How to cancel and stop paying your TV licence

[Swa]

You forgot the :crylaugh:



You know exactly what it is. No point in trying verbal gymnastics to get past this one.

I also want to know the definition. Defining what a television set is is not the same as defining what "receiving" is. A rock receives the signal, but can't do anything meaningful with it. Your cellphone is capable of receiving the signal but discards it.

 

[HapticSimian]

As I said in another thread on the topic not too long ago, I have reached a point where I cannot in good faith hand the SABC my measly few South African rondts every year. I understand the legislation. I'm also of the opinion that South Africa's socioeconomic makeup creates a landscape that necessitates the existence of a public broadcaster, and I don't have an issue with such being funded through a yearly license fee. But Cloudy can suck a nut; as long as he is the be-all and end-all of the SABC, and as long as the organisation stays its current course, I shan't pay them a damn cent.

Taking the view that laws should be obeyed regardless of content and context is dangerous and silly. When the legal obligation created deviates from what is reasonable and moral, civil disobedience is a justified response.

 

[Geoff.D]

Which brings us back to square one, if you inform them you no longer do they can't legally keep making you pay. Even if you have outstanding fees.


That's the problem with a bunch of different acts that's hard to interpret and contradicting. As we've seen there's a bunch of different interpretations with people quoting the relevant legislation. I've never said that it's legal to have a tv and not pay so I don't know why he keeps on arguing that point against me. It's like he's just arguing for argument's sake.


I don't care what the gazette states. If it's not in an act it's not a legal interpretation. This seems to be something the sabc and the DoC concocted after it emerged that numerous people were legally watching sabc on devices other than tv's.


So what is the interpretation? Is an apparatus something designed by it's nature to be able to receive a broadcast or something that's capable of receiving a broadcast simply because of the inclusion of unrelated components? Used to NOT be the latter and the act hasn't changed since then.


It doesn't. It's too vague and the very act you quote also mentions that it's simply necessary to inform them and makes no mention of requiring and paying for an inspector either once off or on a continual basis.


When have I claimed otherwise? Though clause 8 states that it's unlawful to not be in possible of a license without exemption so it's clearly flawed from the get go!


They aren't, that's the very problem. The act makes no mention of requiring ongoing or once off paid inspections nor requiring an affidavit. Why are you so persistent in me accepting legislation I never argued against but unwilling to do so yourself when faced with it? A form is just a form. An affidavit is a legal document and not a form. Go learn your bloody legal definitions!


You still haven't answered the question that continues to be posed to you. Do you always follow every single law to the letter as you claim it's "the right thing to do" or do you sometimes go "argh, why should I do this or not do that"? Remember that municipal bylaws are laws as well. Why should we even be following laws pertaining to an organisation that's said it won't adhere to Icasa's decisions and just like Zoomer doesn't adhere to the public protector's decisions which are legally binding?

Well continue to believe that it is possible to "interpret" GG gazettes as you like. The ACTs referred to in this whole matter give the Minister the powers to publish regulations and amend those regulations from time to time.

I have no problem understanding legalese. You on the other hand do .....


What I do is NOT at all relevant to this debate. I have stated that I pay my licence every year and that is ALL that is relevant to this debate.


OF course, IF you have met the requirements for corresponding to them, AND they have acknowledged receipt of the documents, you will be entitled to defend yourself against any demands for outstanding fees and penalties. BUT IF the SABC says that an affidavit is required then that is what is required. Why do you insist on arguing about this? They are the ones authorised to do the collections and they require certain documents then just do what they want.

In the case of "denatured Apparatus", the process is very specific as detailed in GG 25582. See clauses 30, 31, 32, 33.

As to the validity of GG publishing regulations, see the opening gambit to GG25582.

REGULATIONS REGARDING TELEVISION LICENCE FEES
I, Dr. Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri Minister of Communications, hereby make the regulations
contained in the Schedule, in terms of section 40 of the Broadcasting Act, Act No 4 of 1999.
These regulations shall come into operation on 01 January 2004.
The regulations in respect of television licences promulgated in Government Notice No.
R1408 of 10 August 1994 (as amended) and in Government Notice No. R1788 of 31
October 1996 (as amended) are repealed with effect from 1 December 2003.

Just in case, and to remove any doubt, here is what clause 40 says.

40. Regulations.--(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, make regulations regarding--
(a) any notice required or permitted to be issued by the Minister in terms of this Act; and
(b) any administrative or procedural matter which it is necessary to prescribe in order to give effect to the provisions of this Act.
(2) No regulation may be made under subsection (1) on any matter falling within the functions of the Authority in terms of this Act, the IBA Act or any other law.

If you want to challenge the Minsters' powers then please go ahead and do so. I will look forward to monitoring the court cases that will follow, but do not expect me to contribute to your legal fees.

 

[Geoff.D]

As I said in another thread on the topic not too long ago, I have reached a point where I cannot in good faith hand the SABC my measly few South African rondts every year. I understand the legislation. I'm also of the opinion that South Africa's socioeconomic makeup creates a landscape that necessitates the existence of a public broadcaster, and I don't have an issue with such being funded through a yearly license fee. But Cloudy can suck a nut; as long as he is the be-all and end-all of the SABC, and as long as the organisation stays its current course, I shan't pay them a damn cent.

Taking the view that laws should be obeyed regardless of content and context is dangerous and silly. When the legal obligation created deviates from what is reasonable and moral, civil disobedience is a justified response.

That is your choice and you stated your case very well.

 

[Slootvreter]

I also want to know the definition. Defining what a television set is is not the same as defining what "receiving" is. A rock receives the signal, but can't do anything meaningful with it. Your cellphone is capable of receiving the signal but discards it.

You are trying very hard (or actually, not really hard at all) to distort words and meanings here, but you know exactly what it means.

 

[Drunkard #1]

don't you have a dictionary?

Going by the dictionary definition, the act will be thrown out for being patently absurd.

You forgot the :crylaugh:



You know exactly what it is. No point in trying verbal gymnastics to get past this one.

So you think "You know exactly what it is." is going to stand up in court. Good luck.

I also want to know the definition. Defining what a television set is is not the same as defining what "receiving" is. A rock receives the signal, but can't do anything meaningful with it. Your cellphone is capable of receiving the signal but discards it.

Exactly. The world has changed since that definition was written, and a court will take that into account when it throws the sabc's case, and the legislation itself, out.

You are trying very hard (or actually, not really hard at all) to distort words and meanings here, but you know exactly what it means.

You can't find a definition which suits your agenda. Got it.

 

[Slootvreter]

You can't find a definition which suits your agenda. Got it.

Seriously, it is really clear what it means, but people act stupid around it.

And I have no agenda. I have never paid, and I never will.

 

[Drunkard #1]

Seriously, it is really clear what it means, but people act stupid around it.

And I have no agenda. I have never paid, and I never will.

If it's so clear, you shouldn't have any problem explaining it to us.

Remember, your definition has to exclude rocks and dstv decoders, but include PC tuner cards, since that's what the sabc says.

 

[Slootvreter]

If it's so clear, you shouldn't have any problem explaining it to us.

Remember, your definition has to exclude rocks and dstv decoders, but include PC tuner cards, since that's what the sabc says.

You know exactly what it is. If you want to play around with words and interpretations and meanings, go for it.

I am also not sure what agenda you think I have, but it doesn't matter.

 

[Drunkard #1]

You know exactly what it is. If you want to play around with words and interpretations and meanings, go for it.

I am also not sure what agenda you think I have, but it doesn't matter.

Hey, it's perfectly clear that you have no idea what it means. No need to keep repeating yourself.

 

[Slootvreter]

Hey, it's perfectly clear that you have no idea what it means. No need to keep repeating yourself.

Ok.

I will also keep on not paying my TV license.

 

[d0b33]

I think we should in defiance do the following...
* Stop paying if you do not own a Television set. (or if you do, make the case that you should not be obligated to pay on grounds of a boycott)
* Fill out the signed affidavit, fax (or email) to the relevant department.
* Profit?

also... have a petition to cancel the forced payment of a licence, or ownership thereof to buy a television set as part of the boycott against SABC censorship.

 

[Geoff.D]

If it's so clear, you shouldn't have any problem explaining it to us.

