Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

Cornucopia

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But it still has the potential to receive television signals.

That said, if you do watch television via a computer, you will still be freeloading.

Will you? D'you mean BBC content, or generally?

bod1467

The_Safordian wrote: »

That's because he has an agenda to get negative topics about the BBC locked.

No (s)he doesn't. (S)He is like that on many subjects - why should YOUR pet subject get any preferential treatment?

littlerat

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But it still has the potential to receive television signals. That said, if you do watch television via a computer, you will still be freeloading.

So you think somebody should have to buy a license to watch TV, even if it isn't live and isn't required by law/the BBC?

The_Safordian

Here's one of the latest setups by the BBC (censored)'s. The person was doing nothing illegal as the TV was detuned but he was naive enough to let the BBC goon in. The BBC (censored) then tuned the channels to receive live feeds and now the innocent party finds himself in court!

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,5553.0.html

I await the usual BBC suspects to defend this

The_Safordian

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Well, he shouldn't have pretended to have digital television set for thirty years, should he.

Only someone like you would try defending the actions of these goons who were proven to have falsified evidence and video footage..................unless of course you know more than a High Court?

Flyboy152

littlerat wrote: »

So you think somebody should have to buy a license to watch TV, even if it isn't live and isn't required by law/the BBC?

That is not what I said, was it?

Flyboy152

The_Safordian wrote: »

Only someone like you would try defending the actions of these goons who were proven to have falsified evidence and video footage..................unless of course you know more than a High Court?

Had they??

Flyboy152

The_Safordian wrote: »

Here's one of the latest setups by the BBC (censored)'s. The person was doing nothing illegal as the TV was detuned but he was naive enough to let the BBC goon in. The BBC (censored) then tuned the channels to receive live feeds and now the innocent party finds himself in court!

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,5553.0.html

I await the usual BBC suspects to defend this

The television was capable of receiving television signals, I don't get your point.

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The television was capable of receiving television signals, I don't get your point.

The majority of people are capable of assaulting someone else. Doesn't mean they have or that they ever will.

I havent watched live TV (via tv, pc, phone....anything) for over 2 years. Having the equipment does not mean you need a license. Watching or recording (ie accessing) live broadcasts does.

I used to have a TV license, i stopped it this year due to not needing it (and this is money saving expert so why on earth would i pay for something I do not need?). However, if i ever watch live broadcasts again, it will not be before making sure I have a license in place again.

The Safordian may be coming across as a little extreme, but so are others. EVERY trade has its crooks. Why would TVL be any different? However, just like every trade has its crooks, they also have honest people.

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't know why they don't do that, and it's not important to me. But the fact that they don't doesn't give them carte blanche to just make up their own process and inflict upon the population, to undermine historic legal principles and to pretend that they have an authority to do it all.

What "historic legal principles"?