Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NaRvIcK DeViL

I've A Confession To Make I Have Not Paid The Tv Licence Since 1992

Recommended Posts

I've a confession to make I have not paid the TV licence since 1992 <_< . Since 1994, I’ve had no letters or visits .I live at the top floor of a 3 story block of flats; I have 2 TVs 2 DVD players ,2 video recorders ,1 freeview box and 1 with a 160GB hard-drive. Up till 1992 I had worked and lived abroad from America, Canada, France, Hong Kong, On returning to this country I could not believe that I had to still pay for the right of the BBC s existence whether I liked it or not .I was even more infuriated knowing that the BBC around the world was financed through voluntary subscription.

BBC America, Canada, India etc are going concerns and a very lucrative one at that! Only here in the UK is its existence assured by a nice little earner that you’re conditioned to call a licence when it’s blatantly a tax on every home that wants to have and use a TV.

On top of all this are the blatant lies that are told to endorse the policing of this anachronism which includes the detector vans and hand held detection devices which to be honest is the biggest load of bull anyone can dream up and the paying public seem to lap this total crap up, it’s as bad as the myth, if not worse than you being told that to get the new freeview digital channels you will have to upgrade your aerial to a new digital one ,there is no such thing as a digital aerial . I myself, I’m still using 2 old indoor aerials and have no problem receiving these channels even though on buying a freeview box with hard-drive it said on the box that it wouldn’t work without a external aerial. Please don’t forget that the new digital channels are on reduced transmission strength until the old analogue signal is finally switched off, you may find that if you live in areas that have already switched that your digital signal strength has increased.

Now if you want to be in the same situation as me where you won’t have to bother ever again paying this tax the steps to accomplish this are very easy indeed and there are 2 rules you should follow one is the - No Contact Rule and the other is the Removal of the Implied Access.

To get yourself started, I suggest you visit: -

http://www.tvlicensing.biz

With a bit of savvy they won’t be able to prosecute without ‘You’ complying to their non-existent authority.

Couple of facts they don’t want you to know:

*The Number of prosecutions they claim to do every year 140,000 is a, full in your face blatant lie they are lucky to do 10 to 14 thousand. If you have IQ higher than ex president Bush Junior which is about the size of my manhood, do the maths, the courts would be totally clogged. For a start!

*You DO NOT need a license to own a TV/Video/DVD/Radio/Computer (even with a tuner card)/Mobile phone(not yet !)- the license is only to grant you permission to receive broadcasts live i.e. at the same time as they are transmitted. Watching a program that is recorded on a Tape, Disc, Hard-Drive is perfectly legal.

*Their TV licensing officers, have no more rights than an out-dated door to door salesman putting a foot in your door as you try to slam it shut in their face.

If you are unfortunate enough to open the door to one of these goons then simply say now’t and I mean now’t don’t even acknowledge their existence (if you can resist making witticisms) and close the door. They DO NOT have any right to enter your home. They DO NOT have any right to force you to answer questions- the people to whom convictions are attributed are those who have stupidly confessed. Remember it is they that have to prove you have committed a criminal offence and to enter your home requires a warrant from the courts- trust me this is very burdensome, time consuming and costly, with the magistrate requiring a "good degree" of certainty that a crime has been committed i.e. seeing you physically watching live TV and they’ll need a witness.

One day I hope the licence will go and good riddance- it’s well out of date and the BBC knows this only too well. Some people may choose to subscribe to one/or many of their channels as they do around the world, which I did when I was living in the east coast of the United states- the news coverage you watch here in the UK ‘BBC News 24’ is for our consumption and the countries close to us that can pick up our transmissions which they receive for nothing. Ireland, Norway, Denmark etc and parts of Northern France .The rest of the world gets BBC Worldwide which comes with adverts and to be honest once you’ve watched BBC WW you’ll finally realise that our news should be called "We don't lie to you ! we just miss out alot"

The key here is CHOICE. and not the illusion of choice with a stick over our heads, lets kill off this draconian and unethical stealth tax before the next Royal Charter is renewed because if we don’t this tax will evolve where it will not only rise in cost (Rate of inflation ignored as usual) but the other media companies ITV, Channel4, etc who have already stated they should get a slice, “Will Eventuallyâ€.

