Originally Posted by accyman (Post 974993)

well like i said google got in trouble for snooping around in peoples wi-fi networks when they map streets for google earth so with scruples like that its best to take anything that company says as a lie.

i have a gmail account which i set up when gmail was in tirals and i only use it as an address to type into websites when asked for an email address so the spam as a result of it goes to an account i dont care for.Thats about all google are fit for to be used as a diversion for spam lol

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 978152)

Not just them, the Con-Dem's are liars too - before the election they said they would stop New Labours surveilance society and stand up for peoples right to privacy - but now they are planning exactly the same thing!

Britain pushes for mass surveillance society - YouTube

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 974733)

You have a choice, if you don't like what Google do simply choose a different Search Engine, there are lots and lots of them. Of course you could just accept that google will be collecting data and using it across their services.
If you really don't want to be tracked, get rid of your car, mobile phone, bank account and all plastic cards, sell your house and go live in a cave.
Living off the grid is the only way to protect your privacy these days.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980470)

You do not have to use the internet....and if you do not use the internet then you are not at risk from viruses in the same way that you are if you connect to the web.
Ok so you may still get a virus if you connect a storage device which has been conncted to a computer which has been used for the internet.

I have a laptop which is not internet ready and has never been connected to the internet.

I have photo's and documents on it and have used it to produce educational stuff .......slide shows and the like.

I will not be buying a TV that is purely internet.....I am not interested in Netflix or such products........I cannot see the CIA having the personnel to monitor everyone on the planet who watches TV............I am sure they will be directing their surveillance to those people who they feel are the ones they need to watch.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980470)

You do not have to use the internet....and if you do not use the internet then you are not at risk from viruses in the same way that you are if you connect to the web.
Ok so you may still get a virus if you connect a storage device which has been conncted to a computer which has been used for the internet.

I have a laptop which is not internet ready and has never been connected to the internet.

I have photo's and documents on it and have used it to produce educational stuff .......slide shows and the like.

I will not be buying a TV that is purely internet.....I am not interested in Netflix or such products........I cannot see the CIA having the personnel to monitor everyone on the planet who watches TV............I am sure they will be directing their surveillance to those people who they feel are the ones they need to watch.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 980621)

Well starting from April all analogue TV's will have to be ditched as the new completely digital service is coming in. That means any old person in a farm somewhere with an old TV just getting the old 5 channels, will have to get digital or not watch TV. This is one step towards having everyone on digital.

I am sure soon they will be able to detect everyone who does not have a TV licence, because of the digital change over. Perhaps they will find away? That is just the start.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 980716)

Well everybody should have a TV licence, If I have to have one so should everybody else and if this is easier to detect I'm all in favour

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980767)

For one jaysay i don't have a TV license & I don't intend on getting one .. I am not paying for the BBC simple as that! .. more fool you for having one

They are in breach of there contract by receiving funding from the EU

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980769)

I just hope that argument stands up in court.

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980767)

For one jaysay i don't have a TV license & I don't intend on getting one .. I am not paying for the BBC simple as that! .. more fool you for having one

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980778)

It's laughable you calling someone else a fool.

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980779)

Blah blah blah , Jog on!

I bet you pay for yours as well?

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980784)

Dim for not paying ?? ... Saving money seems a smart move to me!

A thief ? who am I stealing from lol .. I don't want there service , Hardly stealing is it ?

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980787)

Next you will be saying you don't pay for a driving licence or tax your car, that is if you are old enough to drive a car. You are coming across as a little squirt.

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980789)

Haha all because I am refusing to pay for a TV license ... & by the way .. I have a choice whether get one or not!

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980808)

I wonder if Virgin Media and Sky are obliged to reveal the names and addresses of their customers. If so, it would be easy to cross-reference if their customers have TV licences.

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 980823)

I don't have Sky or cable and often notice that my TV hasn't been switched on for days on end. I have no intention of replacing my TV if it ever 'died'.

The more likely scenario would be that if my PC monitor needed replacing I would just connect my TV to it and use it as a monitor only.

