Does a human have to pay

kenneth priestley made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig.

kenneth priestley

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
I understand that you are a corporation / company, you collect money via the means of a licence fee.
Please can you inform me if the licence fee is legal or lawful, is it an act ect?.
Please can you inform me if a person or a human must pay this fee ?.
I understand that acts ect only carry the weight of law if you consent to be governed ie: become a person / birth certificate and give up your rights as a human / living.
I am looking into law - common law - law of land as opposed to civil law - law of the sea / contract / governed law.
I hope you can help me with my research.

Please can you send me a list of all private funding - gifts including the name of the persons or companies who contributed.

Yours faithfully,
Ken

FOI Enquiries, Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

Dear Mr Priestley,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as detailed in your email below. Your request was received on 6th January 2013. We will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days. If you have any queries about your request, please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20130012.

Kind regards

The Information Policy & Compliance Team

BBC Freedom of Information
BC2 B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882
Fax: 020 8008 2398

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI Enquiries,
This question could not be any easier to answer.
YES or NO

Yours sincerely,

kenneth priestley

FOI Enquiries, Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Priestley,

 

Please find attached the response to your request for information,
reference RFI20130012. I apologise for the delay in responding to your
request.

 

Yours sincerely,

Theresa Pollard

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

Room BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre

Wood Lane

London W12 7TP

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882

Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

[3]Description: Description: \\BBCFS2025\UserData$\myrien01\Documents\My
Pictures\BBC.png

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

FOI Enquiries, Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

Dear Mr Priestly,

I note that you have now received a response to your request for information RFI20130012. We acknowledge that this was sent to you outside of the 20 working day deadline as dictated by the FOI Act, and any internal review will find as such. We apologise for this delay.

Please contact us to confirm whether you would still like to request an internal review of the handling of this request. Unless we hear from you within 20 working days, we shall assume you no longer wish for the internal review to be processed.

Yours sincerely,
Theresa Pollard

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
Room BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2882
Fax: 020 8008 2398

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

kenneth priestley

Dear FOI Enquiries,
I asked the most basic of questions that the BBC find very difficult to answer, a simple yes or no would sufice.

Yours sincerely,

kenneth priestley

Gadawodd S. Murphy anodiad ()

You can't say you're no longer a legal person; that attaches to you at birth and can never be alienated. So i'll answer your question - you're a legal person, you can't say you're NOT a legal person, if you have a TV you have to pay a TV license. If you're concerned about paying the License Fee get rid of all things capable of watching TV on (television, computers etc), not dehumanising yourself.

Gadawodd Mark Salter anodiad ()

As defined by the BBC ( http://bit.ly/UOcITm ), you only need a television license if you intend to watch television programs at the same time they are being broadcast.

There is no need to get rid of any equipment that can play television programs , just because you don't have (or need) a license.

Gadawodd kenneth priestley anodiad ()

I only wish clarification as we are born human, there is a difference between legal and lawful and i would research this before commenting.
you are ruled by consent to be governed ie. legal
I have chosen a different path as i do not vote and do not require legal law, i choose lawful law ( common law ) i have been decived for 39 years and due to different departments of the government / council ripping me off i looked into how this was possible !!!!.
One day you too may wake up, open your eyes and see the world how it really is ( dont mock, research ).

Gadawodd GEOFFREY REYNOLDS (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

PATTON'S PUPPETS Deliberately turn their backs on the poorest and disabled in society....

Not a mention of the Bedroom tax protests on the BBC Media links.

You are not a noteworthy news provider, just a sad demented tool of our government....

A cog in the machine that brings despair to the masses whilst awarding yourselves gross payouts for the honour.

If this was a time of war, you would be at home with the enemy.......

Gadawodd S. Martin anodiad ()

Kenneth:

Acts and Statutes are not actually law, there is only one true law and that is Common Law and the UK is allegedly a Common Law Jurisdiction. Acts and Statutes are passed by Parliament and are not actually laws.

Acts and Statutes are only given "the force of law with the consent of the governed" so don't consent and they don't apply, only Common Law does.

Acts and Statutes can only be levied against "The Person" and the person is lawfully and legally defined as a legal fiction, so how do you levy something against a fiction? The legal fiction, the person is created when you apply for a birth certificate, the irony being that it requires a human being and not a person to create it.

The deceit comes when they try to get you to become, act as, or accept liability for the legal fiction called the person, do none of these and Acts and Statutes don't apply. They have made it difficult as there are many ways you "consent" and this is mainly through indoctrination, learn how not to consent and they are powerless.

Gadawodd S. Martin anodiad ()

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRQTkOk__48

This is an interesting video which highlights the deceit and lies about law, how far do they get? nowhere because the occupants know the law.

This begins with a Policeman knocking on the door and saying "we are here with our colleagues", colleagues? are they the Police or TV licensing (Capita) They are Capita so are not the Polices colleagues, they are Capita employees and Capita are a for profit company. Why was a Policeman knocking on the door when the warrant was issued to Capita agents as this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, unless he was acting for, and on behalf of Capita which is Ultra Vires.

Ultra Vires is acting outside your authority which he clearly was as his role is to uphold Common Law and prevent a breach of the peace, nothing more. He should have stood there and said nothing unless a common law offence was committed.

The Policeman claims he has a warrant issued by a Judge!!!! a Judge? no, its issued by a Magistrate based upon a sworn statement by the Capita employee and no real evidence.

When asked if the Magistrate was acting on his oath the Policeman answered "yes" how did he know the answer to this as Magistrates can act under their oath or privately. When issuing warrants they normally act privately and not under their oath as they are providing a service for which they are paid. So, the answer is NO, they aren't acting under their oath.

When questioned about the accuracy of the detection equipment the Policeman stated clearly that they cannot guarantee that the signals did come from that property.
This means that the Capita representative has lied to a Magistrate in his sworn statement and has no foundation evidence or proof of claim. He later claims he has detection equipment evidence of live TV broadcasts received from that property.

When the Policeman is put on his oath he turns tail and claims he is only there to prevent a breach of the peace, which is what he should be doing. So why is he speaking to the occupants and putting pressure on them to let them in when he clearly knows his role is to uphold common law and nothing else. He should have stood there and said nothing and let the Capita agent do all the talking.

It is all about intimidation, and in 99% of cases people would believe they have to let both the Police and Capita agents in.

By not consenting and making it clear that Acts and Statutes only have the force of law with the consent of the governed, Capita and the Police have nowhere to go. They didn't get in because the occupants know the law and didn't consent.

Gadawodd S. Murphy anodiad ()

I think in the course of your "research" you've fundamentally misunderstood the law. The consent you're talking about applies to interactions between two or more private citizens i.e. a contract. The law that governs the relationship between the state and the citizen is rather different.

Basically, in the UK we adhere to a principle called "the rule of law". It means that the law applies to everyone living in Britain from birth to death, whether or not they want to.

This means that nobody is above the law (government officials such as Chris Huhne can be sent to jail, and even companies can be charged with manslaughter) and nobody is below it.

I know you desperately want to be "below" the law, but what you're actually trying to do is to get out of a civic obligation that everyone else does. Why should YOU, out of everyone, get out of this? Everyone by law must pay a TV license if they have the means to do so (if you don't, you're perfectly able to challenge the decision and I'd be happy to work with you on that).

Also, if you're not part of our legal system, why are you using Freedom of Information requests? They're set down in statute - imagine how annoyed you'd be if they'd refused to answer you.

Basically, you're wrong, your research has been wrong, and you'll have to pay up. Sorry.

Gadawodd kenneth priestley anodiad ()

I thankyou for your comment and taking the time to respond.
I am not a lawyer or a solicitor and thus have not had my head full of all the rubbish we are all made to believe, acts, statutes and legislation only carry the weight of law if you consent.
a court defacto is a place of buisness and as such are designed to relieve us/me/you/everyone of our promisery notes (money) they are a registered company, the police, courts and council are all registered trading companies.
wouldnt it be funny if solicitors, lawyers and magistates ask the question WHAT IF IM RIGHT ????? instead of only listening to what they have learned.
PS they have not replied, ask yourself the question why ???????
Im not above the Law (common law) but silly fines and licences you have to pay for ????? WTF
Who owns the bank of England ??????? not us
A PERSON IS A LEGAL FICTION check blacks law.
A BIRTH CERTIFICATE is that legal fiction and is CROWN COPYRIGHT please check it out.
So if a judge wishes to levy against the crown as they own the legal fiction feel free :) he would commit treason as he cannot do this whilst on oath :D

Gadawodd S. Martin anodiad ()

S, Murphy:

No, you are wrong and unfortunately another indoctrinated individual as law has no principles.

Acts and Statutes are not law, nor principles of law, or any other choice of terminology you may elect to use, they are merely given the force of law with the consent of the governed. If you remove consent than no organisation can apply an act or statute and this is the reason they so desperately try to gain consent through duping people into contracts.

FOI Enquiries, Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

Dear Mr Priestly,

Please could you confirm whether your email of 2nd March 2013 was a request for an internal review, and if so whether you wish for the handling or the substance of the answer to your request to be reviewed, or both.

Yours sincerely,

Theresa Pollard
Adviser
Information Policy and Compliance
Room BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre White City Wood Lane London W12 7TS
Tel: 0208 0084011
Internal: 02 84011

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd kenneth priestley anodiad ()

The defenition of a PERSON is a fictional entity (straw man) you can only class yourself as a person if you take ownership of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, which you can never own as this is CROWN COPYRIGHT.
I am aware that the legal system requires the deception of me taking ownership of a TITLE (NAME/BIRTH CERTICATE) and without my CONSENT the system cannot work.
I am Human of living flesh and blood and i have never entered a contract to take ownership of such (BIRTH CERTICATE).
We are a common law country which i live within and as such i wish to keep my rights as such.

Q. Does a Human have to pay. (simple question y/n)

Note to others, I have researched my rights and i hope you take the same interest in yours before we have none.
KNOW THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND LAWFUL ;)

Gadawodd S. Martin anodiad ()

Kenneth:

In answer to your question NO.

Gadawodd S. Martin anodiad ()

Legal applies to Civil law and lawful applies only to Common Law.

Gadawodd Omar Smith anodiad ()

I cannot believe that the BBC and other interested individuals are still humoring the original requester on this request. It is obvious that it has been made by an aggrieved individual who doesn't recognize the cause of TV Licencing in this country and resents the concept of paying for a TV License.

Mr Priestley has been unclear and inconcise in his request and in spite of this the BBC has made every effort to interpret the request in good faith and respond fully, and to this effect seem to have answered all identifiable components of the request.

It is not the responsibility of the BBC to answer bizarre legal queries about a person's legal identity and responsibility to follow the law. Mr Preistley ought to pay for the services of a lawyer for legal advice instead of misusing Freedom Of Information legislation (although the nature of the original request strongly suggests he will not be willing to pay for this advice).

Gadawodd kenneth priestley anodiad ()

Dear Omar Smith
If you only looked into how we are all decived and how contract works, learn the diffrence between legal and lawful.
I may ? already know the answer and i may only be looking for the BBC to clarify said information.
Given the fact they seem to be unwilling to answer a very simple question is in its own right aknowledgment that said information works on decipt and fear.
If you were told to jump off a bridge without question would you ?????.
we live in a common law country and if you wish to keep your head buried in the sand and take it up the rear, thats your choice and who am i to judge ?.
maybe i looked at the world just like you do and one day something made me ask the question WHY ?.
I researched lots of diffrent aspects of law in both the lawful and legal meanings (legalese) and if one day you take the time to ask the question WHY ? you too may wake up from the trance we were made to believe of how we are supposed to ACT to help them control and tax us with silly petty fines, licences ect.
I am one man and cannot change the system that has worked so well for this length of time.
BUT I CAN BE AN ITCH THAT CANNOT BE SCRATCHED.
the BBC have not or will not answer the question openly as to do so is like turning the money tap off, ask yourself the question why wont they answer ??????
HERE ARE SOME WORDS TO RESEARCH......PERSON, UNDERSTAND, SUMMONS.... then feel free to comment.

Thankyou for taking the time to comment.

Gadawodd kenneth priestley anodiad ()

PS S Murphy
Chris Hulme Breached contract law as he held a driving licence and his vehicle was registered thus allowing civil law to work, he then lied on oath whilst in dock (he birthed. ie birth certificate held in 4 cornered dock / person) to put it blunty he lied, decived and all his money didnt protect him and because his lawyer gets paid win or lose who gives a monkey.
LAWYERS, BARRISTER, JUDGES ALL GET PAID.... SYSTEM DID WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. like i said im no lawyer but thankfully my IQ requires that 1 month of research outstips your years at law school. live long and prosper x

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Does a human have to pay'.

[ YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO MY QUESTION, ONLY GIVEN ME INFORMATION PUBLICALY AVAILABLE ]
simple question "does a human have to buy a tv licence" this question is so simple (yes or no).

If only a person is required to buy a tv licence would i be exempt as i am not a person ? blacks law dictionary states a PERSON IS A FICTIONAL ENTITY, i am of flesh and blood and do exist (not fiction) thus you cannot contract with me, you have to contract with the owner of a birth certificate THE QUEEN :), says on the bottom COPYRIGHT OF THE CROWN :D

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/do...

Yours faithfully,

kenneth

FOI Enquiries, Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

Dear Mr Priestly,

We have received your request for an internal review relating to our response to RFI20130012. Your request for an internal review was received on 25th June 2013.

We shall deal with the review within 30 working days of receipt. If you have any queries please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your internal review is IR2013051.

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
BC2 B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London, W12 7TP

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi/
Email: [BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2883
Fax: 020 8008 2398

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Enquiries, Y Gorfforaeth Ddarlledu Brydeinig

1 Atodiad

 

Dear Mr Priestley,

 

Please find attached the response to your request for an Internal Review,
reference IR2013051

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

Room 2252, White City

201 Wood Lane

London W12 7TS, UK

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2883

Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Gadawodd kenneth priestley anodiad ()

Why wont you answer ??????
Shall i put this in plain english ?
If everyone revoked your emplied right of access to there property, returned all mail (return to sender) as this usually says the occupier, do not contract via the means of giving you a name (surname as on a birth certificate) then you do not become a PERSON (finctional entity / blacks law dictionary) you have no right of access, have no proof of who may stay at a property, no contract in law and there has been no legal or lawfull law broken, you loose a lot of money and the general man / woman are financialy better off ?

Gadawodd S. Murphy anodiad ()

So much for your "one month of research". :P

Gadawodd Mr Anderson anodiad ()

Your "Freeman on the Land" nonsense that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker is bunkum.

"Birth" and "berth" are not etymologically related. "Straw man" refers to a logical position, not your bizarre ideas about people. A person can be a natural person (humans) and legal persons (corporations). "Legal" means something that is allowed or not proscribed by law.

England is not and has never been a civil law jurisdiction. Don't confuse the terms "civil law" (as in the jurisdiction) and "the civil law" (as in not the criminal law). "Common law" is the body of law that has arisen from usage. If you object to laws passed without your consent, why accept common law? NOBODY consented to that, and frequently it's made up by judges. Common law can be either "civil" or "criminal"

Acts of Parliament are law, statutes are law. The monarch as the head of state gives assent to statutes passed by Parliament. You cannot unilaterally withdraw your consent to be governed by some laws in this country.

I know you "Freemen on the Land" fools try desperately to not have to pay taxes (your greed is the sole reason you try to con people with this fallacious rubbish) and you never, never succeed. Indeed, I'm surprised you've signed up with names like "Kenneth Priestley" - doesn't that violate your own silly principles and show that you've accepted your "corporation" and therefore all the laws you object to, you've consented to? Shouldn't you be "Kenneth of the family Priestley" by your own preposterous beliefs?

I'm delighted to say not once have you morons ever succeeded, and in fact it's marvelous to watch you pay fines and get imprisoned. What isn't marvelous is how much public money you waste with pointless legal cases and FOI requests.

Your questions have been answered (when those unfamiliar with Freeman on the Land rubbish finally decipher what you ask). You simply choose not to accept the answers. So I'll try to be unambiguous.

You have to pay the TV licence. Every household which has a TV in the United Kingdom, capable of receiving live television, is required to pay the TV licence. If this is a private household then a natural person, human being, call it what you will, is responsible for paying. In businesses, the licence is still in the name of an actual human being. The BBC is a statutory organisation. The TV licence is imposed by law (and that law applies, and it doesn't matter if in your fairy tale world you don't accept statutory law).

PS: You own your birth certificate. The paper is yours. The format of the form is what is copyright. So nobody except the Crown Office may produce an identical LOOKING document. This is to prevent people trying to commit fraud. It doesn't mean anybody owns you. The watermark is simply to prove that it is genuine and not fraudulent.

I look forward to you wholly rejecting the reality of this situation by refusing to listen, trying to twist words to almost unbearable interpretations, introducing misunderstandings and outright lies, and generally living in your fantasy world.

Gadawodd Peter Jones anodiad ()

Wow. Mr Anderson: I am in awe at your annotation above!
Spot on.

Gadawodd Mark Salter anodiad ()

"Every household which has a TV in the United Kingdom, capable of receiving live television, is required to pay the TV licence."

Sorry Mr Anderson, this is really not true.

No one (in all sense of the term) need pay a tv license to own a tv. You only need to pay for a license if you watch live tv for a given value of 'live'.

http://bit.ly/UOcITm - is the BBC's own description of when a license is needed.

:-)

Gadawodd Omar Smith anodiad ()

Mr Anderson: I am so pleased that you have unambiguously and irrefutably explained what most of normal society is capable of accepting of being the norm.
If ever there was an example of an FOI Request which was liable for a Section 12 Exemption it is this. BBC, as another normal member of the public, please do not entertain this irrision any longer.

Gadawodd S. Martin anodiad ()

If this were the case than why are 24% of the population not paying for a TV licence and getting away with it?

As for deceit why did a recent article claim the Government losing £30M per year through people not paying their TV licence? considering the BBC gets the revenue how do the Government lose anything?