Hey’ it’s the British way we have a nice gravy train going here which the repressed, compliant people of Britain except, so let’s take advantage of it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B.B.C. / Cee Big Brother is the ultimate 'Orwellian' piss-take by the Oc-cult!

They make the ignorant masses/ population pay Xtra £££'s for their OWN indoc-trin-ation and made to listen to the Occult's brainwashing propaganda!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the BBC, and am more than happy to pay the license fee.

RA_DA

Richard Attenborough + David Attenborough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old TV sets use super het receivers (I've designed one of these myself in the past).

Superhets mix down the different channel frequencies into a standard frequency for the receiver. They do this using a mixer and a local oscillator. For example TV signal comes in at 60MHz, TV receives at 40Mhz, so local oscillator is tuned to 20 Mhz to mix down the 60Mhz signal to 40MHz.

The local oscillator frequency is transmitted back into the aerial and is radiated. Thus it is possible to detect the lo frequency and establish whether a tv is being used and what channel it is tuned to. By moving the van you can triangulate the position of the telly to within a couple of feet.

Whether this is possible on a digital set I don't know. It depends whether the signal is directly digitised or whether there is an analog downmix before the digitisation process.

Haven't seen any detector vans around for ages, so maybe the Beeb don't waste their time detecting anymore.

But it was never a myth. Old tellies could be detected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the BBC, and am more than happy to pay the license fee.

Whether the BBC should be state funded is one thing; the fact that watching a TV without a licence is a criminal offence is quite another, especially as you can own one and never watch the BBC. If the BBC needs state funding then it should be funded out of general taxation, not by criminalising people through failing to buy a licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the BBC, and am more than happy to pay the license fee.

Well you pay it then.

Maybe they should make it optional and encrypt the BBC channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Well you pay it then.

Maybe they should make it optional and encrypt the BBC channels.

You're not paying for the BBC.

You're paying to receive TV signals.

The fact some of the money then funds the BBC is neither here nor there.

Pay it or don't watch the TV and get rid of it. Simple.

It's a bit like these people who believe their tax is for public services.

It's not. It's a membership fee for living in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're not paying for the BBC.

You're paying to receive TV signals.

The fact some of the money then funds the BBC is neither here nor there.

Pay it or don't watch the TV and get rid of it. Simple.

It's a bit like these people who believe their tax is for public services.

It's not. It's a membership fee for living in the UK.

Some of it?

In order to have a TV I have give pots of money to the BBC. The other channels are commercial entities who don't get any of that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old TV sets use super het receivers (I've designed one of these myself in the past).

Superhets mix down the different channel frequencies into a standard frequency for the receiver. They do this using a mixer and a local oscillator. For example TV signal comes in at 60MHz, TV receives at 40Mhz, so local oscillator is tuned to 20 Mhz to mix down the 60Mhz signal to 40MHz.

The local oscillator frequency is transmitted back into the aerial and is radiated. Thus it is possible to detect the lo frequency and establish whether a tv is being used and what channel it is tuned to. By moving the van you can triangulate the position of the telly to within a couple of feet.

Whether this is possible on a digital set I don't know. It depends whether the signal is directly digitised or whether there is an analog downmix before the digitisation process.

Haven't seen any detector vans around for ages, so maybe the Beeb don't waste their time detecting anymore.

But it was never a myth. Old tellies could be detected.

Okay, fair enough, TV's of that type could be detected. However, detecting a TV being operated is one thing, detecting specifically where it was at the time and who was using it to the relevant criminal standard is an entirely different proposition.

You park your TV detector van in a street and detect a telly which appears to be on unlicensed premises. You move it a few feet down the road so you can triangulate its position. To plot it's precise point you would need very precise grid coordinates at both points in the street you parked that van to be able to prove where the telly is. Even then, how accurate can you be? Our telly is in the corner of the room next to the wall adjoining next door. If next door has their telly against the same wall then it's only a matter of maybe four feet away. Can the van prove exactly who's telly it was detecting?

