You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Right or wrong is irrelevant it is a matter of enforceabilty.

Are they wrong to charge us a single penny?

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Not necessarily.

Yeah, and people who utter racial slurs aren't necessarily racists but they usually are.

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Is this a question ?

Sounds like a statement.

Alright, maybe that's not a question, is it a correct statement, then?

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Anyone who uses terms like New World Order is always a crackpot.

Not necessarily.

However, one may accurately say that anyone has a poor understanding of Latin if they suppose that "New World Order" is the correct translation of novus ordo seclorum (link)

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Perhaps, but that is a matter for him. I don't see how it is your problem.

Perhaps? Do you mean perhaps he is breaking the law? It's debatable whether it's illegal to avoid parking tickets? (and I do NOT mean ones from cowboy clamping companies)

[gravytrain]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

He is breaking the law, isn't he? But he's deluding himself into thinking it's an unlawful law.

Perhaps, but that is a matter for him. I don't see how it is your problem.

[gravytrain]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

My point is that it is made completely clear that you must pay for a TV licence to receive a TV signal. I'm not talking about just buying a television and using it to watch DVDs or play computers games. That is fine. And it is not like the government is tricking anybody here, they state their fee, that's all you have to pay. It is your choice whether you plug an aerial into your TV and receive channels. If you do this without paying, you've got no right to complain when they come knocking on your door.

Is this a question ?

Sounds like a statement.

[gravytrain]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

No, I did not ask the question on that other forum. I really came find here to find out if there's any truth to his claims that he has no right to pay for parking tickets.

If it were me and it was an authority ticket I would pay it, If it was from some private parking enterprise I would not.

Right or wrong is irrelevant it is a matter of enforceabilty.

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

It seems absurd that some of these really old laws still hold any water now. They come from a time when among other things women weren't allowed to vote

Known as the good old days? :behindsofa:

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

How can I help, what exactly is your problem ?

Just read what I said in the first line of comment #23 and also comment #40 (the whole thing) and comment #52. Those are my main questions.

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Oh, so if I didn't believe I should pay tax, I would be perfectly entitled to try and avoid it?

Starbucks did.

Isn't this guy just being a complete crackpot?

Why are you convinced he does not have any bits missing?

[gravytrain]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Why would you think it matters to me how you take my answers ?

Oh, I don't know, because why should you talk to me if you couldn't care less about whether your answers helped me or not? If you're just trying to wind me up and take the **** then I really do not appreciate that.

How can I help, what exactly is your problem ?

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Why would you think it matters to me how you take my answers ?

Oh, I don't know, because why should you talk to me if you couldn't care less about whether your answers helped me or not? If you're just trying to wind me up and take the **** then I really do not appreciate that.

[GO84]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

He is breaking the law, isn't he? But he's deluding himself into thinking it's an unlawful law.

[gravytrain]

Re: You can't ignore parking fines, can you?

Well, not really. I notice you still decline to say whether you have any legal training. I don't have to know but if you said yes it would make me take your answers more seriously (as long as you weren't lying which I should hope you aren't) Why would someone who was qualified say they weren't? What's the point of that?

Why would you think it matters to me how you take my answers ?

Anyway, this was the exchange between us on this subject (the order of comment may seem confusing, because he kept block and unblocking me and some comments were lost):

Him: (this follows on from some previous discussion) I have no contractual obligation to abide by the rules in that legislation as it was not mentioned when I signed for my driving licence.
If I was working for a company delivering goods wot not, engaged in commerce, I would have to abide by that, as any registered business has to abide by the local authority rules. I am a flesh and blood man, and local aurthority have to use contracts to gain aurthority over man.
Man is number 2 in the pecking order next to god, or the universe what ever you want to call it. The state is number 3 in the pecking order as man created the state to serve.

Until you infringe on anyone else's rights, no one has any jurisdiction over you. Just look at the amazing success people are having with tv licensing, using the very same technique.

The crowd go wild

Me: Is it really worth it? Just to avoid paying a few quid? [this is more about the parking charge issue]

No TV licence, no BBC. If you really object to the TV licence, don't pay it, don't plug an aerial into your TV, don't watch programming that you haven't contributed to.

Him: Of course it's worth it, it's very fulfilling and exciting.

I will watch tv if I like, if they want to send me services I didn't ask for, that's up to them, but don't force me to pay for it, like hello?
They could at least encrypt there programme's like sky do, but no, they send the signal and then say I have to pay for it.

That puts me under duress.

Soooooooooo!!!,

Next

Me: Why don't they encrypt the signal? Probably because until recently it was analog, not digital.

Me: You make it sound like they're trying to deceive people, but everyone knows you are required to pay the licence fee if you watch TV.

Him: No no no, absolutely wrong. The licence fee is for live broadcasts from the bbc. Nothing to do with watching itv, or sky. Have you actually read the legislation? Prolly not, else you would know this.

And also, you said "required", which is not an order, it is a request, and by law, you don't have to obey a request.

Soooooooooo!

Next

(After this I sent brief replies trying to reiterate the difference between owning a television and actually watching television but they were lost)

Him: You don't need a licence to watch tv, the licence is for live broadcasts, let me repeat that..... LIVE BROADCASTS.


Him: You don't need a licence to watch DVDs

Like hello?

This is why I blocked you, because you say things without actually knowing if its true

Him: Yes it is, if I watch a DVD, I am watch it on a device called a television.

Sorry mate. You obviously haven't read the act

See ya

Me: But you are not ordered to watch TV. You choose to.

Him: Television (TV) is a telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images that can be monochrome (black-and-white) or colored, with or without accompanying sound. "Television" may also refer specifically to a television set, television programming, or television transmission

Me: That is what I meant by watching television. When you watch a DVD that's not "watching television"

I then replied saying watching a DVD was just using a television, not watching television, but then he blocked me again. I am not stupid, when I say you need to pay a licence fee to watch TV in Britain, I know this does not mean you need a licence just to posess a television and switch it on, only if you plug the aerial in and receive the channels. He seemed to fail to grasp this distinction I was making.

Everyone is entitled to their view I suppose, regarding the licensing of TVs, the requirements under the law are mentioned in an earlier post ?