Then I would stop paying a licence fee.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980870)

[I]




This is from the TV licensing site......if you want to look up exactly what Part 4 of the regulations says, well that is up to you. But, in short,you are breaking the law....and you have told all of us that you are breaking the law. Not sensible is it?

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 980795)

There is no need for a 'detector van'. In order to find out if some one has a TV license or not all you need is a list of addresses, say the Electoral Register, or a complete list of every address in the country. Then you just match it up to those who have not got a TV license.
Simples.
Wrighty, I would be very very careful posting how you don't have a license, it may come to bite you.

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980808)

I wonder if Virgin Media and Sky are obliged to reveal the names and addresses of their customers. If so, it would be easy to cross-reference if their customers have TV licences.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980870)

[I]Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence. The Act empowers the BBC to make and amend the terms and conditions of a licence. It allows the government to make regulations to exempt or reduce the licence fee for certain persons in certain circumstances. It also makes it an offence for anyone to have any television receiver in their possession or under their control who intends to install or use it in contravention of the main offence (above), or knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use a television receiver in contravention of the main offence.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended) requires television dealers to notify TV Licensing of all their sales and rentals of television sets. This includes analogue and digital TV sets, DVD and video recorders, digital boxes and computers (including laptops) with TV cards.

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 define what is a 'television set' and who is a 'television dealer'. The regulations also set out the various types of TV Licence, the criteria for obtaining them, the fees payable for them (including the frequency and amount of instalments) and the different concessions available, including concessions for people who are blind or severely sight impaired, people who are over 74 years of age, people who live in residential care and people who run hotels, guesthouses or campsites.

This is from the TV licensing site......if you want to look up exactly what Part 4 of the regulations says, well that is up to you. But, in short,you are breaking the law....and you have told all of us that you are breaking the law. Not sensible is it?

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 980801)

I have learned recently that those detector vans are a scam.
BBC admits that TV detector vans only work because Britons believe they do – Boing Boing Gadgets

They worked to reduce licence evasion just because the public had been told they did, not because they were capable of detecting anything.

If that is true, and licence enforcers have no rights to enter property, how can they prove in court that you tuned in to a live broadcast?

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980880)

I am not doing anything unlawful .. just refusing a service that I don't want



Dont have sky either , got rid of that for the exact same reason .. sick of paying for a government propaganda machine



Breaking the law ? .. The BBC are in breach of there contract by receiving funding from the EU ....

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980920)

It might be better to keep your mouth shut.......who knows, they may be able to trace you from the information that you have already posted.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980931)

No I'm not....if you read it again it says 'who knows, they may be able to trace you from the information you have already posted.'
You even mention a 'maybe' yourself.

If they can, then he is in some doo-doo right now....unless of course he doesn't have a working receiver(which I doubt most strongly).

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981447)

I don't think Wrighty has anything to worry about!

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981447)

I don't think they can - if the TV licence people could I think there'd be an outcry by civil liberties groups!

I don't think Wrighty has anything to worry about!

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 981455)

Well i do, Rule1 of any fiddle- Keep yer big gob shut.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 981505)

For your literature answer, 0 points. The comment I am led to believe was apparently accredited to Mark Twain. :)

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 981479)

I think they could if they wanted to.

For an example look that the guy on twitter arrested for the comments he made about Fabrice Muamba.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 981496)

Or as good old bill shakespeare said, better to keep your mouth shut and let people think your an idiot than opening it, taking away any reasonable doubt:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981576)

If you put your name and address and blatantly said "I refuse to pay my TV licence!" I don't think they will track you off a nick name!

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 981584)

I think that if someone in authority really wanted to find out who was behind the nickname they would find out....and probably without too much trouble/effort.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981577)

In that case you wouldn't post Jaysay! :alright:

You call me an idiot but how many threads you started have got over 20,000 views???

A wise man said, " Rather than try and understand why some one is different, it is easier to call them an idiot when you don't understand them!"