I asked this question before on here, I think. That being, how many convictions have there been based solely upon evidence supplied by TV detection equipment? I'm still waiting for the answer. Surely there must have been at least one in the 50 plus years these things have allegedly been in use if they are all they're cracked up to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Some of it?

In order to have a TV I have give pots of money to the BBC. The other channels are commercial entities who don't get any of that money.

Incorrect.

Most of the money goes to the BBC but Channel 4 and a few others also receive some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're not paying for the BBC.

You're paying to receive TV signals.

The fact some of the money then funds the BBC is neither here nor there.

Pay it or don't watch the TV and get rid of it. Simple.

It's a bit like these people who believe their tax is for public services.

It's not. It's a membership fee for living in the UK.

Technically and legally you are. However, the fee is to fund the BBC and the BBC is responsible for collecting it. That's why it exist and why the BBC need a Royal charter.

It should not be a criminal offence to watch TV without a licence. The very idea is archaic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrect.

Most of the money goes to the BBC but Channel 4 and a few others also receive some.

They get a tiny amount. I believe that the only benefit C4 get is free access to the transmitter network.

It is still utterly inequitable in the day and age for it to be a criminal offence to watch TV without a licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

What next?

Are we going to moan about not being able to drive without a licence or own a shotgun without a licence?

Grow up.

Want to watch TV? Any of it?

Yes --> Get a licence.

No --> Don't get a licence and don't own any TV equipment either.

Want to pay the licence fee?

Yes --> Pay and watch TV.

No --> Don't pay and don't have a TV.

It's not hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, fair enough, TV's of that type could be detected. However, detecting a TV being operated is one thing, detecting specifically where it was at the time and who was using it to the relevant criminal standard is an entirely different proposition.

You park your TV detector van in a street and detect a telly which appears to be on unlicensed premises. You move it a few feet down the road so you can triangulate its position. To plot it's precise point you would need very precise grid coordinates at both points in the street you parked that van to be able to prove where the telly is. Even then, how accurate can you be? Our telly is in the corner of the room next to the wall adjoining next door. If next door has their telly against the same wall then it's only a matter of maybe four feet away. Can the van prove exactly who's telly it was detecting?

I asked this question before on here, I think. That being, how many convictions have there been based solely upon evidence supplied by TV detection equipment? I'm still waiting for the answer. Surely there must have been at least one in the 50 plus years these things have allegedly been in use if they are all they're cracked up to be?

I have no idea about the legal issues. Re the localisation, it may be possible to detect the LO inside the set, but it is more likely that you would detect signals coming from the aerial. Track the aerial down to the telly and there you have it. I suspect that the detection only forms part of the evidence.

In general I would agree with you that direction finding is probably not that efficienct a way of tracking down tv licence evaders because of the legal constraints, but for the record, I wouldn't underestimate the accuracy of this technique in order to precisely pinpoint sources of rf radiation. I don't rate myself as anything special in the rf engineering deparment, but I reckon I could localise signals down to a very high degree of precision. Many people are now dead due to poorly suppressed rf signals emissions.

As an interesting aside, yes people can and do triangulate mobile phone signals :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What next?

Are we going to moan about not being able to drive without a licence or own a shotgun without a licence?

Grow up.

Want to watch TV? Any of it?

Yes --> Get a licence.

No --> Don't get a licence and don't own any TV equipment either.

Want to pay the licence fee?

Yes --> Pay and watch TV.

No --> Don't pay and don't have a TV.

It's not hard.

Your arguments are insane. Watching TV is not remotely comparable with driving or gun ownership. These things are licensed because of a need or desire to control who drives or owns guns. Driving licences are required to make sure that people who operate motor vehicles are trained to a given standard (and are only required if you are in public) and shotgun certificates are required so that the state knows who has them in case they ever want to confiscate them.

The only reason for the TV licence is to finance the BBC. There is no threat to public safety or the peace by using an unlicenced TV, not by any stretch of the imagination. If the BBC needs public finance then it should be funded out of general taxation. The idea that you can get a criminal conviction for watching TV without a licence is abhorrent and, to be honest, somewhat ridiculous. Needing a licence to watch TV is the same as needing a licence to read a book. It's just so Orwellian it's ridiculous.

