MyDavis

[SOB]

Do you still have to pay the yearly license fee if you get a satellite service?  Or do you not have satellite service available there?

[DipStick]

Originally posted by beet1e
Lived there 3 years and been to 41 states, which is more than you.

Wrong Mr. Brainsurgeon. I've lived here 46 years and been to all 48 states.

When it comes to the US you don't know your beetle from a hole in the ground.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e


But - America has the answer - channels WGBH Boston, known as Channel 11 in Chicago. And guess what? They cost... money! For this reason, every few months they will have "pledge weeks"... where the audience is invited to donate.

 

Excellent Beet!

Nice try at obscuring the obvious.

Yes, we voluntarily[/b] pay for Cable and we voluntarily[/b] donate to Public television.

However, we are also free to choose NOT to pay for either Cable or Public and we can still watch some pretty decent TV in all categories like News, Drama, Comedy, etc., etc.

Tell us again what happens if you choose NOT to pay and watch "free" TV in England?

[Saintaw]

nothing. I have never payed that when I was in UK, and I never had a note nor a fine.

of course, our UK expert from Dixon will know better...

[USHilDvl]

Ooopps...

I thought ya' had ol' beet on the run there for a minute...until you said "ALL 48 states".   Ooof.   (I think ya missed a couple)

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Yes, we voluntarily pay for Cable and we voluntarily[/b] donate to Public television. [/B]

Just like I voluntarily own a TV set! And don't forget - if no-one supported those private channels like WGBH Boston, they would cease to exist. So voluntary, my arse! Like putting a guy in a gas chamber and telling him that inhaling the fumes is "voluntary"

Your TV is no more "free" than health care in the UK is "free".

Let's review the TV options in the UK and the US.

• US Network Basic package - Depending on where you live, you'll get a number of network TV stations - all free, no licence. What this equates to is "13 channels of chit", to paraphrase the lyrics of a certain song by Pink Floyd. Besides all the crappy programmes, which have to be for simple minds in order to have mass appeal, there will be adverts interrupting the programme every few minutes. The average Brit would be driven nuts, just as I nearly was! There are a few decent channels, but these have to be paid for by pledges from the viewers. You'll know when it's a pledge week because your hour long programme will be interrupted for ten minutes - twice.
• US Cable option - same as the above. You'll still get 13 channels of chit, but you'll get HBO/Showtime etc., at extra cost. And that won't include support for the Public Broadcasting channels like WGBH - you'll still be asked to pay for those.
• What I had in Concord,CA - ONE TV channel, lousy reception caused by being surrounded by a mountainous area. If I wanted more than that, I had to PAY!!! But guess what? The payment was.... voluntary! It cost me $28/mo which, at that time was at least twice as much as the UK TV licence cost. I got 23 channels, including 13 channels of chit, and despite paying this exorbitant charge, the network channels were still stuffed with adverts, and the cost did not support the Public Broadcasting channels which IMO were the only ones worth having.
• What I have now - a TV licence pays for the BBC. I don't watch a lot of TV, so I don't subscribe to any optional packages so I receive the five terrestrial channels - no special antenna needed. I could subscribe to Sky, but their programmes are too much like American TV network programmes. I could buy a decoder box, which would unlock about another 10 channels, and I wouldn't have to pay for them. BBC1 & BBC2 have no adverts at all! ITV and Ch4 have ads, but only about half as many as US network TV. Ch5 is like an American channel - ads every ~10 minutes. When I watch a movie, I'll record it to DVD and then edit out the ads before watching it.

I've tried all four options, but my preference is for the UK option. I don't want want to pay for HBO/Showtime - would rather buy DVDs using eBay, share them with friends and/or sell them at the end.

[BigGun]

Originally posted by beet1e


What I had in Concord,CA - ONE TV channel, lousy reception caused by being surrounded by a mountainous area.

Wow, just lost a lot of credibility. What Concord, CA u live in the was Surrounded by mountains?

I have lived in east bay for over 13 years, in fact in concord as i type looking out office window. Hardly surrounded by mountains. The only thing near that one would consider a mountain would be mt. diablo, which borders south east side of concord, hardly surrounds it though.

[Toad]

A laudable effort, however:

You voluntarily own a TV set as we do. You INVOLUNTARILY pay a tax to do so. We do not.

Cable: On BOTH sides of the Atlantic, viewers voluntarily pay to have this service, which is as it should be.

Public TV (BBC in UK, PBS in the US): The UK folks INVOLUNTARILY and mandatorily  pay for their Public TV. Failure to pay can and often does result in fines and/or puts one at risk of going to prison.

In the US, VOLUNTARY donations are asked for by PBS stations. If enough donations are not received, the station may close down, which is as it should be. If no one values the service, why should it continue?

