TV licence evasion...
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:32:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:43:52 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:11:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Martin
wrote:
Ah. You're talking about the talent, not staff?

I used to get a generous fixed daily allowance when working a way
from home. It wouldn't cover £650/night accommodation like Tom
Jones stays in.

But you're not a superstar.

How do you know?

Superstars don't get fixed daily allowances. That's for monkeys - not
organ grinders.

It depends on the contract.

Quite. And the likes of Tom Jones will have a contract which doesn't
specify a Holiday Inn.

Paid for out of the £10 million budget.

I had a contract that didn't specify where I stayed or how I spent the
daily allowance. It was more than enough to cover staying for two
months in the second most expensive motel/hotel in Los Angeles.

A Garden Suite at the Beverley Hills Hotel?
--
JohnT

TV licence evasion...
 

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:38:23 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Martin
wrote:


Funding from the infrastructure is not done on a daily basis,
except perhaps in Greece at the moment. The Dutch policy of not
collecting taxes separately for individual items used by most of
the population works well. I'm amazed the coalition hasn't gone
that way to reduce costs.

It may be because UK governments/parliament tend to say that they hate
'hypoticated' taxes'. i.e. The idea that a specific identifiable
portion of your tax bill is for a specific purpose.

Yes, we do have it in a sense already in 'National Insurance' but
they seem to feel that has been kept distinct enough to calm their
fear.

The basis of the fear seems twofold.

1) That some people might then start to withold the portion for
something they object to - e.g. Trident replacement.

2) That people will notice that benefits and taxes generally evade
specifying the real costs they are (supposedly) based upon. - e.g.
benefit payments for daily living fail to indicate how much is for
food, etc.

So by avoiding such hypothications the Government can play games with
the amount of money and its assignment whilst obfuscating so the
public can't check what the politicians / civil servants / etc claim.

Slainte,

Jim


Remember when the 'Road Fund License' suddenly just became another
tax? From then on, it could be used for anything, not just road repair.
Not even road repair, it seems locally.

Since that happened in 1936, I doubt that, even in this newsgroup, many here
can remember it.

--
Max Demian

TV licence evasion...
 

Martin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:46:54 +0100, Stephen H
wrote:

I read this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947160

I then got thinking.

The BBC could wipe this out by simply using smart card technology on
both freeview, freesat and "freesat from Sky" platforms and as a
levy on top of a regular sky card subscription.

Clearly the technology exists..... the saving made by not prosecuting
the TV licence evaders would probably cover the costs of setting up
the smart cards, the CA system, the data centre to enable or switch
off smart cards based on a licence payers's bill status.... it would
also allow monthly direct debiting and annual fee payments.

It would be cheaper to fund the BBC from the infrastructure and stop
wasting money on all that is involved in a licence system The Dutch
did this already ten years ago.

ABC Australia have been paid out of general taxation for at least 30 years

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

TV licence evasion...
 

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Stephen H wrote:

The BBC could wipe this out by simply using smart card technology on
both freeview, freesat and "freesat from Sky" platforms and as a
levy on top of a regular sky card subscription.

So we'd need to buy new TVs and set-top boxes again? And all computer
TV tuners would become useless? Sounds wonderful for the
manufacturers.

Not all STBs, it could be done on the topuptv platform
I've a topuptv PVR without card i just use for freeview

It would make much for sense just to pay the BBC out of general taxation

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

TV licence evasion...
 

Woody wrote:
The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.

Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or
chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense?

It used to be so as to put money into the pocket of Terry Wogan
who owned the company that supplied the taxis to the BBC.

No anti racketeering law in UK contractual law

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

TV licence evasion...
 

In article , Davey
wrote:
:

Remember when the 'Road Fund License' suddenly just became another tax?
From then on, it could be used for anything, not just road repair. Not
even road repair, it seems locally.

Such situations have always been blurred anyway. The costs of 'roads' may
include a range of other things. Water drainage from the areas, ambulance
attendance and treatment following accidents, street lighting, fencing,
etc, etc. I doubt the 'road fund license' ever covered them all anyway. I
suspect it is almost impossible to get a consensus figure for them all as
people have different views depending on their beliefs and preferences wrt
road transport.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

TV licence evasion...
 

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:18:39 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

It would make much for sense just to pay the BBC out of general taxation

Not unless we also made them answerable in some way to the public,
i.e. us, with regard to how they spend the money we pay them.

Changing from a licence to taxation might simplify the administration
of the payment, but if all it did was to replace the BBC's guaranteed
income with a different guaranteed income equally unrelated to what
they do, we'd be no better off.

Rod.

TV licence evasion...
 

In article ,
Steve Terry wrote:
It would make much for sense just to pay the BBC out of general taxation

Care to gamble on whether there are more income tax or TV licence evaders?

I'd bet on the former - and by a substantial margin.

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TV licence evasion...
 

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:18:39 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Stephen H wrote:

The BBC could wipe this out by simply using smart card technology on
both freeview, freesat and "freesat from Sky" platforms and as a
levy on top of a regular sky card subscription.

So we'd need to buy new TVs and set-top boxes again? And all computer
TV tuners would become useless? Sounds wonderful for the
manufacturers.

Not all STBs, it could be done on the topuptv platform
I've a topuptv PVR without card i just use for freeview

It would make much for sense just to pay the BBC out of general taxation

In administrative terms perhaps.

But it might have unintended consequences.

The BBC operates under a Royal Charter for which parliament and
government are responsible, but the BBC is paid for by a compulsory
subscription from all TV viewers/households. There is therefore a clear
understanding that the services provided are for all viewers.

If there were to be a change to direct government funding there is a
real danger that governments would see the BBC as an agency of
government and start interfering more directly in its activities.

Sometimes what might be intended as a purely administrative change
creates a psychological change which can have results not intended by
those who proposed the administrative change.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

TV licence evasion...
 

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:18:39 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Stephen H wrote:

The BBC could wipe this out by simply using smart card technology on
both freeview, freesat and "freesat from Sky" platforms and as a
levy on top of a regular sky card subscription.

So we'd need to buy new TVs and set-top boxes again? And all computer
TV tuners would become useless? Sounds wonderful for the
manufacturers.

Not all STBs, it could be done on the topuptv platform
I've a topuptv PVR without card i just use for freeview

It would make much for sense just to pay the BBC out of general taxation

In administrative terms perhaps.

But it might have unintended consequences.

The BBC operates under a Royal Charter for which parliament and
government are responsible, but the BBC is paid for by a compulsory
subscription from all TV viewers/households. There is therefore a clear
understanding that the services provided are for all viewers.

If there were to be a change to direct government funding there is a
real danger that governments would see the BBC as an agency of
government and start interfering more directly in its activities.

Some years ago, I was present at BBC Radio Scotland's first birthday press
conference. One journalist asked "There's a bit of this and a bit of that;
who are you aiming the service at?" to which the reply was "We are a
publicly funded service, who do you suggest we leave out."

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18