TV Licence Super Thread

spoffle · 1 Jun 2017 at 16:38

pooley said:
yes it's seems reasonable that is what we read and lead to believe. but it's a reference! why not just law no ******** just law period!?

Why does it matter? You're just fixating on specificities of the word because you don't understand why they don't use the literal word.

dowie · 1 Jun 2017 at 16:47

pooley said:
yes it's seems reasonable that is what we read and lead to believe. but it's a reference! why not just law no ******** just law period!?

I think that has already been explained to you previously - are you struggling with the idea that there can be more than one word to refer to the same thing and that one is a more precise description than the other

i.e. you can understand that a car is a type of vehicle but not all vehicles are called cars right?

And presumably you've used the word car before - or do you question why the word car exists and insist that they only be referred to as vehicles?

pooley · 1 Jun 2017 at 16:56

dowie said:
I think that has already been explained to you previously - are you struggling with the idea that there can be more than one word to refer to the same thing and that one is a more precise description than the other

i.e. you can understand that a car is a type of vehicle but not all vehicles are called cars right?

And presumably you've used the word car before - or do you question why the word car exists and insist that they only be referred to as vehicles?

no offence spoffle are you for real with these q's, but this post just highlights that what i am asking is over your head.

dowie · 1 Jun 2017 at 16:59

pooley said:
no offence spoffle are you for real with these q's, but this post just highlights that what i am asking is over your head.

sorry but it isn't completely clear what you are asking as you're seemingly unwilling to engage much in dialogue after explanations have been given other than to dismiss them - if you're not able to explain what you're asking or engage with people the perhaps you don't fully understand yourself - maybe this is all down to some confusion on your part?

pooley · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:08

dowie said:
sorry but it isn't completely clear what you are asking as you're seemingly unwilling to engage much in dialogue after explanations have been given other than to dismiss them - if you're not able to explain what you're asking or engage with people the perhaps you don't fully understand yourself - maybe this is all down to some confusion on your part?

because all of these 'explanations' are about the how a thing is this and that and all other stuff that are off topic. they do not address the question that i asked, it is very specific but that is why i dismiss them.

dowie · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:12

pooley said:
because all of these 'explanations' are about the how a thing is this and that and all other stuff that are off topic. they do not address the question that i asked, it is very specific but that is why i dismiss them.

Without wanting to go around in circles, why not clarify what it is you're asking then... given the explanations. I mean all you're doing at the moment is simply dismissing everything other people have posted. If you can't explain or clarify what it is you're actually asking (given there are multiple people in here responding) then it does strongly indicate some confusion on your own part.

It does sound like you're going down the freeman road of assuming that acts of parliament aren't laws and require consent etc.. which might well be where your confusion is coming from.

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:14

Burnsy2023 said:
Your experience may vary, but mine is that I filled the declaration and have heard nothing since. At a guess, I would suggest my experience is probably more representative.

same as me, I had a tv license so I cancelled it, said i used it for Amazon etc and haven't heard anything since.

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:16

dowie said:
Without wanting to go around in circles, why not clarify what it is you're asking then... given the explanations. I mean all you're doing at the moment is simply dismissing everything other people have posted. If you can't explain or clarify what it is you're actually asking (given there are multiple people in here responding) then it does strongly indicate some confusion on your own part.

It does sound like you're going down the freeman road of assuming that acts of parliament aren't laws and require consent etc.. which might well be where your confusion is coming from.

give up he's a trolling, he's asking why its called an act and not a law, that's it. Its been awnsered many times. Its an act of parliament and thus called and act, all acts are laws not all laws are acts. There's nothing more to debate. he is trolling very well, but its so obvious I have no idea why mods dont do more about trolls.

pooley · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:25

dowie said:
Without wanting to go around in circles, why not clarify what it is you're asking then... given the explanations. I mean all you're doing at the moment is simply dismissing everything other people have posted. If you can't explain or clarify what it is you're actually asking (given there are multiple people in here responding) then it does strongly indicate some confusion on your own part.

It does sound like you're going down the freeman road of assuming that acts of parliament aren't laws and require consent etc.. which might well be where your confusion is coming from.

im not making any claims, assumptions or anything other than asking a question albeit a specific one, you could call it splitting hairs.
these men and women all them years ago way before you and i were around made up these enactments and called them as such,which is still in effect today. what was the thought process in doing so there has to be a reason they don't call it law but 'enactments' why?

pooley · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:27

Glaucus said:
give up he's a trolling, he's asking why its called an act and not a law, that's it. Its been awnsered many times. Its an act of parliament and thus called and act, all acts are laws not all laws are acts. There's nothing more to debate. he is trolling very well, but its so obvious I have no idea why mods dont do more about trolls.

see post 1690 you are out of order with the mod thing

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:30

lol, you are a troll end off.

toasteh · 1 Jun 2017 at 17:30

pooley said:
im not making any claims, assumptions or anything other than asking a question albeit a specific one, you could call it splitting hairs.
these men and women all them years ago way before you and i were around made up these enactments and called them as such,which is still in effect today. what was the thought process in doing so there has to be a reason they don't call it law but 'enactments' why?

It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. Now get over it and move on.

Brenn47 · 1 Jun 2017 at 18:03

Act or Law ... does it REALLY need ANOTHER 15 pages of crap!

pooley · 1 Jun 2017 at 18:13

toasteh said:
It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. Now get over it and move on.

Brenn47 said:
Act or Law ... does it REALLY need ANOTHER 15 pages of crap!

act,law or lollipop call it what ever you want it seems LOL
i agree brenn47 so in conclusion we have not got a scoobies idea between us as to why...
remember kids keep watching the sky!

Avenged7Fold · 1 Jun 2017 at 18:38

Lol he isn't trolling, he has dug himself an embarrassing hole when he made it perfectly clear to everyone that he is the only one in the room that doesn't understand the point made. Now he cant climb out he just wishes to dig deeper to cover himself up.

Call us kids or whatever but at the end of the day, you are the only one who is failing to understand anything on this thread.

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2017 at 18:41

Avenged7Fold said:
Lol he isn't trolling, he has dug himself an embarrassing hole when he made it perfectly clear to everyone that he is the only one in the room that doesn't understand the point made. Now he cant climb out he just wishes to dig deeper to cover himself up.

Call us kids or whatever but at the end of the day, you are the only one who is failing to understand anything on this thread.

I don't think you're realise who he is, look at his posts in other threads, it is pure trolling.

Avenged7Fold · 1 Jun 2017 at 18:46

If that's the case then surely this is mod action worthy. A few troll posts in GD is fair enough but a dozen pages of Ctrl + V crap is just stupid

asim18 · 1 Jun 2017 at 19:00

Is there really a legal obligation to declare if you're NOT watching TV? That sounds laughable.

Ok personally I like Dragons Den and the News, and my TV licence is paid, but for the minority who don't watch TV it sounds pretty sad and I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't want to watch TV.

Why should anyone be obliged to engage with anyone just to prove they're not watching TV?

Also, how can you evidence into the future? What's stopping the person from watching TV as soon as they leave? And how can they evidence that the person wasn't watching TV 5 minutes ago

It just doesn't make sense.

spoffle · 1 Jun 2017 at 19:37

pooley said:
no offence spoffle are you for real with these q's, but this post just highlights that what i am asking is over your head.

What?

pooley · 1 Jun 2017 at 20:30

spoffle said:
What?

my apologies it was dowie it was intended for.