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 981645)

Who wants to understand a clown with anti social ideas like you, supporting the use of illegal substances, your a joke, 20,000 hits 20,000 people laughing at you dim wit

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981904)

ha! ha! ha! ... See showing your ignorance mate - there are several people who did not slag me off like you, Less, Garinda and Cashman did - people who agreed with me and who were intimidated by Garinda and others. Tommiasfc also used the word "Accrington Mafia!" so it seems there are bunch of people like you who jump on every thread and intimidate people with different views!

Today the Independant...

Police and MI5 to get power to watch you on the Web!

Police and MI5 get power to watch you on the web - Home News - UK - The Independent

:hidewall:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 981907)

No your totally wrong, we jump on people who have utter stupid ideas, which insidentally fits you to a tee, there's an old saying if you can't stand the heat keep out the kitchen, might be good advice for you, and I don't need a wall to hide behind

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981910)

Rubbish - in the old days before they internet people would not speak to people like they do on the Internet, in pubs there would have been a lot more fights. The thing with the Internet is people can say what they want with no comeback - they would not do that in a pub or club!

You say "We" yes that is you and the people who agree with you who you have probably met in the pub over the years and have some agreement.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ni...w=1291&bih=642

Nick Ferrari response to Government Spy issue, 5 mins ago on This Morning: "It's unacceptable - be afraid be very afraid!"

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 981914)

I do wish people would not use the term Accyweb Mafia - there is no such thing.

And Kestrelx, you are accusing people of things that you, yourself do.
You might get heated in your arguments, and that is alright.....it shows you are passionate about what you believe in........but then you descend into personal insults.....this not a good tactic.

Changing peoples ideas and attitudes needs a long game, with strategies that appear soft and gentle, but still carry the message. Sometimes compromise is needed too.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981916)

Yeh I know your buddy buddy with Jaysay - so what else can I expect to hear from you:confused: Others here are attackers that is why I have attacked because of Trolls like Garinda...

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 981919)

Pratt, and for your information I've never had the pleasure of meeting Margaret.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981921)

Yeh but you met others - the issue is - your more likely to agree with someone you've had a few pints with than someone you havn't! This is merely an observation!

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981916)

Yeh I know your buddy buddy with Jaysay - so what else can I expect to hear from you:confused: Others here are attackers that is why I have attacked because of Trolls like Garinda...this guy will twist my words all the time - there is no excuse for it! It's trolling!

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 980767)

For one jaysay i don't have a TV license & I don't intend on getting one .. I am not paying for the BBC simple as that! .. more fool you for having one

They are in breach of there contract by receiving funding from the EU

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980769)

I just hope that argument stands up in court.

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980781)

Anyone who avoids paying for a licence is a thief. I'll have a good laugh when you are in court. You really are dim, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980787)

Next you will be saying you don't pay for a driving licence or tax your car, that is if you are old enough to drive a car. You are coming across as a little squirt.

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 980795)

There is no need for a 'detector van'. In order to find out if some one has a TV license or not all you need is a list of addresses, say the Electoral Register, or a complete list of every address in the country. Then you just match it up to those who have not got a TV license.
Simples.
Wrighty, I would be very very careful posting how you don't have a license, it may come to bite you.

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 980801)

I have learned recently that those detector vans are a scam.
BBC admits that TV detector vans only work because Britons believe they do – Boing Boing Gadgets

They worked to reduce licence evasion just because the public had been told they did, not because they were capable of detecting anything.

If that is true, and licence enforcers have no rights to enter property, how can they prove in court that you tuned in to a live broadcast?

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 980808)

I wonder if Virgin Media and Sky are obliged to reveal the names and addresses of their customers. If so, it would be easy to cross-reference if their customers have TV licences.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 980865)

But even though you don't watch that much TV you have the good sense to have a licence. They do catch people who don't have a licence as can readily be seen in the Obs most weeks

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980870)

[I]Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence. The Act empowers the BBC to make and amend the terms and conditions of a licence. It allows the government to make regulations to exempt or reduce the licence fee for certain persons in certain circumstances. It also makes it an offence for anyone to have any television receiver in their possession or under their control who intends to install or use it in contravention of the main offence (above), or knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use a television receiver in contravention of the main offence.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended) requires television dealers to notify TV Licensing of all their sales and rentals of television sets. This includes analogue and digital TV sets, DVD and video recorders, digital boxes and computers (including laptops) with TV cards.

