FilmFour free on Sky?

In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
What, "stealing" a service that I don't want?

It is not a broadcast service that you are paying for; the service is free.
You are paying to use broadcast bandwidth. You are stealing that service and,
by cowardly failing to pay your way through life, you are making the rest of
us pay more and / or reducing the public service broadcasting that is
available free to all. Your action is despicable.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Pyriform"
Heracles Pollux wrote:
I refuse to pay the BBC's TV Licence. I prefer the term quality loving
"patriot" to "dodger".

Actually, I prefer the term "common thief". [...]

You may prefer it, but it is highly inaccurate to describe licence evasion
as theft, any more than it is to describe cracking pay-TV as theft. Not
all illegal activities are types of theft. That's the sort of silly
simplification peddled by F*CT and friends because they're too dense to
cope with reality.

--
MJR/slef

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:30:07 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

********. Where does this *live* aspect come from?

The "TV Licensing Authority" and the Secretary of State who defines the
meaning of The Communactions Act 2003 section 363 to 368 legislation.

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=590

The word "live" does not appear anywhere on that page.

--


The word LIVE is not in the Act of Parliament.

It's in the "Statutory Instrument" written by Tessa I can't remember taking
out a £300K loan Jowell.



See post 3 here where this is quoted by the Gestapo:

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/vi...ht=viewed+live

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Heracles Pollux wrote:
There are 2 million "common thieves" as you call it or about 5% of the
population who don't pay the TV Licence.

You may prefer the description "parasite". It fits.

Except, I don't want to be attached to this host, but rather the BBC is a
parasite that wishes to attach itself to me.

For the privilege of using public resources (limited broadcast space) you
are
required to contribute to the finances of public broadcasting.

Again, who is trying to take what from whom?

You are stealing from me. More importantly you are stealing from my
granddaughter. I really do hope they take from you all the sums that you
owe
with much interest.

--



Dickhead.

The nature of radio and satellite broadcasting is that most additional
receivers within the target area of transmission have no significant effect
on the availability of bandwidth.

Were the TV licence to be used for Public Service Broadcasting, I would
consider paying it.

Instead, the entire sum of money is given to the BBC who frankly **** it
away. I need not remind the Newsgroup of the many ways the BBC wastes public
money.

Finally why is ITV, Channel 4, FIVE, Sky, and my own Public Service
Broadcasts not equally given public funds, and why is there no "beauty
competition" and "competitive tendering"?

I feel glad that because I do not pay the BBC licence fee, you, Mr dickhead,
personally have to pay Jonathan Ross and co more money, and that is because
you chose to.

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So when my FTV card expires (because Sky change the encryption scheme)
it will be replaced by Sky free of charge ? If not, then in my book
that's an 'ongoing cost' ?

No more an ongoing cost than buying a new TV every time the old one
breaks,

The card doesn't break or wear out. It is deliberately disabled by
Sky.


and not one which is specific to any particular TV channel in
any case.

It is indeed totally specific to the 3 FTV channels.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Zero Tolerance wrote:

The FTV cards are specific to Channel 4, five & Sky Three.

Given that they could be upgraded to subscription cards, they're
specific to rather a lot of channels.

That is neither here nor there. The £20 does not include those
subscription channels.


Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that a viewing card is
equipment,

Even when it provides subscription channels?

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:38:04 GMT, Nigel Barker wrote:

The FTV cards are specific to Channel 4, five & Sky Three.

Given that they could be upgraded to subscription cards, they're
specific to rather a lot of channels.

Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that a viewing card is
equipment, and a one-off charge for such a card does not mean that
what you view with it becomes a subscription channel.

It's not a 'one off' charge though. The FTV cards expire every 3-5
years, and a new one needs to be purchased, at cost to the viewer, NOT
Sky. I know 20 quid every 3 years is small beer in most households, but
even so it should be Sky that foot the bill for this. Perhaps you can
explain where the millions of pounds that C4 and C5 pay for encryption
actually goes, cos it doesn't go towards provision of the FTV cards
does it ?

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:04:36 +0100, "Pyriform" wrote:

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Sounds like you're a licence-dodger, expecting the rest of us to
subsidise your viewing.

I refuse to pay the BBC's TV Licence. I prefer the term quality loving
"patriot" to "dodger".

Actually, I prefer the term "common thief". It has a certain seedy charm
to it, and helps to reinforce the image of you which is currently
developing in my mind.

No doubt you will wish to have your personal exemption from the licence
fee tested in a court of law. I look forward to reading about it.

I would have though that the offence was more akin to tax evasion than
theft.
Just like driving a car but not paying for the Road Fund License.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur


Well quite.

And Vehicle Excise Duty is far more effectively Policed, since road-side
cameras plus software can easily detect this offence that takes place in
public.

The problem with the TV Licence law is that the "criminal offence" can not
be detected without either the stupidity or the cooperation of the offender.

A slight problem with the TVL regime is that it is enforced on a
"commission" basis so people like me myself who would require weeks of
surveillance to "detect" an offence don't get "enforced". Further, the
"Enforcers" find their right of access to one's property has been withdrawn
legally and there is no legal obligation under Magna Carta for the accused
to provide the "prosecution" with "evidence".

The best strategy has always been for the BBC to make services that people
would *want* to subscribe to and have pride in being part of the audience
for.

The problem is the BBC actively insults people like me and makes programmes
we have no desire to see. I don't see why I should fund digital switch over,
the BBC's outsourced buildings, the BBC's overpaid useless talent, and the
BBC's "marketing" of what is meant to be a universal public resource.
Because Bliar and Jowell say I should, I don't believe them,.

Like the Communists trying to hold together the Soviet Block, the BBC is
fighting a losing argument trying to use coercion to instil its own
centralist-plan for us all when it is blatantly corrupt and a perversion of
what PSB means.



I am a patriot, philanthropist, business man, director of companies, elected
public servant, and payer of many taxes, but I won't pay public money to the
BBC. I can admit so, not with shame, but with self-confidence and pride,
that I am not part of the solution but part of the problem.

MJ Ray wrote:
"Pyriform"
Heracles Pollux wrote:
I refuse to pay the BBC's TV Licence. I prefer the term quality
loving "patriot" to "dodger".

Actually, I prefer the term "common thief". [...]

You may prefer it, but it is highly inaccurate to describe licence
evasion as theft.

Hardly less accurate than describing it as an act of "patriotism". That
truly is the last refuge of the scoundrel!

Heracles Pollux wrote:
And Vehicle Excise Duty is far more effectively Policed, since
road-side cameras plus software can easily detect this offence that
takes place in public.

The problem with the TV Licence law is that the "criminal offence"
can not be detected without either the stupidity or the cooperation
of the offender.

I think I get it now. The reason you don't commit a whole raft of other
offences is the fear of being caught, rather than any moral imperative.
You see licence evasion as an easy way of saving yourself some money, at
everybody else's expense. But you've prepared a fig leaf of a defence
(just in case) with your bizarre claim that you are exempt anyway,
because you only watch recordings!

And you claim to be "an elected public servant". In what capacity, may I
ask? I do hope the rest of us aren't in any way subsidising your
political ambitions, and that the electors are fully aware of your moral
cowardice masquerading as "patriotism".