|
|
TV licence evasion...
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. When was the last time Sky prosecuted a Sky subscriber for not paying for their Sky? They simply switch the card off and pass the debt to the debt collection agency. At most it would only be a few months worth, not up to a whole year or even more depending on how long the person has evaded the licence for... Discuss...... |
TV licence evasion...
On 18/06/2013 07:46, 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. When was the last time Sky prosecuted a Sky subscriber for not paying for their Sky? They simply switch the card off and pass the debt to the debt collection agency. At most it would only be a few months worth, not up to a whole year or even more depending on how long the person has evaded the licence for... Discuss...... because then people could simply choose to not subscribe to the bbc - whereas at the moment people are obliged by law to subscribe in order to watch any tv. lots of people would live without the bbc - less money for them. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. |
TV licence evasion...
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. The extra cost to users would be far more than the loss from licence non-payers. The inconvenience alone would outweigh it. -- Richard |
TV licence evasion...
In article ,
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. On a number of occasions, the Government has set up committes of enquiries into just that. They come back with "keep the licence fee". MT was furious with the one she set up. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
TV licence evasion...
Not many pieces of gear have anywhere to put a smart card though, least not
the ones I have, and thus one would have had to have done this at the start not now. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Stephen H" wrote in message ... 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. When was the last time Sky prosecuted a Sky subscriber for not paying for their Sky? They simply switch the card off and pass the debt to the debt collection agency. At most it would only be a few months worth, not up to a whole year or even more depending on how long the person has evaded the licence for... Discuss...... |
TV licence evasion...
On 18/06/2013 08:27, charles wrote:
On a number of occasions, the Government has set up committes of enquiries into just that. They come back with "keep the licence fee". MT was furious with the one she set up. That was the natural state of mind for her. [except when ****ing us over that is] -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
TV licence evasion...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
... Not many pieces of gear have anywhere to put a smart card though, least not the ones I have, and thus one would have had to have done this at the start not now. ================================================== === Dyke 'promoted Freeview to save licence fee' By Owen Gibson Media Guardian, UK: 17 September 2004 http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/stor...306275,00.html Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped. The former BBC director general reckoned that if millions of homes were hooked up to Freeview, the move to turn the BBC into a subscription service could be prevented. This is because under Mr Dyke's original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees. [...] ================================================== === |
TV licence evasion...
In article , Martin
wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:53:26 +0100, "Max Demian" wrote: "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Not many pieces of gear have anywhere to put a smart card though, least not the ones I have, and thus one would have had to have done this at the start not now. ================================================= ==== Dyke 'promoted Freeview to save licence fee' By Owen Gibson Media Guardian, UK: 17 September 2004 http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/stor...306275,00.html Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped. The former BBC director general reckoned that if millions of homes were hooked up to Freeview, the move to turn the BBC into a subscription service could be prevented. This is because under Mr Dyke's original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees. [...] ================================================= ==== The negative side of funding via the infrastructure is that the government would decide on the BBC's budget. In a way it does already by capping the licence fee. but not a daily basis -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
TV licence evasion...
In article ,
the dog from that film you saw wrote: because then people could simply choose to not subscribe to the bbc - whereas at the moment people are obliged by law to subscribe in order to watch any tv. lots of people would live without the bbc - less money for them. I often wonder about this. If everything was subscription based, how many would still have the BBC? Of course many who complain about the licence also say they never watch the BBC. But usually lie... -- *Indian Driver - Smoke signals only* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
TV licence evasion...
"the dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... On 18/06/2013 07:46, 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. When was the last time Sky prosecuted a Sky subscriber for not paying for their Sky? They simply switch the card off and pass the debt to the debt collection agency. At most it would only be a few months worth, not up to a whole year or even more depending on how long the person has evaded the licence for... Discuss...... because then people could simply choose to not subscribe to the bbc - whereas at the moment people are obliged by law to subscribe in order to watch any tv. lots of people would live without the bbc - less money for them. In addition, many homes contain multiple TV's. Ours has three, only one (and a non $ky CI satellite receiver, which would need a CAM*) has CI card slot. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. * and $ky won't supply a CAM for CI receivers, so no sale |
TV licence evasion...