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 define what is a 'television set' and who is a 'television dealer'. The regulations also set out the various types of TV Licence, the criteria for obtaining them, the fees payable for them (including the frequency and amount of instalments) and the different concessions available, including concessions for people who are blind or severely sight impaired, people who are over 74 years of age, people who live in residential care and people who run hotels, guesthouses or campsites.

This is from the TV licensing site......if you want to look up exactly what Part 4 of the regulations says, well that is up to you. But, in short,you are breaking the law....and you have told all of us that you are breaking the law. Not sensible is it?

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 980920)

That is up to the law to sort out, and believe me they are far happier to deal with people who don't have a TV licence than they are to deal with a huge corporation like the BBC.......so if you have a working TV(or for that matter a computer or laptop that is capable of receiving TV stations) and no licence, then you are breaking the law, and could be prosecuted.

It might be better to keep your mouth shut.......who knows, they may be able to trace you from the information that you have already posted.

I prefer to stay legal and follow the law of the land.....I don't consider that as stupid, but what you are doing is(stupid)...your choice!

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 981455)

Well i do, Rule1 of any fiddle- Keep yer big gob shut.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 981479)

I think they could if they wanted to.

For an example look that the guy on twitter arrested for the comments he made about Fabrice Muamba.

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 981634)

If you search the internet you will find that the police need a court order to obtain the IP address of a forum/twitter/facebook/etc poster.
The police then request details about who used that IP address at that time/date from the ISP. They may not even need a court order to get the details from the ISP. Depending on the offence this could be enough evidence for a search warrant and seizure of the offending persons PC/phone equipment for forensic investigation.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981910)

Rubbish - in the old days before the internet people would not speak to people like they do here and on the Internet, in pubs there would have been a lot more fights. The thing with the Internet is people can say what they want with no instant comeback, so people like Garinda can be vindictive and get a way with it - they would not do that in a pub or club!

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 981910)

Rubbish - in the old days before the internet people would not speak to people like they do here and on the Internet, in pubs there would have been a lot more fights. The thing with the Internet is people can say what they want with no instant comeback, so people like Garinda can be vindictive and get a way with it - they would not do that in a pub or club!

Originally Posted by Restless (Post 982078)

There was CB Radio. That was rather popular. I seem to remember 3 people alone were using them in the 80's on Steiner ST where I was growing up at the time. My friend said he used to use CB a lot and often there was trouble caused via that medium with rather negative results.

Another friend and neighbour from those days, many years back then also operated a CB. His name was Ernest Walton, he is now deceased (rip ernie) he also was a master at Morse Code. He used to communicate with people from around the world via Morse and they would make friends and trade postcards and things. So it goes to show it is down to the person and how they are with people which results in the way they are treated.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 982081)

Also I have been civil to people here it is their response that is at fault. You are lucky you weren't attacked by your comments about drugs - others have been attacked for expressing similar views to you - read the threads and you will see.
.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 982084)

Perhaps its not lucky,? Perhaps its cos even though some may disagree he talks far more sense that you?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 982122)

Which isn't hard 99% of the time;)

Originally Posted by Restless (Post 982078)

There was CB Radio. That was rather popular. I seem to remember 3 people alone were using them in the 80's on Steiner ST where I was growing up at the time. My friend said he used to use CB a lot and often there was trouble caused via that medium with rather negative results.

Another friend and neighbour from those days, many years back then also operated a CB. His name was Ernest Walton, he is now deceased (rip ernie) he also was a master at Morse Code. He used to communicate with people from around the world via Morse and they would make friends and trade postcards and things. So it goes to show it is down to the person and how they are with people which results in the way they are treated.

