TV licence evasion...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

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.

In the days when the BBC was the *only* broadcaster, this sort of
thing mattered a great deal more than it does now.

Rod.

TV licence evasion...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, 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.

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.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

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

TV licence evasion...
 

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:13:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

At the moment there are both. There are also people paid to track down
and punish evaders. There is no need to pay for more than one lot to
do this.

It's a simple matter to determine if someone owns a TV set. Checking how
much income tax he should really be paying, not.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

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

TV licence evasion...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:20:10 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:02:54 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, 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.

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.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

A real not invented here answer. :-)

Both countries are constitutional democratic monarchies and not third
rate banana republics run by extremist dictators, yet.

Attitudes and customs matter just as much as rules and procedures.


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

TV licence evasion...
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, 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.

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.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

Nor are the Northern Irish.

--
JohnT

TV licence evasion...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:35:11 +0100
"JohnT" wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson
snip

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.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

Nor are the Northern Irish.


And Alex Salmond wants the Scots to not be, despite what the people
themselves want.

--
Davey.

TV licence evasion...
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Since you have no evidence all you're doing is showing that you're
prepared to believe just what suits your philosophy.

Bill

TV licence evasion...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:07:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


It's a simple matter to determine if someone owns a TV set. Checking how
much income tax he should really be paying, not.

You don't need a licence to own a TV set. You only need a licence to
*use* a TV set for specific purposes, and it's not a simple matter to
prove ownership or usage without access to the premises.

Rod.

TV licence evasion...
 

In message , Davey
writes
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:35:11 +0100
"JohnT" wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson
snip

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.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

Nor are the Northern Irish.


And Alex Salmond wants the Scots to not be, despite what the people
themselves want.


You've spoken to all of them, have you?
--
Ian

TV licence evasion...
 

In message , Martin
writes
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:41:19 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:35:11 +0100
"JohnT" wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson
snip

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.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

Nor are the Northern Irish.


And Alex Salmond wants the Scots to not be, despite what the people
themselves want.

You won't know what the people want until after the referendum.
It's fairly clear that they don't want the Tories.

I believe they intend to allow 16 year-olds to vote in the referendum,
presumably hoping to gather support from those who still believe all the
myths about the rebellious Scottish heroes - most of whom were simply
local warlords out for personal power and gain, rather than having the
interests of Scotland at heart.
--
Ian