"Stephen H" wrote in message ... 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. When was the last time Sky prosecuted a Sky subscriber for not paying for their Sky? They simply switch the card off and pass the debt to the debt collection agency. At most it would only be a few months worth, not up to a whole year or even more depending on how long the person has evaded the licence for... Discuss...... "Dyke 'promoted Freeview to save licence fee'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv |
TV licence evasion...
"Richard Tobin" wrote in message ... 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. The extra cost to users would be far more than the loss from licence non-payers. The inconvenience alone would outweigh it. -- Richard http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv |
TV licence evasion...
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:23:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: because then people could simply choose to not subscribe to the bbc - whereas at the moment people are obliged by law to subscribe in order to watch any tv. lots of people would live without the bbc - less money for them. I often wonder about this. If everything was subscription based, how many would still have the BBC? Of course many who complain about the licence also say they never watch the BBC. But usually lie... If everything was subscription based it would make more sense to pay for programmes than channels. Already I use a PVR to select individual programmes I want to watch, regardless of which channels they're on, in the same way that I'll buy individual books I want to read regardless of which publishing house they come from. Conventional broadcasters probably wouldn't survive in any recognisable form if we were able to make our own choices about what we thought was of sufficient quality to be worth paying for without it being a criminal offence to fail to pay for all the dross as well, but then, why would they deserve to? Rod. |
TV licence evasion...
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 -- 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...
The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.
Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other things? Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have dinner together at the BBC's expense? Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense? If my employer says I can spend up to £100 per night (£150 inside M25) and that is quite satisfactory for decent accommodation then why cannot the Beeb do something similar, then if the lovies want to stay somewhere better they can pay the balance themselves. I won't even go into golden hellos, pay offs, or staffing levels.......... We all pay for a licence the funding of which goes to HMG, and then HMG fund Auntie. There is nothing to say that licence income bears any relation whatsoever to running costs. Get rid of the TV licence, close down TV Licencing (oh dear, that will put Capita people out of work....) and give the Beeb the money that was paid to Capita in addition to what they are paid now, inflation-proof it at the lower rate and make the Beeb cut their cloth to suit. The problem is that $ky will just come in and flood the market to entice Beeb staff away and the Beeb will eventually fold. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
TV licence evasion...
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:35:40 +0100, "Woody"
wrote: The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money. Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other things? Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have dinner together at the BBC's expense? Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense? [etc] Because nobody stops them. The BBC's income is guaranteed regardless of what they do, and we're the criminals if we don't pay. Rod. |
TV licence evasion...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:35:40 +0100, "Woody" wrote: The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money. Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other things? Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have dinner together at the BBC's expense? Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense? [etc] Because nobody stops them. The BBC's income is guaranteed regardless of what they do, and we're the criminals if we don't pay. Rod. Exactly my point. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
TV licence evasion...
In article ,
Woody wrote: The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money. It's probably not much different from any similar company. Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other things? *All* their staff are put up in 5 star hotels? Things have changed since I worked there. ;-) Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have dinner together at the BBC's expense? Hospitality before this sort of prog is the norm. To introduce the panellists to one another, etc. And if you were working away from home you'd expect meals out to be provided or paid for? Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense? The answer is they don't. If my employer says I can spend up to £100 per night (£150 inside M25) and that is quite satisfactory for decent accommodation then why cannot the Beeb do something similar, then if the lovies want to stay somewhere better they can pay the balance themselves. Ah. You're talking about the talent, not staff? -- *My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. She stops to breathe. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
TV licence evasion...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... 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. 3) They can spend the money on anything they damn well please. -- Max Demian |
TV licence evasion...