You also, obviously, don't know that law. You do not need a licence to own a TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea about the legal issues. Re the localisation, it may be possible to detect the LO inside the set, but it is more likely that you would detect signals coming from the aerial. Track the aerial down to the telly and there you have it. I suspect that the detection only forms part of the evidence.

In general I would agree with you that direction finding is probably not that efficienct a way of tracking down tv licence evaders because of the legal constraints, but for the record, I wouldn't underestimate the accuracy of this technique in order to precisely pinpoint sources of rf radiation. I don't rate myself as anything special in the rf engineering deparment, but I reckon I could localise signals down to a very high degree of precision. Many people are now dead due to poorly suppressed rf signals emissions.

As an interesting aside, yes people can and do triangulate mobile phone signals :ph34r:

I can accept that, no problem. Mobile phones are triangulated from known, fixed positions - ie; the transmitter towers which do not move and can be shown in Court to have been at a fixed location at any given time.

How though, do you do that with a mobile detector van? Mr prosecutor rocks up at Court and is asked to show from where the signal was triangulated. How can he possibly show the precise spot on the road at which a reading was taken?

The question of convictions as a result of detector evidence is one which has intregued me for ages. I might write to various places; BBC, TV Licensing, CPS, Police, etc, and try and get some figures on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
You also, obviously, don't know that law. You do not need a licence to own a TV.

Note I said that you need a licence to receive TV signals. Not the same as owning a TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can accept that, no problem. Mobile phones are triangulated from known, fixed positions - ie; the transmitter towers which do not move and can be shown in Court to have been at a fixed location at any given time.

How though, do you do that with a mobile detector van? Mr prosecutor rocks up at Court and is asked to show from where the signal was triangulated. How can he possibly show the precise spot on the road at which a reading was taken?

The question of convictions as a result of detector evidence is one which has intregued me for ages. I might write to various places; BBC, TV Licensing, CPS, Police, etc, and try and get some figures on it.

Dunno - maybe take a photo of the van, or have a notary record the position ? In the end it comes down to "reasonable proof".

I'd be interested as well whether there are any sole convictions on this data. I suspect though that they use the detection as a pretext for other action - ie we detected a signal and that gave us reasonable grounds to enter etc.

Also they may say we detected signals coming from the property on such and such dates, then we entered and found a telly - all adds up to a compelling case rather than be conclusive evidence on its own.

Good luck with your search !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that makes no sense is that you need a license to watch live webcasts (shown simultaneously with TV), but not if you are watching post-broadcast. So the license stretches its tentacles well beyond radiowaves

I dont think many would accept an internet license fee or a magazine license fee, payable to a state-owned provider of news (or "news").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note I said that you need a licence to receive TV signals. Not the same as owning a TV.

You said;

"Want to watch TV? Any of it?

Yes --> Get a licence.

No --> Don't get a licence and don't own any TV equipment either.

Want to pay the licence fee?

Yes --> Pay and watch TV.

No --> Don't pay and don't have a TV.

It's not hard."

You do not need a licence to own a TV whereas your statement clearly says that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
You said;

"Want to watch TV? Any of it?

Yes --> Get a licence.

No --> Don't get a licence and don't own any TV equipment either.

Want to pay the licence fee?

Yes --> Pay and watch TV.

No --> Don't pay and don't have a TV.

It's not hard."

You do not need a licence to own a TV whereas your statement clearly says that you do.

TV is a receiver.

"TV" is different from "monitor".

You can buy equipment that can only be used to watch pre-recorded materials and not receive transmissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note I said that you need a licence to receive TV signals. Not the same as owning a TV.

That just makes it sound like even more of a scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What next?

Are we going to moan about not being able to drive without a licence or own a shotgun without a licence?

Grow up.

Want to watch TV? Any of it?

Yes --> Get a licence.

No --> Don't get a licence and don't own any TV equipment either.

Want to pay the licence fee?

Yes --> Pay and watch TV.

No --> Don't pay and don't have a TV.

It's not hard.

Why would you bother obeying a law which is unenforceable? Anybody who pays the TV license is a mug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.