Basic TV for Free: Unavailable in the UK, unless you choose to break the law.  Available in the US with a mix of worthwhile and junk programs. Commercials? TIVO, my lad; an additional pay-for-service option that makes commercials a non-factor as well as allowing one to watch programs at any time one chooses, not mandatorily on the network schedule. This is another VOLUNTARY option, which is as it should be.

It all boils down to what we've discussed so many times. You seem to enjoy allowing your government to make decisions for you. Further, as long as YOU personally agree with what the government decides you've no regard for the rights and concerns of those who do not agree with what the government decides.

Like Paine or Jefferson (it's attributed to both), I think

That government is best which governs least."

I'll make my own decisions, thank you very much, on what TV I prefer to watch and choose to pay for. I'm glad the rest of my fellow citizens have the same choice[/i] and are not nannied.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Saintaw
nothing. I have never payed that when I was in UK, and I never had a note nor a fine.

It seems rather unenforceable in the main. How many little black-clad "enquiry officers" do they have anyway?

[mydavis]

In England there is no law giving freedom to the press, on the contrary
The Official Secrets Acts (1889, 1911, 1989) make unlawful the “unauthorised communication of information about matters which must remain secret in the interests of the safety of the state, These include limits about the information a reporter may gather about government activities, crime and libel laws that restrict what journalists can write on people without proof. There are laws covering the gathering and reporting on courtreporting, defamation, human rights, race relations, foreign affairs, etc.
In reality the English goverment rarely interferes with the reporting of information, the issue is access to information in the first place.
 despite earlier promises for a Freedom of Information act,
the Labour government elected in 1997 took almost three years to vote such legislation,which was then heavily criticised as being a watered down version of the access to information which was hoped for.

[mydavis]

My post was just an informational response to some post that claimed that crime in England (Europe) was less because of the restriction of the public to keep and bear arms. I thought it might be better for discussion to dispel these notions and provide some facts on this theory.

However the second amendment to the Constitution did not provide the right to bear arms to be free of crime. The actual intent of the second amendment was to provide security against the oppressive abuses of a large federal government.

We can see this in the original wording of the second amendment.
"Because standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to the liberties of free men, the right of the militia and the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon"

The founding fathers were so adamant about this, that in their writings in the federalist papers, this amendment was the most sought after by all the colonies. and in fact is the only one of the orginal ten amendments to have only 1 purpose.
The militias were defined as the state militaries, and the original design of the state militias was to prevent and fight against the armies of the federal goverment.

The ability to protect oneself and keep in bear arms is a fortunate by-product of this constitutional guaruntee. but also almost a requirement in the US.

The protection of ones body and property in the US is the responsibility of the individual. The US supreme court has ruled 3 times that the state and federal goverment have no duty to protect someone. This includes a 1959 ruling by Chief Justice Blackwell, which states that the protection of ones person and property has never been provided by any goverment nor guarunteed by any Law, therefore no claim of damage can be founded upon any govermental body.

Anyone who thinks that the police can protect you are deluded.  If the police could protect an indivdual , dont you think they would.
does anyone seriously think that the goverment or police have the ability to protect someones life and just chose not to.

[Nashwan]

In England there is no law giving freedom to the press, on the contrary

Of course there isn't a law "giving" the press freedom. Freedom is something they have. Laws restrict freedom, not grant it.

The Official Secrets Acts (1889, 1911, 1989) make unlawful the “unauthorised communication of information about matters which must remain secret in the interests of the safety of the state

And you think other countries don't?

These include limits about the information a reporter may gather about government activities,

No, the official secrets act applies to government employees, and those they pass classified material to. It does not apply to journalists who "gather" information, unless the information they gather is stolen classified documents.

crime and libel laws that restrict what journalists can write on people without proof.

No, a journalist can write anything he likes without proof. If it's defamatory, the person he defames can sue him for damages.

[Nashwan]

My post was just an informational response to some post that claimed that crime in England (Europe) was less because of the restriction of the public to keep and bear arms. I thought it might be better for discussion to dispel these notions and provide some facts on this theory.

I see. So the murder rate in the UK isn't really a third of the US rate, it's just as high, but we aren't allowed to know that.



(never had a cause to use this smiley before, but it's perfect)

[Curval]

Originally posted by DipStick
Wrong Mr. Brainsurgeon. I've lived here 46 years and been to all 48 states.

When it comes to the US you don't know your beetle from a hole in the ground.

All 48 States?

You do know there are Fifty states, right?  

[john9001]

Originally posted by Curval
All 48 States?

You do know there are Fifty states, right?  

there are only 49 states, Hawaii is a colony