Get Rid of TV Licence's
Noting discounts listed for over 75 and people in residential homes at https://www.gov.uk/free-discount-tv-licence and look into definition of supported housing as links off the government web site to tv licencing lists supported housing also for the per room prices, as different wording listed on both, noting tv licence blurb
'As a manager of a residential care home, supported housing or sheltered accommodation ... An accommodation for residential care (ARC) concessionary TV Licence costs £7.50 per room, flat or bungalow. You can download forms to make a new application or add a resident to an existing scheme.
To see if your scheme qualifies for an ARC licence, please check below.' https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk//check-if-you-need-one/business-and-organisations/residential-care-homes-aud14 date noted thar reference was 11/12/2018, and i think licence over £150 now.
Musings aside over discrimination laws, such as age inter alia
And noting references on web saying tv licences started 1st June 1946 at £2 and first tv broadcast in 1928, tv invented 1st september 1927? By philo taylor Farnsworth?. Silent movie era according to at least one essay writer on Wikipedia was 1895 to 1936
Thus tv licence concept introduced late. Remember prohibition in the states bring over turned and cost of falling tech prices while others increasingly inflate over rpi index's
Forcing people to buy one stops competition thus becomes unfair competition, breach of monopoly for service dont wish to use.
Too Expensive, out dated and there is no point to them anymore, as it's unfair competition and the BBC never covered all the People, as they selectively helped some political groups over others and their is more then one method of delivering content to people.
Remember you don't need to have one if you own a TV and don't use it to watch TV. i.e. you only use it to play computer games or watch DVD's which you can do on a computer, so why bother with a TV anyway? DVD lending libraries where you get sent one out to watch before returning are so much cheaper as well.
And yet the evil tv licencing authority is trying to twist the wording to stop people watchin anything with their tick box statements in an attempt to try and get round a settled dispute to encroach on everyone's territory again.
we shouldn't be taxed for running our own wireless networks, ethernet or for chatting among our selves, for running cctv networks and making them publically accessible online or for uploading our own video content which we share between friends.
for example if i opened a port up for my CCTv video network, and let a friend have a log in, and they decided to view the stream over the internet on a tv over their broadband cable then it gets awfully gray with TV wording as is.
which is why my fall back is obviously article 10 (freedom of expression), the right to association, and of course anti competitive practices law, and they are having a laugh.
Noting that the BBC has a long history of support in some areas noting web references to bbc transmitter being bombed in december 1956 by ira in Londonderry, without reference as to the why? Bbc Pissing people off then and now are they?
No seen cited what their reasons were,
[that being said I myself do get annoyed at any nption of funding a service at gunpoint under the threat of incarceration that keeps the rest of those agencies who eetaun and torture people without evidence, charge orctrial in as well as the censorship and any ommisuons which allowed starvation of people such as me rather then letting people be heard but that's opening the argument up, and tabloid press guilty of that as far as those trying to do grnocide under mental heath rather then shutting that torture system down in its entirety and wll those judges and senior execs who allow it to continue ruining lives, someone just said housewife wouldn't know what I was talking about even if the female judge they flagging up does, what was the ira bitching about? As I gave issue with legal system, torture murder hy services the nhs and of course starvation and homelessness also, as im assuming anyone who blows anything up as well as court houses has a gripe? How far did those wars go notwithstanding Nuremburg trials to stop that type of thing occurring but that's more mental health argument currently as Britain spending fortune to stop people like me writting bews site facilities and or compiling encyclopedias arguments law cases to ve transparent and home office services scary as hell regarding break ins, via locks and hits on laptop computer also, all to stop themselves been thrown in prison for their previous crimes in earlier decades, and the ones they still mounting up that's less directed at tv licensing currently but same argument in one fumded at gun point amd threat of fear while fear, break ins dobe to shut anyone small up as the mainstream press cover ongoing british atrocities up to keep those torturers in money and power for life, that lot breaking in to plant viruses and damage equipment going too far, however if Britain is going to continue to kill people by planting contaminants in homes and destroying equipment id be tempted to argue damage they did as percentage of income of the person, and work out what sake percentage was in all parlinentry recipes who fund those organisations black op teaks breaking in for a notion of equality their and to defend against hirs back, I prefer self defense hut too many seem to he cqoable of murder to jeep the nhs and torturers in power in Britain and the justice system rather then respecting pripert allowing people to build up and stopping Britain and,those working ib government from fucking people or building services infrastructure to speed people up or make,everyone's lives easier is fair game, but that's perhaps going off on tangent depending on what anyone says, either way spending fortune to ruin lives which is what gets them into that mess and yet those torturers in the legal system and psychology still havent gone down]
Tesco and other stores are selling films for £3 or less now, and you can pick them up in Cex for 50p as well so just ditch the things and there is way too much censorship on their news sites as well in the comments section.