Remember, your definition has to exclude rocks and dstv decoders, but include PC tuner cards, since that's what the sabc says.

Going by the dictionary definition, the act will be thrown out for being patently absurd.

So now you are an expert in what the Court will rule? Well put it to the test then. Take the SABC to Court and let us all see.

Just remember, the same legislation also covers just about every aspect of electronic communications. Are you prepared to put everything in jeopardy??
I wish you luck. But then you have a way out don't you. Join the OUTA campaign ......

 

[Geoff.D]

I think we should in defiance do the following...
* Stop paying if you do not own a Television set. (or if you do, make the case that you should not be obligated to pay on grounds of a boycott)
* Fill out the signed affidavit, fax (or email) to the relevant department.
* Profit?

also... have a petition to cancel the forced payment of a licence, or ownership thereof to buy a television set as part of the boycott against SABC censorship.

You are not expected to pay if you do not own a TV set.
IF you did at some stage then follow the process and get your "licence" revoked, payments will stop. ( A tough process requiring an affidavit, and possibly the support of a lawyer but that is what you should be doing).

As to the rest join the OUTA Campaign ....

 

[biometrics]

Some people have a bizarre obsession about tv licences spending all day(s) posting here.

 

[d0b33]

As to the rest join the OUTA Campaign ....

No need to join the OUTA Campaign, you can show support sure, these are actions individuals can take.

 

[Geoff.D]

No need to join the OUTA Campaign, you can show support sure, these are actions individuals can take.

Yes correct, better than simply ignoring the issue ...

 

[Swa]

Well continue to believe that it is possible to "interpret" GG gazettes as you like. The ACTs referred to in this whole matter give the Minister the powers to publish regulations and amend those regulations from time to time.

I have no problem understanding legalese. You on the other hand do .....

They can't give them overarching powers not stated in the regulations.

What I do is NOT at all relevant to this debate. I have stated that I pay my licence every year and that is ALL that is relevant to this debate.

It's very relevant when you state that people should follow the law. If you don't do the same then you are a hypocrite!

OF course, IF you have met the requirements for corresponding to them, AND they have acknowledged receipt of the documents, you will be entitled to defend yourself against any demands for outstanding fees and penalties. BUT IF the SABC says that an affidavit is required then that is what is required. Why do you insist on arguing about this? They are the ones authorised to do the collections and they require certain documents then just do what they want.

I will not go out of my way to satisfy them. The regulations state nothing about requiring an affidavit. Why do you insist on arguing about that? The requirement IS corresponding with them. There is no acknowledgment needed and they have to accept it whether there's outstanding fees or not. Stop being a fecking shill.

In the case of "denatured Apparatus", the process is very specific as detailed in GG 25582. See clauses 30, 31, 32, 33.

As to the validity of GG publishing regulations, see the opening gambit to GG25582.



If you want to challenge the Minsters' powers then please go ahead and do so. I will look forward to monitoring the court cases that will follow, but do not expect me to contribute to your legal fees.

The minister is DEAD. Icasa and the DoC have a habit of overreaching and overarching their authority in areas the law does not permit them. Why do you think there's been so many court cases? In this case the regulations themselves are clear on what is required and no amount of publishing words that were not enacted by parliament and the president will change that.

You are trying very hard (or actually, not really hard at all) to distort words and meanings here, but you know exactly what it means.

Try and see if that will hold any water in court.

Seriously, it is really clear what it means, but people act stupid around it.

And I have no agenda. I have never paid, and I never will.

No it's not clear. At the time those regulations were first written the only thing that could receive it were televisions and radios. We didn't even have internet let alone a competitor to the sabc.

You are not expected to pay if you do not own a TV set.

According to the wording of the act you referenced you do. Just one more reason why it is flawed from the get go.

IF you did at some stage then follow the process and get your "licence" revoked, payments will stop. ( A tough process requiring an affidavit, and possibly the support of a lawyer but that is what you should be doing).

As to the rest join the OUTA Campaign ....

So jump through hoops to satisfy an entity acting illegally. Got it. That's against the CPA btw which trumps other legislation. So should we follow legislation or not? Please make up your freakin' mind.

 

[Billy]

Can a person be jailed for a Civil Offence?