It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TV License now required for Catch Up TV

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
then again he could have said he always mixes laxatives in with his tea, religious custom?




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigtrousers

if you like being told what to do all your life buy a tv license, whereas if you have a backbone and a good moral compass, dont buy a license.

simple simple simple.


I fully agree


The main reasons i dont pay for a license is because i dont have a tv and i also hate the bbc and have done for years, i refuse to give them money since the savile story broke.
I download what i want to watch now or use netflex from time to time, no stupid adverts every 10mins as well



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

I believe at the moment (and bear in mind this is only an opinion) that a smartphone would only fall under this is you had installed the BBC iPlayer application, in the same way that a TV only needs to be licensed if it is set up to receive live broadcasts.


That is my understanding of the law as well. I hope we are right lol



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Redback

originally posted by: bigyin

Do you have a smart phone ?

If so then you should have a tv license


I think i am missing something here...!!!!
Yes i have a smartphone, an ipad, a tablet and a laptop but i dont watch live tv which is what the license is for is it not?


I believe at the moment (and bear in mind this is only an opinion) that a smartphone would only fall under this is you had installed the BBC iPlayer application, in the same way that a TV only needs to be licensed if it is set up to receive live broadcasts.


You don't need to have the app installed to watch live broadcasts,you can do it from any browser.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
LOL I'd love to know how they would enforce this really, it's all mainly done with scare tactics, you have to be a bit stupid and outright admit something to get "caught". I am 35 years old, lived on my own since I was 16, I have purchased exactly 0 TV licences. I have received many letters with all kinds of wonderful fonts on, had some lovely doorstep chats but that's about it.

As it happens right now I don't watch TV and haven't for about 7 years... BUT, I still won't let this scum enter my home nor intimidate me. How do they think they will prove anything? I could watch live TV on my phone or Computer... Are these jokers expecting to go through all my devices and history? Lmao

They won't find cables installed but that doesn't mean anything... I had one guy come to the door, I told him I don't watch live TV, he asked to come in and at the time I had a cable box (virgin), I said no, but I will tell you I have virgin, and I watch on-demand with it! (Prove I don't fool) How would entering my home prove one way or the other? (This was years ago btw) He said okay what's your name, I refused and he said this to me "I make £40,000 a year mate, I couldn't give a damn if you have a licence or not!" so I said "good, so why are you still here?" He stormed off much to my delight! XD

Likewise today how would entering my home prove anything!?

Scumbags the lot of em and I smile a little every time I see a little brown envolope addressed to "the occupier", I quickly forward that to the recycling.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Redback
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

You dont need a license to watch netflix, you only need a license if you watch live tv or the BBC iplayer



Thought you needed one if you watch netflix o a TV?? If you watch it on the Internet, then that's different.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigtrousers

originally posted by: Redback

originally posted by: bigtrousers

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: Redback

The law is changing so if you use iPlayer you need a license.

The point is though just having a tv in your house will likely make you need a license whether you switch it on or not.

So does that mean having iplayer app installed, which sometimes comes as standard on some devices means you will need a license. I don't know. Just asking.


if we re a country run by the people then this extortion racket shouldnt even exist, bbc is pish compared to pretty much every other channel.

even ch5 has better stuff on it and thats always been free.


Fully agree BT apart from the ch5 bit, i know nothing about ch5.lol The BBC should be in a court of law explaining what goes on there and then should be closed forever.


the main reasons i dont pay for a license is more to do with their business practices rather than being stubborn for no reason, if the money went somewhere worthwhile then id agree with it, but most of it just goes to overpaying actors who have good mates high up in the production lot at bbc hq.

the way they deal with things makes me want nothing to do with the company, so glad they sacked top gear and now top gear is on prime, win/win for everyone.


This is where your info is wrong. Actors only get paid 'Equity' pay for TV as far I know. It's those other 'Celebs' and TV Presenters who get paid Millions!



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigtrousers

originally posted by: TDawg61

originally posted by: Gin
a reply to: reldra

Those guys were as annoying as Jehovah's witnesses. Brother of mine often threatened to offer them a cup of coffee steeled with laxative so they would stop bothering his family and their next victims.

