Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Wales-Bales
£1,000 Maximum fine for watching without a valid licence. Plus a criminal record
If I knew that it was only going to cost me a grand to get a criminal record, I would have bought one years ago..
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
£1,000 Maximum fine for watching without a valid licence. Plus a criminal record
If I knew that it was only going to cost me a grand to get a criminal record, I would have bought one years ago..
Interesting that they will be using anti-terror legislation in their fight against people watching tv.
If only I had known that there was a queue jumping short-cut way to getting a criminal record years ago it would have saved me an awful lot of time, stress and money.
Even more interesting is the fact that the taxpayer, they that fund this latest road trip version of Top Gear, will not be told what the entire cost of having a nation-wide van fleet on the road,is going to cost them.
In what shape or form is this old news a conspiracy theory?
It might be something to do with the vansIt would be a lot cheaper and faster to use the new snoopers charter from the comfort of their office desk, or just get somebody from the IT Department to write a script
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 06-08-16 at 07:53.
Or Section 19. SWP informed me that you could get 15 years on that. I took one look at the missus and asked, could they make it a bit longer please...It might be something to do with the vans
It's a regressive tax on owning a TV and other devices, an extortion racket. Pay for the privilege of having the capability to tune into our state sponsored propaganda, or else.
The bloke in the vid has a right go at the snooper who came knocking on his door. Be warned, he uses some colourful language.
In other BBC News " a Norwegian man of Somalian origin was arrested and charged by police this morning."
I'm looking forward to them announcing Mo Farrah as a "British athlete of Eritrean origin lining up for his event."
I doubt they'll go to this expense. My guess is that you'll need to put a password in to get access to iplayer, with your licence number as username or something. The number of people who will get round this is so small that it's not worth the money on vans to potter around the country detecting (if it's even possible to do it in this inefficient manner).
conspiracy
Pronunciation: /kənˈspɪrəsi/
NOUN (plural conspiracies)
1A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:
Surprisingly enough, the story is bollocks.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...wi_fi_iplayer/
The fact that we are being forced to pay to receive their lying, mind twisting crap makes it doubly offensive. I must confess that I do listen to the BBC news now and then, but only to find out what message they are pushing. To get to the truth you should always assume the opposite is true. Ditto C4, Sky, ITV and all the other dissemblers. Even the weather reports are lies. The last time they told me it would be sunny all day I could see our postman being almost washed town the street by torrential rain.
Why don't they just protect their material in the same way that companies such as Sky and Netflix do, and stop bothering the sizeable number of people who don't want anything to do with the BBC? Imagine if Sky or Netflix turned up at your home with police officers in tow, and did the same thing (assuming they also used unprotected distribution methods). There would be uproar.
So they want to put smart meters in every home, yet they can't put a simple box in the homes of people who are actually willing to pay to watch the BBC. Just think about it, why have they chosen the harassment, intimidation and invasion of privacy method? I can only assume it is because they think they can get more money that way.
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 06-08-16 at 18:20.
That's a strong possibility. Alternatively they could be looking to protect their funding revenues from being reduced by the government through the creation of this new in-house operation.I can only assume it is because they think they can get more money that way.
Would the box work if you want to watch iplayer on your device when you're out?
Why are people so accepting of the need to have some form smart meter/box in their home to watch something which they have already paid for with their annual licence fee? It's not as if the BBC are completely dependent on licence fees, Top Gear alone used to bring in some £350 million annually from global sales.
Surely we should just be looking at this for what it really is, just another way of raising revenues for the organisation, like paying for the privilege of driving your car into central London, i.e. just another tax?
I think you're misinterpreting the thread. The smart box is just a suggestion that someone has made on here. It doesn't exist. I'm not sure who you think is accepting it.
They already exist! Why do you think there are thousands of devices fitted to people's television sets to record and get accurate samples of viewing figures. Those samples are then used as the basis for statistical data, extrapolated and projected on to regional and national levels.
http://www.barb.co.uk/about-us/how-we-do-what-we-do/
Last edited by Splott Dave; 07-08-16 at 08:57.
You've just explained why they're there. I'm quite confident that all those people have paid their TV licence.
If you have some proof that these are going to be put in every house in the land, then please show evidence, etc etc. Also help me understand how a box attached to the tv is going to monitor online activity, which is what this thread is about.
I've given you a specific example of monitoring. In this case it's for audience research. The fact remains that it isn't so much of an alien concept as it's just a case of coming up with appropriate technology.
You've just explained why they're there. I'm quite confident that all those people have paid their TV licence.
If you have some proof that these are going to be put in every house in the land, then please show evidence, etc etc. Also help me understand how a box attached to the tv is going to monitor online activity, which is what this thread is about.
First comes the 'problem' then comes the 'reaction', finally we are given a 'solution'. It's a classic Problem-Reaction-Solution model which is used over and over again particularly in the field of national security.
We are drowning in surveillance systems in the West, systems which are costing billions and billons of $$'s to taxpayers. Yet if we look objectively and believe every report on 'terror attacks' that we're told, some 50% of the remain undetected prior to the event. The vast majority of the 'attackers' are already known to police or security services in some form or another.
It's a specific example of monitoring, albeit one of a completely different technology and purpose. You might as well have started talking about having windows in your house.
You can do that on another thread if you like. What I established is the basic concept of monitoring exists already. It's just a few steps more to getting people to accept an intrusion into their private lives as something which is normal, acceptable and something that they should not be unduly concerned about.
You know all the people getting their tv viewing 'monitored' volunteered for it, right?
Makes no difference if someone had crept into their bedroom in the middle of the night, rammed their arm up their back and forced them to have one.
The concept of monitoring, inside people's homes, is one which has become well established.
Posting Permissions
