If you asked if you 'understand' or 'understood' something this means in legal speak you 'stand under' and thus give consent to the authority put before you. never say you understand.
There's a thread here somewhere aboutu this already. I'll find the link ....
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
smeggypants wrote:This is interesting stuff, and it seems that acts of parliament need consent to be enforced. In other wrods they are legal but not lawful.
If you asked if you 'understand' or 'understood' something this means in legal speak you 'stand under' and thus give consent to the authority put before you. never say you understand.
There's a thread here somewhere aboutu this already. I'll find the link ....
smeggypants wrote:This is interesting stuff, and it seems that acts of parliament need consent to be enforced. In other wrods they are legal but not lawful.
If you asked if you 'understand' or 'understood' something this means in legal speak you 'stand under' and thus give consent to the authority put before you. never say you understand.
There's a thread here somewhere aboutu this already. I'll find the link ....
Interesting
Indeed and a it's a serious issue. Having the knowledge and the balls we could get away with loads of stuff that would be normally considered obligatory.
I should let everyone know that Kroaky's video states that the TV Detector Van is a myth...this is incorrect!
In the mid 90s as a Driver for the Royal Mail I had a duty that was driver for TV Licensing (which at the time was part of the Post Office) while the inspector/investigator was in the back twiddling knobs! The van can't pin point a specific address but triangulates the signal to an approximate location and with an address for a non payer, its becomes pretty academic re which house is watching without a license!
However, what is true is that the information gathered by a detector van is not admissable as sole evidence!
Information from colleagues working at the BBC in the 80's and 90's confirmed there was only one real detector van with working equipment, the remainder were dummy vans, sent to regions where the database of licence owners was lower than others.
Very much like the nailng of individuals for not paying road tax, or entering congestion tax zone/LEZ zones, the devices used to catch them are all based on the database rather than positive IDs with a camera.
Those under scrutiny by ATOS or HMRC in general are subject to virtually the same method of catchment.
The one I drove five days per month for 3 months (in the mid 90s) was the real deal...there was a too much expensive hardware in the back making all sorts of pings and bleeps (you could also watch tv on it during your lunch break- I wonder if the van had a license lol) for it to have been a decoy!
I'm sure sure there wasn't a fleet of these vans, it looked too expensive but then again...there is the license fee! It looked like one of those spy vans you see on Spooks! lol
Stanley Tweedle wrote:I've never had an inspector round. Just got a letter demanding payment of my tv license. Then a court letter. No fucking about round ere
I'd be careful re: Strawman. They may be able to use it against you. No NHS Although I wish I had the balls to do as it says.
Well this is the other side of not consenting I guess, but I doubt doctors are going to refuse to treat you. - Might send you a big bil though
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
I don't watch much terrestrial TV so I'm one of billions that object to the licence fee. I don't see much evidence of our money producing decent programmes. I still think the BBC is miles better than ITV but I think it's about time the BBC put ads between their programmes (not during, this is what pisses me off most with independent channels). They'd wipe out ITV inside a year (for which I'd be eternally grateful).
Our money seems to be going into the pockets of good for nothing executives and pervy presenters, enough already.
phild05 wrote:I don't watch much terrestrial TV so I'm one of billions that object to the licence fee. I don't see much evidence of our money producing decent programmes. I still think the BBC is miles better than ITV but I think it's about time the BBC put ads between their programmes (not during, this is what pisses me off most with independent channels). They'd wipe out ITV inside a year (for which I'd be eternally grateful).
Our money seems to be going into the pockets of good for nothing executives and pervy presenters, enough already.
Aside from the BBC's role as an establishment propaganda machine, which it's always been used for since it's birth .........
--------------------------------------------------------------- Even the BBC itself admits it ...
..... the BBC being funded by a tax doesn't have to worry about ratings so much as ITV does, so it can take more chances on non mainstream programs.
They'll still conform to the unwritten rules of establishment compliance. Even Adam Curtis's fantastic documentaries, such as the Power Of Nightmares, which show that Al-Qaeda is a myth, are heavily restricted in what they can contain.
but yup the savile expose has shown the BBC to be corrupt to the Masons and their child abuse/rituals
just like the Catholic Church.
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
