There is no question that the regulations as they stand are very difficult to administer and police. BUT that does not make it right for anyone to simply ignore the regulations ........
The process has never been easy to administer and Police. Having had the misfortune to have been for a short period, some licence inspectors reporting to me, I know what the hassles were in them trying to do their job.
You are free to continue to not pay, but if the SABC have you on record as owning at least one device capable of receiving a broadcast signal, the debt is accumulating whether you like it or not .....
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.
"right"? By whose standards? By my interpretation of the law, I'm not breaking the law. By your interpretation I am. Thankfully there's this little thing called "presumption of innocence", so until you can prove your accusations in a court of law, I'm innocent.........................
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.
Act 153 of 1993 has this definition:
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.
Section 27 of the Broadcasting Act number 4 of 1999 states amongst other things:
This clause goes on to say subsection (6):
This section allows the SABC to set up procedure and processes as it sees fit to administer the collection of licence fees, which means the SABC can specify what it requires when anyone submits "written notices" and at the moment , this includes an Affidavit for just about everything.
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.
This Act in section 27 clause (8) states:
That should be enough to show that a failure to pay licence fees could lead to prosecution as a civil offence.
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!
GG25582 in the section dealing with "NOTICES TO THE CORPORATION", clause 49 as one example, states:
That "prescribed form" as determined by the SABC is an affidavit.
Is that enough for you to accept that the SABC is empowered to decide what they require?
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!
Unfortunately, every time an organisation that has the power to take action against defaulters, and does not, the more it becomes acceptable that nothing will happen to defaulters.
So there are those of us out there that believe in the rule of law and there those that don't.
I know to which group I belong , do you?
It is no skin off my nose either way. My interest in this thread was to make visible the information on the subject, with a view to providing the correct information as a counter to the misinformation provided by others.
It is up to the SABC in the end to do as their advert says on tv about licence fees "It is the right thing to do".
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?
Sign up with Google
I refused and told her in no uncertain terms where to go find my mother and sue her - ironically also buried in Plumstead cemetery.
