLA into a corner by using Common Law Principles (as do Veronica's letters of rebuttal and debts) that cannot be undermined by "Statutes" and thrown out. Do I send them a NOTICE or an ordinary letter first etc? What I don't want, is to end up in one of their court de facto's where I'll get ripped apart just on factual evidence alone and end up seriously out of pocket and with a criminal record on my, to-date, umblemished character and still liable to pay for the TVL. I know Veronica is very busy with other things at the mo so I don't really want to bother her.

Best Wishes

James:

[Farmer]

Before they can do anything they need to have proof that you have a TV. Just because you are a subscriber to the Virgin service does not mean you have a TV; I gave you one example of how that could come about. As long as you do not let anyone into your home to allow them to check, and as long as you do not give them any information, and as long as they are not able to see through your window that you have one, they have no proof that you do. I am in my 50's and have never paid for a TV license. Just send them packing when they knock on the door, or bin any papers they put through the letterbox. Keep things simple.

[huntingross]

Add into all of that the fact "that you never knowingly watch live BBC TV" as all your viewing is via cable......and the whole thing is balanced on a pin head.....it's never going to stand up.

[jimtib]

Nice one Farmer/Huntingross. Problem is, can I get the bastards into a court de jure and test it? Another fact I just seen on the Forum in my other Topic is that cable TV comes just a couple of seconds later than a "live" broadcast. I actually know this to be true because my living-room TV is cable and my study TV is ariel connected and I can hear both from the hall simultanously and there is a very marked delay. So does cable TV constitute a "live broadcast"

James:

[gepisar]

Nice one Farmer/Huntingross. Problem is, can I get the bastards into a court de jure and test it? Another fact I just seen on the Forum in my other Topic is that cable TV comes just a couple of seconds later than a "live" broadcast. I actually know this to be true because my living-room TV is cable and my study TV is ariel connected and I can hear both from the hall simultanously and there is a very marked delay. So does cable TV constitute a "live broadcast"

James:

Thats an interesting point, and technically, if youre watching "live" on line, you 'need' a licence.

Just thought I'd throw in: yeah all this electro-mag waves cant be good. The comments about power-sub stations, mobile-phone masts are well documented elsewhere.

The thought,however, of not paying for something you dont use is .... well, I cant put words to it, but I've never used the M5,M62 motorways, A66, A5 etc...so why should i contribute to the RFL on the basis that I dont use all the roads. Infact, I only watch BBC1, so why should I pay for the full TV licence since I dont watch BBC2,BBC3 etc... Infact, Ive never used the NHS, and Ive never claimed a pension, nor drawn dole money. Come to think of it, theres no pavement outside my house, nor street lighting. So why am I paying any tax.I have no children, so close all the schools as well. Hospitals: since Ive never used one, i dont see why anyone else needs them...no, Im not paying for any of it.

Licencing seldom has ANYTHING to do with costs or production costs.

Examples:

Computer software, more features than you need... but licensed as a whole.

Database servers, not licensed per software, but by the number of processors YOU put in your server.

I think this is a tricky problem because you're right, and you're wrong.

Im sure you would agree, a PROPERLY administered taxation is a useful thing (if we insists on a debt-based currency). Afterall, there are those who DO need constant medication, help, assistances and compassion from our fellow humans, unless we adopt teachings of Neitczche (can never spell his name)

This IS a problem I have with the freeman model. If we do all unplug, and become self-sufficient, how on Earth will an individual ever "control" or effect the resources required to build a 200m quid hospital. Or pour billions of dollars (or equivalent work-research-man-hours) into cancer research...

Coming back to your point though, is it technically unsolicited?

If you had no equipment, you could not prove you were receiving e-m waves? You'd be none the wiser. (Not saying that makes it right though)

I think I might add: if you dont agree with the licence, dont engage with.

If you think TV is shit, start your own company.
If you think your PC software overpriced, write your own.
People have found great success "doing it themselves"...Lamborghini for example. EasyJet/Cruise/Money etc... another.
No doubt the "cartels" and monopolies will get in your way, and that IS the system we have, and I have every sympathy there.
If e-m waves are damaging your brain, prove it. I'll be right behind you on that one! (PS, i gave up mobile phones too)

[samsmith]

Another fact I just seen on the Forum in my other Topic is that cable TV comes just a couple of seconds later than a "live" broadcast. I actually know this to be true because my living-room TV is cable and my study TV is ariel connected and I can hear both from the hall simultanously and there is a very marked delay. So does cable TV constitute a "live broadcast"

James:

Hi jimtib,

The act states that the broardcast is live and nearly live to require the purchace of a licence.

You may have any tv receiving type of equipment and not require a licence if you do not use it for the above.

You may watch any recorded programe without a licence.

The licence is not for watching BBC programes but for receiving the broardcast signals irrespective of what channel or broardcaster is sending it. The BBC is responsible for collecting the money from the act and then using it for themselves.

Cable companies supply you with the decoding equipment to enable you to use the broardcast signal either direct from you home i.e. Sky dish, or through cables and boxes from the companies base.

The issue of having the account with a TV signal supplier i.e. cable supplier would be an interesting one to bring forward as once again it will be required for the TVL to prove you were watching TV when the charge was made against you.

I hope this helps it keeping you out of their clutches.

sam

[nethy02]

I had the pirates at my home after a 6 months peace from them. The enforcement officer knocked on my door at 20.30pm and started to threaten me with fines etc, he asked my name, I said its mine, why should I give it to you? He then asked if I had a tv, I told him to mind his own business and that thank you very much but I do not want a contract with him or his company, he requested to come into my home, I refused him entry, he then told me that I would be visited by a tv detector van, I replied to them why not bring the police as they wont get in eother. Dont be afraid they have it seems no power that we dont give them