Hi Peter, However, when one buys a Television Card, the British retailer does not check! Nor I suspect if one buys any mother board with a 10/100/1000 Lan Card of the type used to connect via a digital set top box to a Broad Band service There is more than one way to skin a cat! Hence my reference to the "self built" by individual components. There are enough Box Shifters who given the necessary "readies" will sell one any computer components necessary. [ I suppose any Government could extract their pound of flesh via the ISP who supplies the digital set top box. ] Phil At 13:36 22/03/2005, Peter Rogers wrote: >The point being that before the retailer would sell me the machine I had to >complete and sign a declaration that I had a current Television Licence. > >So without any new legislation there is already in place a method of >ensuring that the now emasculated BBC gets it "pittance".

Jeanne could you inform me which model Sony this is please. Also, how does it perform in poor light situations without flash? Michael Tebbutt.

Tim, >The problem with cameras is that they use full colour which makes the files 32 times larger than they need be.< Not entirely true! My new Sony camera has an option for grey-scale and sepia pictures. I must try it for text and OCRing! Jeanne Bunting

In message of 22 Mar, Phil Warn <philwarn@ntlworld.com> wrote: <snip on taxing use of the internet> > Clearly an Urban Leg End. > > More an Urban Leg Pull ? > > Phil. Just to show you how Urban Legends develop, Chris did not write what is quoted below, I did. (Too many people strip off the originator information when replying to posts.) > At 10:07 22/03/2005, Chris wrote: > > > > ... it is relevant to people who were saying that computer use > > > of the internet would be taxed and that this mailing list is > > > one use of internet. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Hi gang, Any Government that attempted to tax the use of the Internet would deserve to be locked up. The silver (not to mention the pink, violet, etc) surfers would be up in Trafalgar Square with their placards as soon as you could say "Jack Robinson" not to mention "Jack Straw or Peter Hain! The protest against fox hunting with dogs would be but a mere speck of dust compared to the furore that any attempted Internet Tax was mentioned. "They" cannot even stop Internet purchases having VAT avoided, if one buys from small American outfits. AOL claimed they could not add VAT to their Internet charges, and they are part of the Times Warner AOL conglomeration (love that word!) How would they tax computers? I can buy a case from seller A, a mother mother board from B, etc and build my own. Clearly an Urban Leg End. More an Urban Leg Pull ? Phil. At 10:07 22/03/2005, Chris wrote: > > ... it is relevant to people who were saying that computer use > > of the internet would be taxed and that this mailing list is > > one use of internet.

Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 22 March 2005 09:37 >> As long as they don't use adverts - I can't stand the things! > But that does not mean that we have to pay for your dislikes. > You can always offer to pay for a private subscription service > with no adverts. I agree, and do. By the way - I should have used a <grin> after my exclamation mark. There is no way that I expect people to agree with anything I say - I'm not that arrogant <grin>. > ... it is relevant to people who were saying that computer use > of the internet would be taxed and that this mailing list is > one use of internet. Thank you for bringing my attention to that - I had lost track of the thread. > ... so I chipped in with my unique contributions. If you > don't want me to chip in, don't make provocative and OT > suggestions such as your likes and dislikes! But I do so much enjoy reading all points of view. You have made some of your likes and dislikes clear - as have many other contributors to this list. I don't feel that adding my own means that others are wrong. If everyone agreed - I would find life very boring. Please keep "chipping in". It is up to the administrator to stop people and I'm glad that that right is rarely used. Chris

In message of 22 Mar, "Chris" <chris@masquerade.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 22 March 2005 08:19 > > > Allow the service providers to raise revenue in other ways. > > As long as they don't use adverts - I can't stand the things! But that does not mean that we have to pay for your dislikes. You can always offer to pay for a private subscription service with no adverts. > By the way - is this genealogy? No. But it is relevant to people who were saying that computer use of the internet would be taxed and that this mailing list is one use of internet. Then people started saying things about how broadcasting should be financed, so I chipped in with my unique contributions. If you don't want me to chip in, don't make provocative and OT suggestions such as your likes and dislikes! -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 22 March 2005 08:19 > Allow the service providers to raise revenue in other ways. As long as they don't use adverts - I can't stand the things! By the way - is this genealogy?

Obviously nobody has purchased recently an "up to date" PC! My new one has all the whistles and whats its that anyone could need including a TV connection, and looking at other machines now on sale this is becoming the norm. The point being that before the retailer would sell me the machine I had to complete and sign a declaration that I had a current Television Licence. So without any new legislation there is already in place a method of ensuring that the now emasculated BBC gets it "pittance". How many of you have actually down loaded more than a small amount of items from their sites - methinks that they protest too much! Based on usefulness if there is to be a queue for hand outs then perhaps Google might head the list!!! Though I'm fairly sure that you will have your own priority list ready <GGG> Peter Rogers.