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 982145)

Great to know the taxpayers will be paying for the government & there agencies to snoop on everyone at a cost of 200 million a year

Taxpayers must foot £200 million bill to have their emails snooped on - Telegraph

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 982159)

It's a farce - never trust a Politician - they are all hypocrites. The Lib-dems were totally against the Labour proposals a few years ago - now they are behind the same ideas!

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 982167)

nice how they use two big buzz words to make it all seem ok "terrorists" and "paedophiles"

Originally Posted by Gremlin (Post 982154)

When did Ernest Walton pass away Restess?
He got his radio licence just after me in 1986 and we took our Morse Code test at Fleetwood Nautical college the year after. His call sign was G0JSQ, I think when he was on CB he was Box Car Willie.
Ernie was my best man at my wedding as well. I seemed to loose track of him when he moved to Bury with Lucy and shortly afterwards he seemed to loose interest in Ham Radio and he never came on the air.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 982152)

ha ha ha! Repeating yourself now Jaysay :confused: Don't worry we understand - a senior moment! :rolleyes:

I can't be bothered splitting hairs and going back over threads picking over bones!

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982276)

Hang on....isn't all this intrusion a contavention of our human rights?
Isn't there something in it about privacy? Could we take the government to the Court of Human rights in Strasbourg?

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982286)

Yes, that was my stab at irony Wrighty......I'm going to have to practise a bit harder.....if you didn't get it.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982292)

Like I said....I'm going to have to try a bit harder.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that you haven't been here that long, and haven't quite got the measure of me yet.....I hope that's what it is :D:D:D

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982297)

Ah, you will be Ok with me.....I'm just a soft old pussycat....all my claws have fallen out:D

Originally Posted by Wrighty (Post 982145)

Great to know the taxpayers will be paying for the government & there agencies to snoop on everyone at a cost of 200 million a year

Taxpayers must foot £200 million bill to have their emails snooped on - Telegraph

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 982412)

Ya rieght:D

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982430)

What......? You don't believe I am a soft pussycat....or that all my claws have fallen out?:)

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 982440)

The U turn is a sign that our perception of the potential for terror needs refreshing.
ie. - we need a 'scare event' (again) in order for the population to accept it.

No doubt some false flag 'terror attack' will be miraculously thwarted soon,
....or maybe will be allowed/arranged to happen.

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 982440)

The U turn is a sign that our perception of the potential for terror needs refreshing.
ie. - we need a 'scare event' (again) in order for the population to accept it.

No doubt some false flag 'terror attack' will be miraculously thwarted soon,
....or maybe will be allowed/arranged to happen.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982457)

Now they are saying that this type of surveillance would be illegal under the ECHR act.......as an invasion of privacy.

From the logistical point of view, I cannot honestly see how it would be possible/practical to monitor(in real time) every web visit, e-mail and mobile phone call that the people of this country make.....unless they were going to recruit a vast number of people to do the job.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 982460)

At the moment it wouldn't really be possible, but the government are going to upgrade broad band for 110 million.

BBC News - Virgin Media to double the speed of customer broadband

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982467)

And how will this affect the ability of the government to snoop on internet activity?

Are all internet providers going to be involved or just Virgin Media?

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 982468)

Surely if the speed is slow they won't be able to access as much data as fast as if it's speeded up!

I don't know about the Virgin Connection!

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 982460)

At the moment it wouldn't really be possible, but the government are going to upgrade broad band for 110 million.

BBC News - Virgin Media to double the speed of customer broadband

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 982472)

What has that got to do with the government?
Virginmedia are doing it themselves at their cost because, in my opinion, they are the best ISP in the UK

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 982472)

What has that got to do with the government?
Virginmedia are doing it themselves at their cost because, in my opinion, they are the best ISP in the UK

Originally Posted by Restless (Post 982482)

they might be for those in F/O areas :(

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 982493)

I can't quite see how this would improve the the practical problem of monitoring everyone who has a broadband connection.