Fighting BBC Scotland, Cancel Your TV License Today .

[WWTC 2,260]

Appears so..

Mental eh.

But 1000 more doin it will sure show those fat cats at city hall!

[bigj9659 4]

I give you the BBC...............http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4574690832154818&pid=15.1

[DNW 26]

BEARS DEN!!!!!

Sorry Bogtrotters

Been wanting to do that for a while. LOL

Loved the photos.

Anymore???

[dougie76 15,375]

It is a law passed through parliament. Whether some rebels feel the need to abuse a man or woman for doing a job, then so be it, I certainly will not.

The only power the people have is voting the numpties into Parliament. Once that is done, your power is revoked and you must abide by the laws of the land or face whatever consequences come your way.

You don't need to abuse anyone just tell them you don't have a tv and your not letting them in your house and there's not a thing they or the police can do, it's really that simple.Now on the other hand if you say yes l have got a tv and yes l watch bbc but won't pay my tv licence then they can and will take you to court and you will get a fine. I choose option one.

[Loyal Bear 72 363]

True, I was disagreeing with the bit where you said "all law comes from acts of parliament" you seem to have realised that was nonsense now though.

Yeah I know, as I pointed out the mistake myself, I was referring to "Statutory Law" having its basis in Acts of Parliament. Thanks though for your kind words.

Am not an expert but the point I was trying to make is that the police may not be enforcing it but once you have a court summons you are in the same Justice system.

The bit I really don't get is that Getstiffed says: "Statutory, coming from statute, which like an act is only enforceable under consent from the governed." Does this mean you can choose not to consent to any Statutory Law?

[Spectre 1,663]

Yeah I know, as I pointed out the mistake myself, I was referring to "Statutory Law" having its basis in Acts of Parliament. Thanks though for your kind words.

Am not an expert but the point I was trying to make is that the police may not be enforcing it but once you have a court summons you are in the same Justice system.

The bit I really don't get is that Getstiffed says: "Statutory, coming from statute, which like an act is only enforceable under consent from the governed." Does this mean you can choose not to consent to any Statutory Law?

It's a bit of legal theory, the basic jist is that the only law that exists from the dawn of Man is natural law, which is what common law derives from and at the very start of that is the principle that all men are equal. Anything else after that simply involves someone turning round one day and saying "I've made up a rule and you're all bound by it" as this man has no power to do so the only way you can be bound by it is through consent. You may then say they got that power through voting systems but the same argument applies with every step you take back, who gave anyone the authority to create this voting system when no man has authority over another in natural law. All these statutes are predated by man. Whilst there is strong theory behind it the problem is most of the country do consent and see some positives in doing so although many status offer us nothing and only serve private corporations and those who don't and are most vocal about this tend to be nutters and/or only interested in it by accident because they don't want to pay for anything, being that it was council tax avoiders who first started using it. There are genuine success stories out there from people who have refused and then been to court and also refused to consent to any authority the court claims to have. There are far more buried stories of People who think they know what they're doing, go to court, mess up and lose

[Loyal Bear 72 363]

It's a bit of legal theory, the basic jist is that the only law that exists from the dawn of Man is natural law, which is what common law derives from and at the very start of that is the principle that all men are equal. Anything else after that simply involves someone turning round one day and saying "I've made up a rule and you're all bound by it" as this man has no power to do so the only way you can be bound by it is through consent. You may then say they got that power through voting systems but the same argument applies with every step you take back, who gave anyone the authority to create this voting system when no man has authority over another in natural law. All these statutes are predated by man. Whilst there is strong theory behind it the problem is most of the country do consent and see some positives in doing so although many status offer us nothing and only serve private corporations and those who don't and are most vocal about this tend to be nutters and/or only interested in it by accident because they don't want to pay for anything, being that it was council tax avoiders who first started using it. There are genuine success stories out there from people who have refused and then been to court and also refused to consent to any authority the court claims to have. There are far more buried stories of People who think they know what they're doing, go to court, mess up and lose

You learn something new every day.

[SteveJ 743]

It's a bit of legal theory, the basic jist is that the only law that exists from the dawn of Man is natural law, which is what common law derives from and at the very start of that is the principle that all men are equal. Anything else after that simply involves someone turning round one day and saying "I've made up a rule and you're all bound by it" as this man has no power to do so the only way you can be bound by it is through consent. You may then say they got that power through voting systems but the same argument applies with every step you take back, who gave anyone the authority to create this voting system when no man has authority over another in natural law. All these statutes are predated by man. Whilst there is strong theory behind it the problem is most of the country do consent and see some positives in doing so although many status offer us nothing and only serve private corporations and those who don't and are most vocal about this tend to be nutters and/or only interested in it by accident because they don't want to pay for anything, being that it was council tax avoiders who first started using it. There are genuine success stories out there from people who have refused and then been to court and also refused to consent to any authority the court claims to have. There are far more buried stories of People who think they know what they're doing, go to court, mess up and lose

I am getting slightly confused, so can someone explain to me why, if an act is a lot of bollox unless the offender admits consent, they can still be convicted under the Sex Offenders Act 1997?

