NLBS #36: The Totalitarian New World Order Starts in The UK, and it's Starting Now!

a reply to: TechUnique

The person in the video is me by the way lol I may as well disclose that now.

Had a feeling it might be lol

a reply to: TechUnique

It is definitely happening and has been documented. It isn't spoken about much though which is surprising.


Courts Jail 107 People For Not Paying BBC TV License Fines

Basford pensioner sent to prison for not paying council tax

It's all a bit up in the air, but it is definitely happening. I have a friend who was in prison for a few years, and someone he bunked with was there for either not paying council tax, or not paying T.V license, I can't remember which. I'm pretty sure it was T.V license though.

Sorry dude but again you are a little of the mark with your facts.

No one goes to prison for not paying their TV licence as its not an imprisonable offense. The penalty is a max £1000 fine and that is it. But if you then refuse to pay the fine that the court has given you can then end up in jail. But the reason is non payment of fines rather than not having a TV licence. This is the same for any fines on any offense.

a reply to: solargeddon

Get out of here, I have spent my entire life believing this to be true, I have even questioned whether this were possible (internally), but am sad to say I sheeped out on this one.

I believed!

I hang my head in shame and anger at being duped and lied to, so techinically they cannot ascertain whether you are watching tv or not.

Interesting, what happens if you refuse access to you property, to prove there is no telly?

Yes it seems that way, at least for the last 30-ish years. Even if they did have working vans they would not be able to use them as evidence in court as its an invasion of privacy.

There has never been any 'detector evidence' presented in court to do with TV licenses.

If you refuse entry what theu usually do is come back with the police. But this does not give them any more right to enter the property. They 'request the police attend to prevent a breach of the peace' and this is usually enough to scare the home owner enough to let them in because they think the police are enforcing the right of entry. Its a bully boy scare tactic which almost always works. If you then still refuse to let them in (and manage not to get so agitated that you get arrested) they can apply for a search warrant from the magistrates or sheriff, but this is super rare.

a reply to: TechUnique

I really meant it as a joke (think My Fair Lady movie - "Oh, why can't the English" song), sorry I meant no offense.
I wont argue Americans have slaughtered our mother tongue as well, in fact we haven't spoken English in years)

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
No one goes to prison for not paying their TV licence as its not an imprisonable offense.

Jail, not prison, for refusing to pay the fine.

From just a couple weeks ago...
Victims of the TV licence bully boys: Women are far more likely than men to be prosecuted for TV licence dodging, and the reasons are deeply worrying

The licence fee raises £3.72 billion a year for the BBC. It is illegal to watch or record live television using a TV, computer, tablet or even mobile phone if you are an adult under the age of 75 without a licence. While the offence normally results in a fine, it is not punishable by imprisonment. But you can be jailed for non-payment of a fine — with about 50 offenders a year being jailed.

In any event, the possibility of detention for non-payment of fines related to TV licensing is a minor footnote in the primary subject of the video: combining the draconian intense surveillance-state policies with policies to find ways to keep people from leaving. Using DRIPA to alert border agents about overdue bills so that citizens can be denied exit, and how that begins to fill the knock-list of NWO prerequisites, is the main point here.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

lol both English and Americans have almost non understandable accents in places.


I can understand Rab c as i used to live in Scotland.


I have an American girlfriend from the south and it took me a while to suss that accent out lol

a reply to: PhoenixOD

There are people in prison right now who would think you're being extremely nitpicky.

These people are serving prison sentences as a result (even if not a direct result, but an ultimate result) of not paying T.V license.

The fact of the matter is, the goverment/system/whatever is supporting this, and will enforce law on those not willing to pay the BBC with severe penalties.

This amounts to totalitarianism and paves the way for a new world order/police state where we have no basic rights of travel and we can be imprisoned for civil offenses. That is the main theme of both videos, my original video and especially the NLBS video.

Hope that has cleared things up for you because you seem solely set on a few rather moot points.

a reply to: TechUnique

There are people in prison right now who would think you're being extremely nitpicky.

There are people serving prison sentences as a result (even if not a direct result, but an ultimate result) of not paying T.V license.

and there are plenty of people that would think you are being over simplistic in the presentation of your facts.

People dont go to jail for not having a TV licence like you claimed, if you are going to go on a rant and be taken seriously you have to be correct in what you are saying. I hope that clears things up for you as well.

Maybe we should get back on track with some of the more factual points presented in Joes video about the boarder patrol attempting to stop people leaving the country if they owe money (for whatever reason..)

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Plenty of people? I disagree but yes, lets carry on.
Second.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Haha no probs, was merely pulling you up on it I wasn't offended
God bless you.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Unlike the US there is no real difference between jail and prison in the UK. We dont have city/county jails and federal prisons.