In article , Martin
wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:38:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf wrote: 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. It's not difficult to find the military budget as a proportion of the total budget. Such aggregated values can then be treated by government as 'unofficial estimates' and dismissed as 'inaccurate, misleading, out of date' and so on. The point here is plausible (in legal terms) deniability and to respond with aloof dismissal. It all aids goverment to duck issues they want to avoid. And as has been pointed out, to let them use the money however they choose without people peering over their shoulder and being able to see all their sums. All made much easier in these days of PFIs, outsourcing, agencies, etc. The quickness of the hand fools they eye... 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...
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. -- *WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?" Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
TV licence evasion...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... 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. Of course he is. -- JohnT |
TV licence evasion...
Martin wrote:
The BBC isn't a company. Yes it is: BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION Company No. RC000057 It is a special type of company, a Royal Charter company, but it is still a company on the Companies House register. There is also one with company number NF002275 in Belfast. That is described as "other type of company". I'm not sure what the NF prefix signifies. Other Royal Charter companies are the public universities, Oxford and Cambridge colleges, some public schools (e.g. Harrow), some hospitals, and the learned and worshipful ssocieties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._royal_charter |
TV licence evasion...
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:54:03 +0100, David Woolley
wrote: Martin wrote: The BBC isn't a company. Yes it is: BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION Company No. RC000057 It is a special type of company, a Royal Charter company, but it is still a company on the Companies House register. There is also one with company number NF002275 in Belfast. That is described as "other type of company". I'm not sure what the NF prefix signifies. A bit of judicious Googling has shown that the NF prefix is for the Northern Ireland office of an overseas company. Information gleaned from: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/inf...Business.shtml I don't know the details of the BBC's subsidiaries and which one might be registered outside the UK with an office in Belfast. Other Royal Charter companies are the public universities, Oxford and Cambridge colleges, some public schools (e.g. Harrow), some hospitals, and the learned and worshipful ssocieties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._royal_charter -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
TV licence evasion...
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:36:50 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote: In article , Martin wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:38:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf wrote: 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. It's not difficult to find the military budget as a proportion of the total budget. Such aggregated values can then be treated by government as 'unofficial estimates' and dismissed as 'inaccurate, misleading, out of date' and so on. The point here is plausible (in legal terms) deniability and to respond with aloof dismissal. It all aids goverment to duck issues they want to avoid. And as has been pointed out, to let them use the money however they choose without people peering over their shoulder and being able to see all their sums. All made much easier in these days of PFIs, outsourcing, agencies, etc. The quickness of the hand fools they eye... And proper financial accountabilty would be more democratic. The Politicians want to create an illusion of democracy thats all. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around (")_(") is he still wrong? |
TV licence evasion...
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:53:22 +0200, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:32:56 +0100, Mark wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:36:50 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Martin wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:38:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf wrote: 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. It's not difficult to find the military budget as a proportion of the total budget. Such aggregated values can then be treated by government as 'unofficial estimates' and dismissed as 'inaccurate, misleading, out of date' and so on. The point here is plausible (in legal terms) deniability and to respond with aloof dismissal. It all aids goverment to duck issues they want to avoid. And as has been pointed out, to let them use the money however they choose without people peering over their shoulder and being able to see all their sums. All made much easier in these days of PFIs, outsourcing, agencies, etc. The quickness of the hand fools they eye... And proper financial accountabilty would be more democratic. The Politicians want to create an illusion of democracy thats all. The current politicians are an illusion. If only. They'd do less harm. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around (")_(") is he still wrong? |
TV licence evasion...
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. -- *A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
TV licence evasion...
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. -- *Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
TV licence evasion...
In article ,
Martin wrote: 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. Likely. 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. Sounds like your company was happy to waste money too. Especially on oily rags. -- *Where there's a will, I want to be in it. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
TV licence evasion...
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. -- Davey. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com