TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
Why automatically go to the freeman stuff?
The TV Licence "fee" is from a statute, part iv I believe of the communications act 2003 which is not a law until you consent to it (being an act of Parliament is a good enough reason to refuse but that's another argument). As soon as you accept it, then its law. Also in 2006 the office of national statistics reclassified the tv license as a tax (a GOVERNMENT agency), under common law you are obligated unless you are a sheep to refuse and withhold tax.

Then there are things put in place to make it almost impossible to refuse (through corruption and unlawful means)
 
MatsyLR said:
Why automatically go to the freeman stuff?
The TV Licence "fee" is from a statute, part iv I believe of the communications act 2003 which is not a law until you consent to it (being an act of Parliament is a good enough reason to refuse but that's another argument). As soon as you except it, then its law. Also in 2006 the office of national statistics reclassified the tv license as a tax (a GOVERNMENT agency), under common law you are obligated unless you are a sheep to refuse and withhold tax.
Click to expand...
utter rubbish and that is a freeman of the land line.
 
MatsyLR said:
Why automatically go to the freeman stuff?
The TV Licence "fee" is from a statute, part iv I believe of the communications act 2003 which is not a law until you consent to it (being an act of Parliament is a good enough reason to refuse but that's another argument). As soon as you except it, then its law. Also in 2006 the office of national statistics reclassified the tv license as a tax (a GOVERNMENT agency), under common law you are obligated unless you are a sheep to refuse and withhold tax.
Click to expand...

you've literally just gone to the freeman stuff though... :D
 
dowie said:
you've literally just gone to the freeman stuff though... :D
Click to expand...
Did I say I wasn't going to? no I didn't.
And when you say it gets laughed out of court, it gets "laughed" out due to corruption. I'm happy you are content to go along with it.

Simple fact is that its a statute which needs consent to be lawful.
 
no, it gets laughed out of court, as its complete and utter rubbish. with no basis in reality.
rather than listening to such sites, why not actually read up on the legal system and realise how stupid it is.

especially as you need nothing to not pay tv license, all you have to do is refuse entry to house and they cant get any evidence. There's no need to go down utter BS routes that don't exist.
 
MatsyLR said:
Did I say I wasn't going to? no I didn't.
And when you say it gets laughed out of court, it gets "laughed" out due to corruption. I'm happy you are content to go along with it.

Simple fact is that its a statute which needs consent to be lawful.
Click to expand...

It was the other poster who said it gets laughed out of court actually, though he is correct:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#Contracts_and_statutes

Because of their conception of common law as the only true law, freemen believe that any laws made by the government are not "laws," but are instead invitations to contract, or "acts," giving rise to the freeman maxim, "Acts nor laws." They do not believe that statute law applies without an individual's consent, and that we are merely conditioned and deceived by the authorities to believe that they do.
Click to expand...

You literally are one of those freemen of the land people... we've got medical 'woo' in the vaccination thread and now legal 'woo' in the TV license thread :D
 
MatsyLR said:
Why automatically go to the freeman stuff?
The TV Licence "fee" is from a statute, part iv I believe of the communications act 2003 which is not a law until you consent to it (being an act of Parliament is a good enough reason to refuse but that's another argument). As soon as you accept it, then its law. Also in 2006 the office of national statistics reclassified the tv license as a tax (a GOVERNMENT agency), under common law you are obligated unless you are a sheep to refuse and withhold tax.

Then there are things put in place to make it almost impossible to refuse (through corruption and unlawful means)
Click to expand...


That, that was beautiful :D

Some days GD delivers.

Freemen of the land :rolleyes::p:D:D They are protected by laws unless the laws are an inconvenience then they are Acts and subject to their own agreement.

Truly cringe-worthy nonsense.
 
Last edited:
MatsyLR said:
Did I say I wasn't going to? no I didn't.
And when you say it gets laughed out of court, it gets "laughed" out due to corruption. I'm happy you are content to go along with it.

Simple fact is that its a statute which needs consent to be lawful.
Click to expand...

It gets laughed out because it's a load of old ...tripe.

Simple thing is that it is a law, as are all acts. They do not require consent.
 
pooley said:
so why then are they called acts and not just straight up law?
Click to expand...
Erm I may be wrong because I'm tired, but acts of parliament can be a variety of things, but in regards to the law they are the basis behind pretty much any potentially complex law and spell out the intent of the law and define it (any grey areas then tend to get worked out by the courts who look at the original wording of the act).

Sometimes an act may be in support of a bunch of related laws, such as the Road Traffic Act which is the basis for most of the motoring laws and regulations, and may be updated ever few decades to take into account the results of case law and new technology (for example to allow for self driving cars on the road as a normal thing, the relevant act will likely need to be amended).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom