Says the person who is seeking advice as to how to get away with a criminal act.He’s just being a bell end....
Monthly for me. I pay by dd.Seems this thread comes up every 12 months or so.
What an elaborate load of bollocks of a cover story. You just dont want to payThats not the issue though is it,there is a lot wrong with the BBC funding model, if i refuse to buy sausages from Tesco do Tesco stop me from buying sausages from Asda because thats in effect what the BBC are doing by telling you that you cant watch TV on another platform, if the BBC dont want me to watch their product then they should cease to pipe it into my home, i dont want it but its there and thats a BBC problem not my problem, yes they can become funded by subscription and have the platform decoded but would most likely lose in excess of over 50% of the customers they have today, Now that wouldnt sit well with the gravey train at the helm of the BBC thats been milking it for years, peanuts it is you are correct but the peanuts from a near 70 million is big money and a lot of this public funding is just wasted away, i think its more about principle as to why a record number of licence evaders have ceased to cough up,me being one
Says the person who is seeking advice as to how to get away with a criminal act.
I am surmising that he is seeking advice as to what to do in order to commit a criminal act and get away with it. He certainly didn't say that he no longer has a tv so whilst you are technically correct I am fairly certain that what I said is actually what's occurring.How do you know with any level of certainty that Mr Brookland has committed a criminal act. All the plaintiff has done is cancel his direct debit and has mentioned nothing appertaining the watching of live TV. The board is neither aware of any factual nuance that he still has in his possession a television set or even the means to watch live TV. Therefore his summision that he feels Mr Law to be of the bell end persuation could be surrounded by some element of truth as he has previous form.
His OP makes it seem that he’s just annoyed at the BBC and paying for the licence, not that he’s stopped watching all content.How do you know with any level of certainty that Mr Brookland has committed a criminal act. All the plaintiff has done is cancel his direct debit and has mentioned nothing appertaining the watching of live TV. The board is neither aware of any factual nuance that he still has in his possession a television set or even the means to watch live TV. Therefore his summision that he feels Mr Law to be of the bell end persuation could be surrounded by some element of truth as he has previous form.
I am surmising that he is seeking advice as to what to do in order to commit a criminal act and get away with it. He certainly didn't say that he no longer has a tv so whilst you are technically correct I am fairly certain that what I said is actually what's occurring.