in fact CDEX is selling dvds for 50p or even 25p. that 280 dvd a year and even then and I Certainly don't watch that much, and given people have the ability to put payment mechanisms or stop people viewing content if not logged in, I think the world service catch up service stuff is taking the piss (I wouldnt watch bbc on what ever their player is caused or at any other time) and think the entire licence law thing needs to be thrown away.
Also I was glancing through those statutes, and am curious about all the definitions which are scattered all over many statues which in itself makes the law untransparent and therefore unenforceable (another reason to throw out of court in my opinion)
but what are tv frequencies, what is the definition of a tv program, and please not the differences on how a blind person is charged less then a sighted person (which sounds dodgy under equality law) but normal vision of a turned off tv involved frequencies of light being picked up, and they have never claimed to be taxing normal vision (of a turned off computer, box) which opens up a huge can of worms on frequency, definitions and the entire bullshit extortion racket of the fascist BBC, TV licencing and everyone else who tries to force their crappy over paid content on people, what salaries they on these days, hundreds of thousands, while people on welfare, upload far better content to youtube and on their own web sites for free!
I don't see why those BBc individuals should be paid anything for the work others do, given everyone else did a far better job in my oppinion, was given everyone else more impartial and didn't censor people like they did! and erode and extort from others illegally again. notwithstanding some organisations might have done, but I think some people on planet earth might still be ok, possibly, perhaps! well would like to think so anyway.
licencing concept a joke and they are trying to extend going from the dodgy wording htey are using on their notv section as well. so I think they need to rethink their logic again and leave people alone, to live in peace.
Replace it with advertising, product sales and subscription channels as I don't care about watching that propaganda network anymore.
Arguments against, but the broadcasting infrastructure needs to be paid for - ok keep it then for that if your using it, but you shouldn't need to pay for a tv licence if your watching via an alternative network i.e. over the internet or satellite. which is a completely different infrastructure and people organisations do pay for their own network cable. (Admittedly the queen is charging the tax payer £369 million for rewiring her property) while a load of others paid for their own ethernet cables themselves, but that is digressing onto another issue.
End TV licencing today and let creative people live and work together in peace with the threat, fear of fascist morons trying to blackmail money out of you.
Just another campaign for freedom in that bid for first democratically elected president of Europe which was argued for so long ago.
Due to TV Licencing having sent out one of those threatening letters
i am having to revisit what people are arguing again, as i cant seen anything in uk statute covering definitions or anything they are trying to claim, so am going to assume they are defrauding the people.
tv licencing have no copy of the statute which they cite on their web site and the government statute databse appears to not have any amendments passed, so concepts like equality of law and article 6 right to a fair trial get really interesting when reflecting on animal farm, as i visited their web site prior to that letter to say notv at their notv link and after they take name and addresses they try to get you to sign a tick box declarations which do not relate to anything that has been argued elsewhere, as gets into murky cctv, and video messaging territory depending on definitions (no definitions anywhere) and how a corrupt totalitarian regime would twist things at a later, date) so not happy as we all know that some judges fuck some people over while treating others differently and that any notion of equality in the law appears long gone, if it ever existed so I have attempted to resolve it on twitter when i cc'd the news article into the licencing account to ask them to update their database to no tv.
meanwhile i mussing over concepts, like anti competitive practices, harassment, equality of arms principle, how some countries learnt to scramble the tv single if the needed. (to charge for decoding keys) and what logic (their is none) for trying to charge for people using other countries, or other infra structurers which would receive no cash anyway) as well as the hypocrisy of those whoa rgued against the bbc allowing adverting when in fact they advertise certain large companies brands on their letters already (See news article)
according to esa article geostationary satellites which are capable of transmission (downlink), receiving (uplink) are located 36,000km above you in orbit.
apparently (so im told from reading around other sources) that their can be 360 gestostationary at k(u?) band satellite in orbit, at 1 degree spacing (as they have to be spaced so far apart to stop signal interference) and was so looking at what other countries had done.
