Why A TV Licence?

However today the BBC puts out exactly the same shite programmes as ITV and the plethora of shitty channels that have come into being in the intervening years. If I were living alone I wouldn't have a television as it now serves no real purpose for me. The few programmes I would like to watch are all available on catch up services online. As it is I live with my family and there are a fair few programmes they enjoy watching, all of which are also available on catch up services but I don't believe it is right for me to force my beliefs on them and so for now the monster still resides in its corner.

The thing is though is the Licence Fee still relevant or has it ever been relevant?

I have trawled the web and followed link after link and read page after page and sad as I am, read the plethora of acts, regulations and statutory instruments created by Parliament to obfuscate the legality of the TV licence and its attached fee and there is nowhere in either plain English or the language of the Law Society legalese which these statutes are written in, where it states that a human being or a legal fiction person HAS to have in their possession a TV Licence to be able to watch real time television broadcasts.
The requirement for a licence DOES NOT EXIST. I'll say it again as I cannot get my head round this but the requirement for a TV Licence DOES NOT EXIST.

The TV Licence is simply a massive, deceptive, con perpetrated by the state through the state's parliament and its statutes, legislation and statutory instruments and the state owned BBC PLC.
In essence it is a tax levied on the occupier of a house, home or business located in Great Britain and almost every human being, who falls into one of these three categories, rolls over and pays this licence because they believe they have to pay it or else they will not be able to watch real time television or end up in court.

The truth is very different.
The TV Licence is administered directly by TV Licensing which is a trading name of Consignia PLC which in turn is owned by the BBC PLC. This is the same company that makes its money from commercial endeavours all around the world and yet it is taxing the public in Great Britain in a very deceitful manner. It has no need to behave like this as it can survive and prosper perfectly well on its commercial profits. As Parliament has enacted the legislation that created the deception in the first place and continues to deceive and obfuscate the truth Parliament is effectively underwriting the con.

Turning to legalese let's look at the legalese definition of Licence and Fee because they seem to be specific words used for a specific reason. They don't issue a TV certificate or ask for a Licence payment do they?

In Blacks Law 7th Edition Licence is defined as;

• A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a lease or a profit à prendre) that it will be lawful for the licensee to enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal such as hunting game.

• The certificate or document evidencing such permission.
  

• bare license. A license in which no property interest passes to the licensee who is merely not a trespasser. It is revocable at will.
• compulsory license. Copyright. A statutorily created license that allows certain parties to use copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the copyright owner in exchange for a specified royalty.
• exclusive license. A licence that gives the licensee the exclusive rights to perform the licensed act and that prohibits the licensor from granting the right to anyone else: esp., such a license  of copyright, patent or trademark right.
• license coupled with an interest. An irrevocable license conveyed with an interest in land or chattel interest. An injunction may be obtained to prevent the wrongful revocation of such a license.
• naked license. 1. A license allowing a licensee to use a trademark on any goods and services the licensee chooses. 2. see bare license.
• shrink-wrap license. A printed license that is displayed on the outside of a software package and that advises the buyer that by opening the package, the buyer becomes legally obligated to abide by the terms of the licence.

So which one of these legalese definitions applies?
On first reading it would appear that the very first one does but this definition applies to something physical such as hunting on land. I would think a fishing or hunting licence falls into this legal definition. Owning electronic equipment capable of receiving and decoding  freely available TV signals does not!
Owning electronic equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV signals does not fall within any one or combination of these definitions so how is it possible for the BBC PLC to charge an 'occupier' for something that doesn't fit any of these legal definitions?

Moving on to Fee

In Blacks Law 7th Edition Fee is defined as;

• 1. A charge for labor or services esp; professional services.
• attorney's fees.
• contingent fee.
• docket fee. A fee charged by a court for filing a claim.
• expert-witness fee. A fee paid for the professional services of an expert witness.
• franchise fee. 1. A fee paid by a franchisee to a franchisor fro franchise rights. Franchise fees are regulated by state laws. 2. A fee paid to the government grant of a franchise, such as one required for operating a radio or television station.
• jury fee. A fee usu. a minimal one, that a party must pay the court clerk to be entitled to a jury trial.
• maintenance fee. A fee to pay for the services of reinvesting earnings and dividends in mutual funds.
• management fee. A fee charged by an investment manager for supervisory services.
• origination fee. A fee charged by a lender for preparing and processing a loan.
• witness fee. 1. A statutory fee that must be tendered with a subpoena for the subpoena to be binding. 2. a fee paid by a party to a witness as reimbursement for reasonable expenses (such as travel, meals, lodgings and loss of time) as incurred as a result of the witness's having to attend trial and testify. Any other payment to a witness is considered unethical.
• 2. An inheritable interest in land, constituting maximal legal ownership

So where in these definitions does it refer to a fee as "money charged for" or "money demanded for" or "money to be handed over in return for a licence"?
Answer nowhere.
None of these legalese definitions apply to the way in which the TV Licence Fee is charged and applied to the occupiers of houses, homes and businesses.

Using Blacks Law 7th Edition I have been able to prove to myself that the TV Licence Fee is not legal. In fact as none of these definitions apply to either of the two words it is actually illegal under the state's own statute law.
There is no commercial need for a payment to be made by an 'occupier' to the company BBC plc to own equipment capable of receiving and decoding TV signals. None whatsoever.

What I believe the TV Licence to be is an unenforceable tax applied to the occupier of a house, home or business, whoever they may be, that has equipment capable of receiving and decoding the freely broadcast TV signal here in Great Britain.
It is applied to the 'occupier' in the form of a contract but no 'occupier' has signed this contract and no human being who works for TV Licensing otherwise known as Consginia PLC  has ever signed or presented a contract to any 'occupier' in the land. As no-one has signed anything then there is no contract in existence.

The TV Licence Fee is just an illegal tax scam perpetrated by the wholly state owned BBC PLC.

Just for completeness here is what  Blacks Law 7th Edition defines the word 'occupier' as.

THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF OCCUPIER!!!!!!!!!!
Occupant is there but the fee is always charged to the 'occupier'!!!

So how on earth is it possible to raise a charge or a tax on something that has no legal definition and therefore does not actually exist.

Blows my mind how many lies and machinations are forced into the collective psyche by the deceivers and are simply taken for granted by otherwise sane and logical flesh and blood humans.

Don't take my word that any of this is true go and find out for yourself. It really is the only way to lift the veil and give yourself the means to live the life you are meant to be living not walk around this land with the state's monkeys strapped to your back.

updated:
I've now done enough research to say categorically that the tv licencing vans contain no equipment capable of discerning that any electronic device capable of receiving and decoding a real time freely broadcast TV signal is actually switched on or is actually receiving said signal There is somewhere between six and twelve of these vans parked up in supermarkets etc and they are basically mobile adverts!

The equipment has never existed. But.
People will knock on your door from TV Licensing aka Consignia aka BBC aka the state and ASK you if you have the relevant equipment and INTEND using it. Intent is key here folks bizarrely.
So there is all the proof required that the detection equipment does not exist.
If it did and if it worked why would the state need to send someone round to ask if you possess the equipment and intend using it?

It just makes no sense. None of it does unless TV Licencing aka Consignia aka BBC aka the state are pulling a con which is of course exactly what they are doing.

There are many cures and I am now investigating all of them to see which is the simplest to bin this odious drain on my finances..