INTRODUCTION:
|
| THE RADIO AND TELEGRAPHY ACT 1949 IS WHY WE HAVE TO PAY A T.V. LICENCE. AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROPRIATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RAISE THE COST OF THIS EXPENSIVE NEW TECHNOLOGY FROM THE VIEWERS AS THE B.B.C. WAS THE ONLY PROVIDER. WITH THE ADVENT OF COMMERCIAL TELEVISION, WHICH WE PAY FOR OUT OF OUR PURCHASES, THE GROUNDS FOR THIS 'TELLY-TAX' IMMEDIATELY BECAME A SUBJECT FOR LEGAL CHALLENGE. WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT PLACE A FINANCIAL RESTRICTION UPON OUR ACCESSING A SERVICE FROM A COMMERCIAL PROVIDER FOR WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY PAID?? THE GROUNDS FOR THIS ACT ARE NOW EVEN THINNER WITH THE ADVENT OF CABLE/SATELLITE AND SUBSCRIPTION CHANNELS. THE STATE CHANNELS ARE NOW A TINY MINORITY OF ALL THOSE AVAILABLE. I BELIEVE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS PROGRAMMES OF MY CHOICE (WHETHER PRE-PAID LIKE COMMERCIAL CHANNELS OR VOLUNTARILY SUBSCRIBED TO eg.SPORTS CHANNELS) WITHOUT LEGAL OR FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. |

| THIS ANCIENT STATUTE STILL EXISTS BECAUSE NO-ONE ACTUALLY BOTHERS TO DISPUTE IT! WE ALL MOAN EACH RENEWAL DATE, BUT DON'T ACT! A FEW YEARS AGO A MAN TOOK THE GOVERNMENT TO THE EUROPEAN COURT BECAUSE HE WAS CHARGED V.A.T. ON HIS PRESCRIPTION SPECTACLES. AS A MEDICAL GOOD, THESE WERE EXEMPT UNDER E.U. LAW. RESULT? - GOVERNMENT REFUND OF TEN YEARS REVENUE TO THE OPTICIANS AT A COST OF £850.000.000! THEY WOULD STILL BE CHARGING IT NOW IF THIS GENTLEMAN HAD NOT ACTED! MORE RECENTLY, WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THE COLD-WEATHER PAYMENTS TO MEN AT 65 AND WOMEN AT 60. AGAIN THE GOVERNMENT WAS TAKEN TO COURT (SEX DISCRIMINATION) AND HAD TO BACK-PAY THE MEN 5 YEARS DIFFERENCE. THE POINT IS , THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY ACTS, NOTHING WILL BE DONE! I WON'T GO INTO UNNECESSARY DETAIL; LET IT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF AT LEAST 3 E.U. STATUTES: FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FREE ACCESS TO THE MEDIA AND FAIR COMPETITION RULES. WE PLAN TO CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE. |
| IN JANUARY 2002 THE I.T.V. COMPANIES LODGED A COMPLAINT WITH THE O.F.T. (OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING). THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE BBC'S COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES CONCERNING BRANCHES SET UP TO MAKE AND MARKET PROGRAMMES WORLDWIDE, AND VENTURES SUCH AS DIGITAL RADIO/TV STATIONS WITH PRIVATE COMPANIES LIKE BSKYB. THE ITV COMPANIES FEEL THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO COMPETE WITH FALLING ADVERTISING REVENUES AGAINST A CORPORATION FUNDED WITH ALMOST LIMITLESS FUNDS, EXTRACTED FROM THE GENERAL POPULACE UNDER THREAT OF FINES AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. (THIS WILL BE UPDATED ONCE THE OFT ISSUE A STATEMENT.) WHY THE LACK OF PROGRESS SO FAR?THE CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH THE LICENCE IS REALLY 'UP AGAINST IT'!! THIS IS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE GENERAL (AND TYPICAL) APATHY OF THE U.K. PUBLIC - THEY MOAN, AND THEN PAY! PUBLICITY IS HARD TO GET, AS THE COMMERCIAL STATIONS WOULD FEAR THE BBC BECOMING COMMERCIALLY FUNDED (NOT NECESSARILY SO) AND THUS COMPETING FOR REVENUE IF THE LICENCE WAS ABOLISHED. SEVERAL TV STATIONS, E.G. MURDOCH'S BSKYB WHICH OWNS THE 'SUN' NEWSPAPER, THEREFORE HAVE AN INTEREST TO AVOID PUBLICITY FOR THE CAMPAIGN, WHICH EXTENDS TO WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS TOO. POLITICIANS GENERALLY REMAIN SILENT, ALTHOUGH SOME LIKE LABOUR MP FRANK FIELD HAVE PUBLICLY SUPPORTED DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT. I ONCE SPOKE ON THE JAMES WHALE SHOW ON 'TALK FM' RADIO; HE IS ANOTHER FIGURE WHO WOULD LIKE IT ABOLISHED. IN AUSTRALIA, THE POPULATION BASICALLY TOLD THE GOVERNMENT 'WHERE TO STICK THE LICENCE' WHEN THEY TRIED IT. IN NEW ZEALAND IT WAS ABOLISHED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AFTER PUBLIC PRESSURE. IF THEY TRIED TO INTRODUCE IT IN THE U.S., WELL ONE COULD IMAGINE THE PUBLIC RESPONSE!! BRITAIN IS VIRTUALLY UNIQUE AMONG THE SO-CALLED 'FREE' COUNTRIES TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM!! THE MORE SINISTER REASON WHICH IS HARDER TO DISTINGUISH, IS ITS USE IN ENSURING THE WHOLE UK POPULATION RECEIVES SUBLIMINAL AND NOT-SO SUBLIMINAL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MESSAGES AND INDOCTRINATION. SOUNDS FAR-FETCHED? - WELL ONLY LAST YEAR (ON BBC NEWS) IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SOAPS IN THE U.S. WERE DOING THIS, QUITE OPENLY, AND THEY COULD BE 'APPROPRIATE VEHICLES' FOR MESSAGES TO THE POPULACE! VERY USEFUL FOR A GOVERNMENT, THE BBC, WITH ITS 'CAPTIVE' AUDIENCE!! OTHER VESTED INTERESTS AND CORRUPTIONDID YOU KNOW THAT THE BBC AND BSKYB HAVE A VERY COSY 'ARRANGEMENT' FOR THE TRANSPONDING OF THE BBC STATIONS VIA BSKYB'S SATELLITES?? THAT CONSIGNIA (EX-P.OFFICE) DO VERY WELL OUT OF SELLING THE LICENCES ON THIS QUANGOS BEHALF?? THAT IT COSTS £140m A YEAR TO COLLECT (ABOUT £7 FOR EACH LICENCE SOLD)?? THAT IN SCOTLAND IT'S ONLY A CIVIL MATTER (LICENCE EVASION) AS OPPOSED TO CRIMINAL ELSEWHERE IN THE U.K.?? THAT NEARLY 70% OF COURT CASES INVOLVE WOMEN (AS THEY SEEM TO BE IN WHEN TV GESTAPO VISIT)?? THAT THE POOREST PEOPLE WITH LEAST ACCESS TO CREDIT (ESPECIALLY SINGLE MUMS) WHO CAN'T USE THE D.DEBIT SYSTEM, MUST PAY, WHEN PROSECUTED, THE WHOLE AMOUNT WITH NO INSTALMENT FACILITY?? THAT YOU HAVE A 1 IN 11 CHANCE OF BEING PROSECUTED IF CAUGHT WITHOUT ONE, AND THAT THE AVERAGE FINE IS £140?? (LICENCE £109) - FIGURE THE ODDS OUT FOR YOURSELF!! ;-) THAT YOU CANNOT GET ANY FIGURES FOR PEOPLE ACTUALLY IMPRISONED ANNUALY FOR NON-PAYMENT?? THAT OVER 100,000 PEOPLE GO TO CRIMINAL COURT EACH YEAR?? THAT IF YOU GENUINELY DON'T OWN A TV DUE TO PERSONAL CHOICE, YOU FACE A VERY LONG AND ANNOYING PROCESS OF 'PROVING YOURSELF INNOCENT' TO THE TVL?? THAT UNLIKE CAR TAX, WHEREBY REFUNDS ARE PAID ON COMPLETE MONTHS LEFT, YOU MUST HAVE AT LEAST 3 MONTHS!! LEFT ON A LICENCE, (IF YOU GO ABROAD FOR EXAMPLE) TO GET ANY REFUND?? THAT MILLIONS WATCH THE BBC AROUND NORTHERN EUROPE FOR FREE, THUS EFFECTIVELY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST BRIITISH-BASED E.U. CITIZENS FOR WATCHING IT?? (SIMPLY SEE THE CEEFAX LETTERS PAGES FOR PROOF OF THIS!) THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DO GET AWAY WITH NOT PAYING, DESPITE THE EXPENSIVE 'BIG BROTHER' TYPE ADS THEY RUN ON ITV?? REASONS FOR ABOLITION:1...THE GOVERNMENT IS PLACING OBSTRUCTION UPON MY RIGHT TO ACCESS CHANNELS I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR (COMMERCIAL T.V.) OR MAY WISH TO SUBSCRIBE TO (EG. SKY SPORTS ETC.) 2...NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD BASE ANY CITIZENS RIGHT TO ACCESS FREE MEDIA UPON SUBSCRIPTION TO ITS OWN STATION. 3...THE 1940'S ACT IS OBSOLETE - YOU CAN GET BBC OVER THE INTERNET WITHOUT T.V. SIGNAL RECEIVING EQUIPMENT I.E. COMPUTER, RELAYED FROM HOLLAND AND BELGIUM! 4...ENGLAND AND WALES (NOT SCOTLAND) REGULARLY IMPRISON IMPOVERISHED SINGLE-PARENTS ETC.FOR 'WATCHING WITHOUT' - IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT THIS CONTRAVENES THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, OF WHICH THE U.K. IS A SIGNATORY. 5...THE SINISTER T.V. GESTAPO HAVE THE POWER TO ENTER YOUR HOME WITH A WARRANT. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LET THEM IN IF THEY CALL - THEY MUST COME BACK WITH A SEARCH WARRANT!! 6...IT GRANTS UNFAIR ADVANTAGES TO ONE PROVIDER WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE OTHERS - THEY BECOME UNPOPULAR OR INEFFICIENT, THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, UNLIKE THE FORTUNATE B.B.C.! (PERHAPS THIS EXPLAINS WHY THE INDEPENDENTS HAVE ALL THE BIG SPORTING EVENTS!-UNLESS YOU'RE A BIG FAN OF INDOOR BOWLS OR SUCHLIKE!!). 7...IF THE B.B.C. IS AS GOOD AS IT PRESUMES, THEN SURELY IT WOULD FLOURISH IN A MORE COMPETITIVE SITUATION, I.E. IT HAD TO RELY ON POPULARITY FOR IT'S REVENUE. 8...THE B.B.C. IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO IT'S VIEWERS OR SHAREHOLDERS, THEORETICALLY US LICENCE PAYERS, UNLIKE COMMERCIAL CHANNELS. 9...THE LICENCE IS NOW BEING USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL BY THE GOVERNMENT (I.E. FREE LICENCE FOR THE OVER 75'S). NOW MILLIONS DON'T HAVE TO PAY IT, REGARDLESS OF WEALTH, WHO MAKES UP THE SHORTFALL IN REVENUE?? TAXPAYERS OF COURSE! 10...I WOULD LIKE THE RIGHT TO SPEND MY MONEY ON A SERVICE OF MY CHOICE, WITHOUT AN ENFORCED SUBSCRIPTION TO ONE I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO RECEIVE. |
| IMAGINE GOING IN TO YOUR LOCAL NEWSAGENTS, TO BUY SAY, THE DAILY MAIL OR PICK UP YOUR LOCAL FREE ADVERTISER PAPER. YOU WALK IN AND THIS CONVERATION OCCURS: "HI BOB, GIVE US THE 'MAIL' MATE "(OFFERING YOUR COINS) HE RESPONDS: " SORRY, HAVE YOU PAID FOR THE BBC GAZETTE?" "NO BOB, I ONLY WANT THE 'MAIL'" I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SELL YOU IT THEN" "WELL BOB, JUST GIVE ME AN 'ADVERTISER' INSTEAD THEN" "NO, SORRY PAL, YOU CAN'T READ THAT EITHER" "OH, COME ON BOB, THIS IS BLOODY SILLY!" "LOOK PAL, JUST BUY THE BBC GAZETTE FIRST, THEN YOU CAN HAVE THE OTHER FREE ONE AND BUY THE 'MAIL' - NOT MY FAULT, IT'S THE LAW MATE" "HANG ON BOB, YOU WANT ME TO BASICALLY BUY THE 'BBC GAZETTE', THROW IT IN THE BIN OR WHATEVER, AND THEN YOU'LL SELL ME THE MAIL AND GIVE ME THE FREEBIE" "YEAH PAL, THAT'S ABOUT THE SUM OF IT - NO PAY FOR BBC PAPER, NO READ ANY PAPER" "THAT'S ****ING RIDICULOUS, BOB!!" "SORRY MATE, ME HANDS ARE TIED, IT'S THE LAW AND ALL THAT" SOUNDS SILLY?? THIS SUMS UP OUR RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO THE TELEVISUAL MEDIA IN THE U.K. TODAY! EVENTUAL POSSIBILITIES:WHEN THE CASE IS EVENTUALLY WON, ALMOST CERTAINLY IN STRASBOURG, THERE WILL BE THREE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES: 1.THE GOVERNMENT WILL FUND IT OUT OF GENERAL TAXATION. 2.IT WILL BE FLOATED ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE (WITH A POSSIBLE SMALL WINDFALL FOR THE CURRENT LICENCE HOLDERS AS THEY THEORETICALLY OWN IT). 3.IT WILL GO COMMERCIAL (IT'S ALREADY VERY ADEPT AT ADVERTISING IT'S OWN PROGRAMMES!) THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD POSSIBLY LOSE OUT ARE THE TEAMS OF THE STATE T.V. DETECTOR-POLICE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO E-MAIL YOUR OPINIONS, PLEASE USE THE MESSAGE LINK BELOW. THANKS FOR READING!---ON WITH THE ACTION!!! SPECIAL MENTION:IT IS NOW BEING CHALLENGED IN THE UK COURTS, UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS - WHICH STIPULATES THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers". THIS IS TO PAY TRIBUTE TO 'BONGO' WHO CEASELESSLY CAMPAIGNS OUTSIDE OF BBC PREMISES, POST OFFICES AND MAGISTRATES COURTS IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND, LEAFLETTING AND CANVASSING SUPPORT FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE ANTIQUATED AND GROSSLY UNFAIR RADIO AND TELEGRAPHY ACTS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, WE'RE ALL WITH YOU!! |
| SEND YOUR COMMENTS /SUPPORT NOW!!! |
This website is hosted for free by .
Get your own
Free Website now!
|