Would have been hilarious and deserved but I fear may open your brother up to arrest.


biological terrorism or some such nonsense.


Nope, just good ol' fashioned poisoning with a 5 year prison sentence at stake.

s 24 Offences Against The Person Act 1861



24 Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person.

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude . . .


Laxatives would be considered "noxious" for the purposes of s24 because of the intent of administration to " injure, aggrieve, or annoy" (R v Marcus [1981] 1 WLR 774 applied).
edit on Ev55WednesdayWednesdayAmerica/ChicagoWed, 03 Aug 2016 09:55:14 -05006632016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I didn't read all 7 pages, but I'd like to say this, to clear a few misconceptions up.

it's not a tax.

it was set up when very few people had TVs, and the BBC was the only broadcaster. They are politically impartial, they are not govt funded. The licence fee pays for the BBC to function. If you have a device that can watch TV live then you're supposed to have a licence for this.
some people don't have a TV (or computer or phone), and don't watch TV, and therefore don't need a licence.
A Govt tax, say through wages, or NI, or VAT, to pay for the BBC would make them not impartial, they'd have to do what the govt say, and every one would have to pay, even those who don't have the means to.
The BBC is fantastic at what they do well (and yes they've done some bad stuff too), TV, Radio, Online, National, Local, and worldwide etc, etc

since who knows when 1970s? there have been other independent broadcasters (ITV, Chanel 4 etc), and now there's DVD, Video, internet streaming etc it would be very easy to have a TV and not watch live broadcast stuff from BBC, so I think the licence is outdated, and should be changed, maybe so that the BBC is pay per view, or monthly, annual fee, such that you can't watch it without paying, like SKY, or Netflix, etc. I fear that this would mean a lot less money for the BBC, and possibly it's demise, which is a shame.
There must be other revenue streams though? surely they sell the rights to things like Top Gear to other foreign broadcasters?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

originally posted by: Redback
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

You dont need a license to watch netflix, you only need a license if you watch live tv or the BBC iplayer



Thought you needed one if you watch netflix o a TV?? If you watch it on the Internet, then that's different.


I already pay a subscription to watch Netflix (£5.99 a month).How can the BBC charge me to watch someone else's content on my telly that I've paid for?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
They can licence our toasters for all it matters, they still dont have the power to enter your home. Dont even open the door to them or if you do, once they explain who they are just close the door without saying a word.

Pay for Paedophiles and pro PTB bs propaganda through a licencing system?...I dont #ing think so.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: bigtrousers

originally posted by: TDawg61

originally posted by: Gin
a reply to: reldra

Those guys were as annoying as Jehovah's witnesses. Brother of mine often threatened to offer them a cup of coffee steeled with laxative so they would stop bothering his family and their next victims.

Would have been hilarious and deserved but I fear may open your brother up to arrest.


biological terrorism or some such nonsense.


Nope, just good ol' fashioned poisoning with a 5 year prison sentence at stake.

s 24 Offences Against The Person Act 1861



24 Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person.

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude . . .


Laxatives would be considered "noxious" for the purposes of s24 because of the intent of administration to " injure, aggrieve, or annoy" (R v Marcus [1981] 1 WLR 774 applied).


what if the "poisoner" was to not be aware of the laxatives powers and only intended for the tea to be sweetened? what if he had always made his tea with added lax? "when in rome" ,at college we put 24 laxative tablets in the tutors kettle, didnt work though, just ruined their kettle LOL.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
dp
edit on 4-8-2016 by bigtrousers because: dp



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigtrousers
i will add that the tutors were alot less asshat like for the rest of our days there lol.

they were quite a power tripping bunch till we realised they need us just as much as we need them to keep our jobs lol, we had to do alot of work in a short space of time (equivalent to a physics degree) in the space of a year.

they always threatened to phone our bosses if we misbahehaved, we were throwing chairs at eachother for most of the first block lol, but then it just makes them look bad if they cant control 13 "adult" men.

catch 22, we had to find a balance of clowning around and the tutors eventually learned to live with it.

i miss college.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join