this article cites geostationary 402 satellites in geostationary orbit
Noting price of satellite dishes, for pointing at satellites in geostationary orbit staring at around £22 when looking on amazon. and satellite finder boxes for locating them at £6.99 assuming not sold together meaning their is a lot of other network infrastructures out there beyond the bbc world service.
however that being said, nowing my look, if trying to tune into one of those 402 geo stationary orbiting satelites id probably end up with a fast radio burst instead from another star system when trying to tune it in.
on that note, is seti being billed for trying to pivk up a broadcast, or are they being funded instead? make a note, i perhaps really ought to research that.
reading wikipedia on satellites. they listed the following information:
That On October 18, 1979, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began allowing people to have home satellite earth stations without a federal government license.
restrictions were altered in 1986 when the Federal Communications Commission ruled all restriction on satilite reciving dishes illegal.
In October 1984, the U.S. Congress passed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which gave those using TVRO systems the right to receive signals for free unless they were scrambled, and required those who did scramble to make their signals available for a reasonable fee
The necessity for better satellite television programming than TVRO arose in the 1980s. Satellite television services, first in Europe, began transmitting Ku band signals in the late 1980s. On 11 December 1988 Luxembourg launched Astra 1A, the first satellite to provide medium power satellite coverage to Western Europe.This was one of the first medium-powered satellites, transmitting signals in Ku band and allowing reception with small(90 cm) dishes for the first time ever. The launch of Astra beat the winner of the UK's state Direct Broadcast Satellite licence, British Satellite Broadcasting, to the market, and accelerated its demise.
73] On November 1, 1988, NBC began scrambling its C-band signal but left its Ku band signal unencrypted in order for affiliates to not lose viewers who could not see their advertising. Most of the two million satellite dish users in the United States still used C-band. ABC and CBS were considering scrambling, though CBS was reluctant due to the number of people unable to receive local network affiliates. The piracy on satellite television networks in the US led to the introduction of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This legislation enabled anyone caught engaging in signal theft to be fined up to $50,000 and to be sentenced to a maximum of two years in prison. A repeat offender can be fined up to $100,000 and be imprisoned for up to five years.
Note Research act, if government intercept communication, does that mean act used on them?
On 29 November 1999 US President Bill Clinton passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA). The act allowed Americans to receive local broadcast signals via direct broadcast satellite systems for the first time.
The Act modifying the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988. SHVIA permits satellite companies to provide local broadcast TV signals to all subscribers who reside in the local TV station's market. SHVIA also permits satellite companies to provide "distant" network broadcast stations to eligible satellite subscribers.
obviously each country is differ, but Britain is incredibly dodgy, as people pay for broadband monthly as is, so i don't see how anyone justifys trying to tax undermine the people, other people worth researching might be nikolas telser and him wanting to broadcast electricity many years ago.
as well as research on how radio not requiring licences, and yet fm frequencies being mentioned on satellite transmission, as well as patents on humans being able to pick up microwave transmissions in their head as audio. when looking at obscure patents like
as i comment that i have not seen an organic TV set or laptop yet, so not sure how anyone can comment on "live" tv and thats getting dagerously close into trying to tax clairvoyants for seeing images in their head, as open up the can of worms on differences of price with live and blind people and uk torture suppression on mental health wards. (As well as scrying dishes and crystal balls) regarding right to communication, association and to speak and associate with with other people, entities intelligent or otherwise)
bbc just an extortion racket , if they ever did offer any quality of services they would send sales literature out trying to woo people back with all the good things they do, and yet instead the only language they seem to understand is threats, intimidation and force to get people to fund them, which generally makes them an over paid abomination of epic proportions, as in short they are trying to stop people pay their hosting bill to pay theirs instead, and that is oh so wrong.
Tracked down regulation text:
Amendment of regulation 9
6.-(1) In regulation 9 (meaning of "television receiver")(10), for paragraph (1) substitute-
"(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise)-
any television programme service, or
an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,
whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for any other purpose.".
definition tracked down on balli.
2016 No. 704
The Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
6th July 2016
Laid before Parliament
7th July 2016
Coming into force
1st September 2016
See news story with cafufel with tv licensing check boxes when notifying no licence needed on their tvlicense.co.uk web site.
Last Modified Date:
Remember The Sex Tree and it's Members Don't Necessarily Support The Above Campaign
You Can Also Switch Your Vote At Anytime. To Vote Simply Sign In or Register