"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Hypothecated tax is good. It is good for the service, it is good for
the tax-payer and it is good for the government to be held to account
by
an independent authority. [tick]
[snip]

The problem is it only gets the support of the tax payer when they are
beneficiaries of it. Would everyone really pay separately for Police or
'war' and what about when there are insufficient funds raised e.g fare
revenue for railway infrastructure.

If we had a hypothecated tax covering the rail system then it certainly
would not be in the mess it currently is. Look at the road system - if
the road tax were hypothecated then far more money would be available to
maintain and develop it than there currently is. There is also a good
argument that the entire transport system should be funded from one tax
on everyone who uses any form of mechanised transport.

The issue is about designing an acceptable scheme where those who choose
to
use it, pay for it but those who choose not to have it can legitimately
do
so without harrasment and taint.

What is this "taint" you refer to? I assume that you don't feel guilty
just seeing a police car parked outside your house? Why would you then
feel "tainted" by standing talking to a couple of guys with clipboards
on your doorstep for 5 minutes?

Your problem doesn't sound like it is the license fee! :-(

Those who choose not to have television are tainted by the convictions of
viewers who have been caught avoiding the license fee, reinforcing the
notion that not to have a license for any reason is a crime. Because
television is part of every day life much of the public have difficulty
believing that anyone can voluntarily choose to live without it and that
probably this is an excuse and they are guilty of evasion and 'getting away
with it'.

An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details. Declining to give the details I pointed out that a license was
not required for a DVD player as it had no tuner for receiving broadcast
programmes. (I have TV license but saw no reason to send my details in
for DVD player)

This was not accepted by the supervisor who said I would need to plug the
DVD into a television to watch the DVD's and so needed a license. Further
the form was a joint Sainsburys product guarantee and TV licensing form and
without it my details would not be added to the product gaurantee data
base. In the end the manager had to be called before the DVD player could
be released with completing the form.

Intriged by this I also enquired at Homebase if they would require details
for TV licensing if I bought a DVD player. This appeared to place in the
mind of those on the helpdesk that I was a license dodger trying out the
ground. The supervisor (who was someway off and not dealing with my
enquiry) started shouting at me that they had to take the details of
everyone who bought a TV, video, or DVD player and if they didn't they
would be fined 1000 pounds by the TV licensing for every device sold
without a form being completed. I don't know the truth of this but thought
thier reaction revealed something of public attitudes.


I was intially attracted by the notion that hypothecated taxation produces
better sevices with more accountability but it has some serious drawbacks.

Hypothecation provides the opportunity for martyrs, it diminishes the
ability of the Chancellor to freely allocate revenue across the range of
public spending, and I suspect it may lead to higher taxation providing
social but commercially unjustifiable services paid for by the hypothecated
tax. I suspect that 'transport' would be contentious in this respect.

Just to clarify my main objection to the present licensing arrangements is
that the BBC is essentially a news and entertainment medium consumed in the
home and I think that as far as possible the criminal law should keep out
of what people do in their homes. Consumers should be free to choose
whether to buy the service on offer or not. That does question the
whole notion of free to air with possibly expensive consequences.

Roger

"Roger" wrote in message ...

An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details. Declining to give the details I pointed out that a license was
not required for a DVD player as it had no tuner for receiving broadcast
programmes. (I have TV license but saw no reason to send my details in
for DVD player)

This was not accepted by the supervisor who said I would need to plug the
DVD into a television to watch the DVD's and so needed a license. Further
the form was a joint Sainsburys product guarantee and TV licensing form and
without it my details would not be added to the product gaurantee data
base. In the end the manager had to be called before the DVD player could
be released with completing the form.

Intriged by this I also enquired at Homebase if they would require details
for TV licensing if I bought a DVD player. This appeared to place in the
mind of those on the helpdesk that I was a license dodger trying out the
ground. The supervisor (who was someway off and not dealing with my
enquiry) started shouting at me that they had to take the details of
everyone who bought a TV, video, or DVD player and if they didn't they
would be fined 1000 pounds by the TV licensing for every device sold
without a form being completed. I don't know the truth of this but thought
thier reaction revealed something of public attitudes.

Do you know Roger, I was about to say that this was complete rubbish -
I've bought loads of DVD players for our company and never come across
this.

Then I realised that, for one reason or another, our company address
was usually requested on some pretence or another.

So next time I'll not give it, and see what happens.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. Our company doesn't receive broadcast TV (though occasionally one
of us will bring in a portable TV aerial for some special event) but
apparently we have a TV license just to make life easier.

An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details.

on the pad was there a tick box for DVD players? on my pad there is not

"David Robinson" wrote in message
om...

Do you know Roger, I was about to say that this was complete rubbish -
I've bought loads of DVD players for our company and never come across
this.

Then I realised that, for one reason or another, our company address
was usually requested on some pretence or another.

Well for TV & video recorders in the larger electrical retailers I think it
happens invisibly. At the point of sale the name and address is fed into
the computer as part of the guarantee /receipt information and the customer
is not specifically told that its also being sent off to the licencing
authorities.

Incidently when I asked about it in Comet (its next to Homebase here) the
helpful assistant clicked through the computer screens and said 'no, it's
not asking for info for a DVD sale'. So they appear to be on the ball.

Roger

"bill" wrote in message
...


An example of public attitudes was highlighted to me recently when I
attempted to buy a DVD player in Sainsburys. At the checkout the
supervisor produced a pad of forms from TV licensing and demanded my
details.

on the pad was there a tick box for DVD players? on my pad there is not

That's right, just TV / Video Recorders were listed. That was part of
the frustration. It wasn't called for on the form but the supervisor
insisted on it. It was quite understandable that the assistant in
Sainsburys, being completely non technical, would think a DVD player was
the same sort of thing as a video recorder, but there should have been some
staff training on the point.

The whole affair was perfectly civil at all times and though I tried to
explain the essential difference to a video, i.e. no tuner, no ability to
receive broadcasts, so no licence requirement, I could not get this across.
ISTM that most people do not appreciate that a video recorder has a tuner
in it. Realistically, why should they.

Even after the manager (who did recognise the difference) had resolved the
situation the supervisors final comment to me was 'it's because the form
was printed before DVD players came out'. I gave up at that point!

Roger

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
The supervisor was wrong on many counts. Firstly you could have watched
on a tunerless monitor -

Tried that argument but got back an incredulous look, monitor - what's
that? - a computer thingy?

the assumption that you will use a TV is
probably right, but still an assumption. Secondly you don't need a
licence (note English spelling!)

Corrected. I thought it looked a bit odd.

Roger