In message of 22 Mar, Chopt@aol.com wrote: > Surely the way to deal with this issue is for the BBC to put any > television material on a part of their website that one can only > access by paying a subscription equal to the licence fee (like > Ancestry.com). Any one signing up should be able to link the > subscription to a particular property and it would count in lieu of > a licence covering any conventional televisions on that property. > > That way nobody could avoid the licence fee, people who sometimes use > the internet and sometimes a conventional television would pay only > once and internet uses who had no television and did not use the > BBC restricted site would not have to pay. > > In my view, radio programmes should be on a freely available part of the > site as no licence is required to receive them. In my view TV programs should also be freely available. There should be no licence fees at all. Providing entertainment is not a responsibility or duty of government. The duty of government is to regulate, not to run. Allow the service providers to raise revenue in other ways. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

In a message dated 21/03/2005 15:18:23 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org writes: > I agree that this is little more than an urban legend. If there were > real difficulty in collecting the BBC's income from TV licences, then > the simplest answer would be to allow it to collect income from > sponsors. This would save all of us the licence fee each year, none of > which ends up as government revenue so the government would not lose out > either. Indeed and as well the red tape in our existences would > diminish marginally. Can't be bad. > On sponsorship, this is unlikely to come without strings. The licence fee might not be spent according to government decisions, but funding of the BBC by sponsorship or advertisements would affect us all. An even simpler answer would be funding of the BBC out of taxation. Like sponsorship, the cure would be worse than the disease. I don't see how red tape would be diminished. In conclusion, I can't help feeling this thread has become a tiny bit OT. Regards, Colin Mills

Surely the way to deal with this issue is for the BBC to put any television material on a part of their website that one can only access by paying a subscription equal to the licence fee (like Ancestry.com). Any one signing up should be able to link the subscription to a particular property and it would count in lieu of a licence covering any conventional televisions on that property. That way nobody could avoid the licence fee, people who sometimes use the internet and sometimes a conventional television would pay only once and internet uses who had no television and did not use the BBC restricted site would not have to pay. In my view, radio programmes should be on a freely available part of the site as no licence is required to receive them. Cedric Hoptroff Little Brickhill Bucks

As Family Historians, surely we should all have learnt by now to refer to the primary source. Here is the quote from the Green Paper: 4.22 In future, if a large number of people are downloading audiovisual content from the internet, and watching it on their computers or mobile phones, rather than using traditional TV and radio services, it may be difficult to collect and enforce a licence fee based on television ownership. 4.23 In that world, different funding models may have to be considered. If the licence fee was to be retained, the means of collecting it might have to be changed – so that it became, for example, either a compulsory levy on all households or even on ownership of PCs as well as TVs. see http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/gp_funding.pdf Michael Williamson -----Original Message----- From: TebbuA@aol.com [mailto:TebbuA@aol.com] Sent: 21 March 2005 12:14 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Something more to worry about! Those of you who have read the latest ed'n of Computer Active ( March 2005, page 7 ) will no doubt be alarmed by gov't proposals to licence PCs. This came to light in the recent green paper on the BBC's charter. It seems that we are downloading too much from the BBC for free and are making it too difficult to collect licence fees. ( What happened to all those lads in vans hiding around the corner? ) The proposal is to charge the same as the TV licence fee sometime after the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2006. Think about the implications for business and education, let alone our researches. As these things are not dreamt up overnight we can now perhaps understand why Mr Blair was so keen, a couple of years ago, that we should all have internet access! Don't forget The Medal Cards! Mike Tebbutt.

In message of 21 Mar, Peter Amsden <amsden@btinternet.com> wrote: > I can see all of the busy minds already at work. How do we devise a gadget > that hides the fact that you are connected to the internet. > > How on earth could they police this. Simply owning a PC would not be the > issue, it would be when the internet was accessed. Just how many ISPs are > there right now? And if you tried eMail for two months and then found it > wasn't for you? And if you are over 75 - do those people still get free PC > licenses like they do free TV licenses? > > My feeling is that this is an urban legend. Like the idea that people were > going to be charged per minute for using eMail. > > I am sure that any PM/President would love to find a way to do this, but > they will need to lock up all of the hackers first! I agree that this is little more than an urban legennd. If there were real difficulty in collecting the BBC's income from TV licences, then the simplest answer would be to allow it to collect income from sponsors. This would save all of us the licence fee each year, none of which ends up as government revenue so the government would not lose out either. Indeed and as well the red tape in our existences would diminish marginally. Can't be bad. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

