How to get out of paying TV license (yes, REALLY)

The_Safordian

sirmarcus wrote: »

So why are you whinging then ? Suggest you get a life and stop trying to debate something that you can't influence !

Very sad !:)

Because I nor anyone else in this country should be accused of being guilty for something until proven innocent just because we object to paying your wages.

Should we change the law so the likes of you have to contribute towards those who prefer Cable or Satellite.............you never seem to want to answer that do you

Kurtis_Blue

The_Safordian wrote: »

I'd rather just not pay it, that tends to annoy the hell out of the BBC and its friends

No you would rather not pay it and make a big song and dance about it and carryout an Olympic sized whine, lol..

If your not man enough to actually do something about an issue you genuinely feel for, then shame on you.

The_Safordian

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

No you would rather not pay it and make a big song and dance about it and carryout an Olympic sized whine, lol..

I don't pay it and that's why both you BBC people are causing such a stir...................how dare they criticise our beloved employer, sad really.

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

If your not man enough to actually do something about an issue you genuinely feel for, then shame on you.

Oh I have done something, if you knew you two would blow a fuse but their are people here who know

Kurtis_Blue

The_Safordian wrote: »

I don't pay it and that's why both you BBC people are causing such a stir...................how dare they criticise our beloved employer, sad really.

Oh I have done something, if you knew you two would blow a fuse but there are people here who know

You BBC people? crikey you found me out, heres your prize...



Wear it with pride.


You don't seem right, I genuinely wish you well. tata...

The_Safordian

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

You BBC people? crikey you found me out, heres your prize...

You are the two going crazy because members dared to give useful advice regarding the BBC TV Licence...............hardly something to go mad about for days and yet here you both are. Hell one of you tried changing the subject matter to the Middle East LMFAO

M.Shakey

Yes stop the whinging.

Stop paying for it like I did and watch whatever you want for free.

I think the BBC is great value for money.
The BBC allows me to watch all of its content for FREE via the i-player LEGALLY.
I can listen to ALL BBC radio programs for FREE, as can all of you because there is no radio 'licence'.

The times are changing, gone are the days when mere possession of a TV set made you a 'criminal'.
What is a TV set anyway ?
Mine are all used as 'monitors'.
This TAX is now so easy to LEGALLY avoid and even easier to evade due to the unbelievable 'own goal', the 'detector van myth', (I dont condone evasion BTW).

I just SMASHED them in Court for trying to convict me for running a LEGALLY LICENCE FREE SETUP.

LLF = Legally Licence Free, Just cut your aerial lead, thats one way to do it, watch the video and read my story.

SEEMPLES.... happy (free) viewing everyone.

Kurtis_Blue

The_Safordian wrote: »

You are the two going crazy because members dared to give useful advice regarding the BBC TV Licence...............hardly something to go mad about for days and yet here you both are. Hell one of you tried changing the subject matter to the Middle East LMFAO

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

M.Shakey

Safordian

When I joined this site I actually read the terms and conditions .
I was not able to post URL's because of 'spamming', quite understandable no problems there.
I am not a 'spammer' and I wished to make a certain URL available to the general public in order to assist them in finding the correct reference to my comments.
You quite helpfully assisted me in this, but I notice that your post was removed.

Did you yourself remove this or was it censored ?

I will try again myself.

No sorry no luck, but if you wish to watch the video its on Youtube under the title 'TV Licence man fiddling about'.
There is also a short explanation in the video description box of how this video relates to this topic.

I cant see why you were censored, unless the LF supporters realised that, once again, they had lost the argument and wished to make it harder for people to find out the truth?
Perhaps they will notice this post when they start work later on today and click for it to be removed also ?

Like I said before they will never convince people to pay for the 'licence fee' by force of argument, only by force alone.

Kurtis_Blue

M.Shakey wrote: »

Safordian

When I joined this site I actually read the terms and conditions .
I was not able to post URL's because of 'spamming', quite understandable no problems there.
I am not a 'spammer' and I wished to make a certain URL available to the general public in order to assist them in finding the correct

The link you requested people to click from YouTube was to your website where you have a shop, maybe that was the reason.

Just out of interest do you have the unedited version of this video? as looking at the screens from a distance it is clear that one of them was tuned in t some point.
For some reason you have edited it at 0.34 when we could have got a close up of that.

M.Shakey

Thanks for that. I can see the confusion now.

The blog that I linked to in the descripton was not actually my blog, therefore not my shop.

Yes I can see that this site would not like links to a commercial enterprise, thanks for pointing that out.

Regarding the video... sounds dim but which one ?

The 'fiddling about' video was obviously 'edited' by myself.

There were 6 other videos of this 'visit' that were a 'chopped up' version of the whole visit to fit Youtube when it had the upload limit.
Capita complained to the ICO on some DPA issues so the 6 videos were 'pulled' till these were resolved, the issues had no substance I was not breaking the DPA.
I never bothered to re up-load the 'unedited' versions.

If you read the contemporanious note of the summing up, you will see that the timings, (given under oath by a key prosecution witness), did not match the events depicted in the 'version' of the video that the BBC presented against me as 'evidence', (exhibit PJ1).
There were six prosecution witnesses against me.
Five were employed directly by the prosecutor, and one was previously employed by the prosecutor.

The question arose as to how the prosecution presented a video which displayed an 'image', (by coincidence that came from a BBC program ????), that was not transmitted till 7 minutes after they had stated it was being recieved by my 'equipment'. This was stated by a key witness under oath.
This could NOT be the case.

I suggest that the video had been 'tampered with' and the 'image' was 'inserted'.
Under cross-exmination the prosecutions 'expert witness' agreed that the video could have been 'tampered with' but denied doing this himself.

So desperate were the beloved BBC to stop people adopting my perfectly legal way of avoiding paying this unfair impost, that it seems that they had totally fabricated a case against me.

The verdict was 'No case to answer.', no case to answer that meant that there was not a shred of prosecution evidence that was presented to the Court that could have advanced the case to the next stage, no case.
The BBC have not appealed the decision and are now out of time so it stands.

Yes the sets were tuned in at some time, (not illegal as established in evidence.Remember this was prosecuted under the COMMS Act 2003), yes there was pre-recorded content on the Topfield PVR, (not illegal as established in evidence, although there may be copyright issues. Another case maybe?).

If you do work for Capita then just ask Jason Jones or Garth Hannaford they can fill you in, but I am sure that they are now working on the next case against me, one where they dont repeat the monumental errors in the last case.

If you work for the BBC themselves then just get in touch with Pippa Doubtfire, I am sure she will know.

Thanks

Shakey