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Some absolute pish posted on this thread I'm afraid

[gogzy 31,195]

Some absolute pish posted on this thread I'm afraid

welcome to RM

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

welcome to RM

You will never catch me posting pish

[gogzy 31,195]

You will never catch me posting pish

nor I.

[1873bear 192]

I've not had a licence for years keep getting letters occupier of blah blah blah I just bin them, had a nugget at my door in his standard issue navy focus didn't answer the door blinds are open in a way you can't see tv, no intention of paying it, its a shameful outdated tax which should be scraped...the tv licence rapes the nations people out of over £3.5 billion there not going to scrap it at that kind of money....they must think my mum has about 20 tv,s i always register them to her house.

[nacho_nacho_man 477]

[Spectre 1,663]

I am getting slightly confused, so can someone explain to me why, if an act is a lot of bollox unless the offender admits consent, they can still be convicted under the Sex Offenders Act 1997?

A few reasons, almost everyone consents (some offences have a common law offence attached also) secondly how many people even know a thing about this, there's no module about it in a law degree although it does come up in jurisprudence sometimes but a lot of other irrelevant shit comes up in jurisprudence also... and finally, the very people you'd ahve to convince are sitting on the bench of the court you are telling has no authority.

Odd act to pick by the way, I don't think it does what you think it does.

I feel the need to add that i'm not involved in any of this sort of thing i've just been exposed to it through some of the work i've done and made a point of reading about it, it's at the very least a valid legal theory debate but you wont find me in court arguing about it.

[SteveJ 743]

A few reasons, almost everyone consents (some offences have a common law offence attached also) secondly how many people even know a thing about this, there's no module about it in a law degree although it does come up in jurisprudence sometimes but a lot of other irrelevant shit comes up in jurisprudence also... and finally, the very people you'd ahve to convince are sitting on the bench of the court you are telling has no authority.

Odd act to pick by the way, I don't think it does what you think it does.

I feel the need to add that i'm not involved in any of this sort of thing i've just been exposed to it through some of the work i've done and made a point of reading about it, it's at the very least a valid legal theory debate but you wont find me in court arguing about it.

I picked that one because I have been watching three episodes of Broadchurch back to back and it is mentioned on that.

You did not help my confusion, btw.

[spion kop 233]

This thread has taken a turn for the worse From boycotting the BBC to outright lawlessness, a friend of mine is into all this stuff after his accountant done in him crashed his business etc etc he was being taken to court every other week he joined this forum

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/

Were it is all explained

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

If you dont watch the tele, then yes she is. But its wrong to suggest the TV license mob have no power, its the law of th land ffs, if you want to watch the TV in the UK you need a license.

No you don't. I called the TV licensing people and said this: "I'm calling to revoke your presumed right to access to my property."

I refused to give my name - they have no right to it - and a letter confirming the request and their declaration that I wont hear anything more from them for a period of two years arrived though the post a couple of days later.

That's been the end of the matter.

[mclovin9091 1,405]

I am getting slightly confused, so can someone explain to me why, if an act is a lot of bollox unless the offender admits consent, they can still be convicted under the Sex Offenders Act 1997?

Generally down to having proof, same as if the TV tossers can see you thought a window watching live tv then they have proof that you are watching it, where as if you did allow them into the house and the TV was off, they have no way of proving that you are watching live TV (unless your daft enought to still have it on). The point could be argued that if you had a free-view/sat box then you are 'capable' of watching live tv.

[Arfuf Phuxache 190]

No you don't. I called the TV licensing people and said this: "I'm calling to revoke your presumed right to access to my property."

I refused to give my name - they have no right to it - and a letter confirming the request and their declaration that I wont hear anything more from them for a period of two years arrived though the post a couple of days later.

That's been the end of the matter.

If you didn't give your name, how did they know who to send the letter to??

[davy1shoe 63]

He's a very bitter individual; utterly obsessed about us, extremely annoying voice and always referring to us as the 'new rangers'. Not surprising, but very annoying no-one ever picks him up on that, even the less Timmy guests.

Hugh gave him abuse the other night saying 'you bore me to tear'and when cuntbag said you all know i have a degree in economics 'Hugh jump in and said how would we know that and shouted him down'

[gogzy 31,195]

If you didn't give your name, how did they know who to send the letter to??

To "The Occupier"

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

If you didn't give your name, how did they know who to send the letter to??

Not the brightest are you?

[Guest]

Ive never had a TV license, no need. You dont need one to own a TV, only to watch live broadcasts, and unless you have sky or something, theres no way to prove your using your TV for live broadcasts, not that I do anyway, so theres no need for me to pay BBC 140 quid a year for their drivvel.