Accrington Web - Licence's

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)

- DVD/TV/Film Discussion (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f134/)

- - Licence's (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f134/licences-62660.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 1024017)

I see the thief is still at it.
Well for those interested, here is a link, explaining the concepts he hold dear.
Freeman on the land - RationalWiki

Of course words are not very effective

First off your assumptions that i'm a thief are total bull...proof,evidence? if you feel that strong about it i can meet you at greenbank police station and we can see if i'm a thief ;)

Secondly tho i may share some views that are similar to the Freetard bull that's not what i'm about so don't put me in that category.can we go back to the topic now?.......cheers ;)

Please tell us by which yardstick yeh use to educate us?:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 1024024)

If we didn't have the TV licence then BBC would have ad breaks. Having no ad breaks to me is a good reason to pay for a TV licence.

Just for a few of channels?.. Nah. I can't agree with that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 1024017)

Of course words are not very effective

Quote:

These ideas are most attractive to desperate, vulnerable people who are going through terrible times in their lives."[13] If someone is selling a simple explanation of why your life is messed up, the false hope it offers is extremely attractive — even if the explanation is complete rubbish and the suggested actions consistently just don't work

sounds about right to me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless (Post 1024778)

Just for a few of channels?.. Nah. I can't agree with that

sounds about right to me...

It depends what system you have and what is available - for example if you have these new Tivo boxes you can record TV and watch later etc and then skip ad breaks. But if you just have basic free-view box etc then having a channel with no ad breaks is beneficial. Particularly when you just want to watch a program uninterupted. But the more technology you have then the more BBC becomes irrelevant I suppose.

The thing is this, if you use something that does not belong to you, example the service the BBC or the United utilities provide for a cost. Then you are stealing, this makes you a thief.

If our thief has issue with this, then maybe he should consider paying his way. Much like the rest of us.

Btw ignoring this person is great. No stress at all

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 1024809)

What If you have a issue with a service provider? Do you still carry on paying because the rest do?
Like I've said before I'm willing to pay for a water service, but only after they give me a few answers and if they can't give me those answers i stop paying for that service till they do...simples

As for tv lie-sense i think we've covered that one :rolleyes:

BTW I'm not a 'PERSON' ;)

We live in a world where over 780 million people do not have access to clean drinking water.
Yet here we have a 'person' or what ever he /she/it wants to be? Claiming that united utilities do not provide water that is to his* exacting standards, what ever they are. We are not privy to these, after all they are more than likely rubbish.
Yet this person* is more than happy to carry on receiving this and also having any waste water removed and treated. Furthermore he* is taking the high ground in claiming he* is in the right. Despite the water companies having to provide water to exacting standards as laid out by the WHO, this person* knows better.
Then there is the issue of TV licence, do I want one, no, but I pay it.
I could list many reasons why and in the light of recent scandals at the BBC one wonders, but it ones own to this, I want to live in this society we have in the UK and as such I pay my way.
This person* obviously knows better than the rest of us or is a complete.....well I would rather not say.

*please refer to the second sentence, as he* is not a person he*. Must not be of this earth

Just to say, this is the Oxford Dictionary definition of Person

Definition of person
noun (plural people or persons)
human being regarded as an individual

Obviously he* is not human

I thought you were ignoring this person, BG?

if you use the service then you should pay for it, if you dont pay but still use it then its theft? you cant refuse to pay for something because you dont agree with it, tst like going to asda, taking a trolley full but not paying becuase you dont agree with asdas prices?

if you dont like it then dont watch it, simple

Of course if Chris decides to claim Person is a legal term using Blacks Legal Dictionary, there's not much to say....except it is not a book used in English Law, the Law Society have over 3500 volumes they refer to.
But the Freeman of the Land movement don't recognise this, still they have not had any real success in UK court of law even though they don't believe in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 1024845)

I thought you were ignoring this person, BG?

I am Mike, but, and this is the rub, I cannot help looking at his* posts when not signed in. Agggh

* see my previous post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 1024840)

:hehetable you are entitled to your views,believes as am I.

There may well be 780 million people that do not have access to clean drinking water but do they also have a service forced on them?

Here is a abstract from my letter to United Utilities

I would be happy to discuss settlement of any financial obligation I might owe, as soon as I receive the following documentation from you:
1. Validation of the ‘bill’ (the actual accounting including costs per dwelling of adding chemicals and/or medication to my water supply);
2.. Unequivocal evidence that United Utilities Group PLC are not medicating myself and my family members by adding chemical additives to the water supply
3.Unequivocal evidence that the fluoride added to the water supply by United Utilities Group PLC is not a bi-product of the agro-chemical industry and therefore deemed as industrial waste
4.Unequivocal evidence that there are any benefits to humans resulting from the consumption of fluoride in the water supply;
5.Unequivocal evidence that there are no harmful side effects from other chemicals (including chlorine) added to the water supply by United Utilities Group PLC

It is my view that every human being has a right to a clean, safe and health promoting water supply and that United Utilities Group PLC are in breach of this human right and therefore in breach of their duty of care.

As for tv licence you carry on paying it and i'll carry on laughing ;)

As for the 'PERSON' issue try a legal dictionary...they don't use english in court ;)

Chris,
You use water piped into your house, you have admitted to this, you also use the sewerage system. Therefore you have to pay for it.
You will end up in court and you will lose. I am bored of this, you need help

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 1024848)

You do love the old freeman thing don't you?

Our courts are corrupt as the folk running the show,their mainly money generators untill you commit actual crimes were's theres been actual loss,harm,fraud etc(If you think i'm a freeman on the land start a thread and i'll bore you with the exact in and out's of how our courts operate) ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 1024853)

It's nothing to do with court..Why do you think i've not been invited before now(because UU know i'm right) I'd love my day in court with UU trying to say i've stolen water,service etc ;)