In the UK if the police decide you are a major flight risk, theres a risk you will hurt yourself or others or commit further offences they can put you on remand until you go to court. This is usually in a police station or hospital for a couple of days until they find you a place in a remand wing in a real prison. People on remand have a lot more rights than people in prison. They are allowed to have people bring them in drinks, magazines and cigarettes etc. But this is only until they are sentenced. If they receive a custodial sentence they go to prison.

Career criminals love to get remanded because the time spent on remand is taken off the eventual sentence and its a lot easier than jail.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

That's still belaboring a really minor point of a side context issue mentioned in the video.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: PhoenixOD

That's still belaboring a really minor point of a side context issue mentioned in the video.

Agreed. It's taken up a great portion of this thread but alas, I won't mention it anymore, as I'm just throwing fuel onto the fire by responding. It's just a shame people are focusing so much on what I consider to be moot points, when there are really important issues to be discussed in the video.

Anyway.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

All due respects i was just replying to what you posted about the prison/jail distinction.

Basically Cameron is going to continue to whittle away our liberties blaming the less fortunate for the failings of the past and present governments. All the while giving more money and rights to his rich buddies.

He has very cleverly turned one half of the country against the other. Personally i blame the middle classes as he has convinced anyone who is not as well off as them is the reason why their money is not going as far as they would like. The current government in power is one of the most toxic for a long time.

What the middle classes dont realize is most of these new laws apply to them as well, one slip up and they will be in the same position as the less fortunate.

a reply to: TechUnique

Sam you keep saying you wont mention it anymore and then after the fact you take every opportunity to have a dig and then you complain about any responses.

Just let it go and get back on track like i was in my last post. lol

I think an important question is what is the end game here? Does the government really want to stop people (most likely the less fortunate member of society) leaving the country for holidays if they owe money or is it just a way to get support from the upper and middle classes to allow them to pass more invasive laws that will ultimately extend way beyond the original plan and effect everyone?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
I think an important question is what is the end game here? Do the government really want to stop people (most likely the less fortunate member of society) leaving the country for holidays if they owe money or is it just a way to get support from the upper and middle classes to allow them to pass more invasive laws that will ultimately extend way beyond the original plan and effect everyone?

I deal with that sort of theme in my original video.


Also as Joe said, if you give them a little they'll take a lot. I do think it's more to do with testing the population to see their response to these ridiculous laws.

For those who might not know the legal process going on, it is highly likely that this UK law will be overruled by the Court of Justice of the EU. Here's a brief timeline of the situation up to now:

2006: Data Retention Directive became law for all EU nations. Supposedly to make us safe after the Madrid and London bombings.

April 2014: The Court of Justice declared the EU data retention directive invalid. This was a directive originally to harmonise member states laws and there was a combined case from Ireland & Austria questioning it. The court ruled:

It states amongst other things that the retention of data required by the directive is not such as to adversely affect the essence of the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.

EU Court of Justice website PDF

July 2014: The UK government, forced to review its own legislation by the EU Court, panicked and rushed through emergency law in only 3 days: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 which is the legislation under discussion in this topic.

Same month, two Members of Parliament David Davis (Conservative) and Tom Watson (Labour) supported by Liberty formally applied for a judicial review at the UK High Court.

December 2014: Judicial Review granted by Mr Justice Lewis at the High Court with further support and submissions from Open Rights Group. This means there will be a full hearing with power to reject the emergency laws set in April.

The EU Court of Justice was clear about privacy with mass data harvesting, and the UK must comply with it's rulings.
The UK High Court Judicial Review is part of this slow process now, so although I share the opinion of 15 Law Accademics in an open letter to Parliament that it is illegal under EU law, the case will take a while to be heard, and right now the Government can 'technically' do what they like.

Yes it is pretty bad (potentially) but the drama is strong in this topic. The fascist/police state cries are a bit premature when it is likely the government will lose the case.

...oh and as for TV licensing, I haven't had one for over a decade. They write to me every two weeks or so and knock my door once a year max. I tell them I do not watch live broadcast television and advise them to leave my property or I will use reasonable force to eject them, as I legally can. They comply. They need reasonable suspicion to get a warrant from a court and not having a TV licence is not reasonable suspicion on it's own. Detector vans hahaha! Oh my gosh, I didn't realise anyone still actually believed that! Lol.

a reply to: TechUnique

The way our government usually works is to propose a really crazy set of laws and then after a public outcry they take a small step backwards which people then accept.

You quite rightly mention in your video that it may go beyond non-payment of fines into general debts owed to private companies. I see it as a problem of invasive data collection and private information sharing between all the government agencies which will extend well beyond financial matters.

a reply to: abe froman
Star. I hadn't heard of this before, but it's true. And it certainly adds to the legitimacy of some things revealed in this video by exposing already existing trends.
I did find that instead of $1500 it's actually $2500. But here's a government link. travel.state.gov...
If this is already a thing in the US, then I'm much more inclined to believe what NLBS claimed about the UK in the video.