I can see all of the busy minds already at work. How do we devise a gadget that hides the fact that you are connected to the internet. How on earth could they police this. Simply owning a PC would not be the issue, it would be when the internet was accessed. Just how many ISPs are there right now? And if you tried eMail for two months and then found it wasn't for you? And if you are over 75 - do those people still get free PC licenses like they do free TV licenses? My feeling is that this is an urban legend. Like the idea that people were going to be charged per minute for using eMail. I am sure that any PM/President would love to find a way to do this, but they will need to lock up all of the hackers first! ---- Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland ASAT Productions: http://www.asat.biz Researching Amsden World Wide Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer age. > -----Original Message----- > From: TebbuA@aol.com [mailto:TebbuA@aol.com] > Sent: 21 March 2005 12:14 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SoG] Something more to worry about! > > Those of you who have read the latest ed'n of Computer Active ( March 2005, > page 7 ) will no doubt be alarmed by gov't proposals to licence PCs. This > came to light in the recent green paper on the BBC's charter. It seems that > we > are downloading too much from the BBC for free and are making it too > difficult > to collect licence fees. ( What happened to all those lads in vans hiding > around the corner? ) The proposal is to charge the same as the TV licence > fee > sometime after the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2006. Think about the > implications for business and education, let alone our researches. As these > things are > not dreamt up overnight we can now perhaps understand why Mr Blair was so > keen, a couple of years ago, that we should all have internet access! > Don't forget The Medal Cards! Mike Tebbutt. >

Nothing surprises me any more. Will those of us that rarely watch BBC have a rebate on our TV licence???? I doubt it <vbg> !!! Carole -----Original Message----- From: TebbuA@aol.com [mailto:TebbuA@aol.com] Sent: 21 March 2005 12:14 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Something more to worry about! Those of you who have read the latest ed'n of Computer Active ( March 2005, page 7 ) will no doubt be alarmed by gov't proposals to licence PCs. This came to light in the recent green paper on the BBC's charter. It seems that we are downloading too much from the BBC for free and are making it too difficult to collect licence fees. ( What happened to all those lads in vans hiding around the corner? ) The proposal is to charge the same as the TV licence fee sometime after the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2006. Think about the implications for business and education, let alone our researches. As these things are not dreamt up overnight we can now perhaps understand why Mr Blair was so keen, a couple of years ago, that we should all have internet access! Don't forget The Medal Cards! Mike Tebbutt. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005 -- Carole's outgoing mail has been scanned by AVG and is virus free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005

Those of you who have read the latest ed'n of Computer Active ( March 2005, page 7 ) will no doubt be alarmed by gov't proposals to licence PCs. This came to light in the recent green paper on the BBC's charter. It seems that we are downloading too much from the BBC for free and are making it too difficult to collect licence fees. ( What happened to all those lads in vans hiding around the corner? ) The proposal is to charge the same as the TV licence fee sometime after the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2006. Think about the implications for business and education, let alone our researches. As these things are not dreamt up overnight we can now perhaps understand why Mr Blair was so keen, a couple of years ago, that we should all have internet access! Don't forget The Medal Cards! Mike Tebbutt.

The actual name of many pubs had no local meaning, one of our watering holes actual name was" The Talbot", but was universally known as "Dirty Bets/Betts". Please dont ask why!!!! From my former employment with a large brewery I seem to remember that the only naming criteria was that it did not upset the local authority and that there was not a similarly named house near by. The old puns having died out we didn't get any new "Welcome Inn" or Dew Drop Inn"......... Incidentally before applying to licence a new public house we conducted a very comprehensive survey of every household within its potential catchment area to gauge any possible opposition - an interesting exercise; several vehement comments from residents with 200 or so yards and then a high approval rating from almost everyone else! The staff sent out to do this work had to complete a return from every house/property and go back several times if necessary to ensure that their forms were correct - but they did get a nice fee for the job, which back in the 1950's helped out nicely. Since then I have always had some sympathy with Census Enumerators.............. Cheers Peter Rogers.

Good Day, If Roy Stockdill is on the list, please have him contact me concerning placement of his Genuki article on genealogical lists for helping newcomers to family history. Regards, Edna - Ottawa

In a message dated Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:27:04 GMT Standard Time, "David Binns" _davidbinns@qual-chem-tech.co.uk_ (mailto:davidbinns@qual-chem-tech.co.uk) writes: . I would be very grateful for any information about this establishment and particularly for advice on how I might discover the origin of its name. It seems to me unlikely that it was named after its landlord, but the 1914 Kelly's Postal Hi David Try _http://essexpub.net/Leytonstone/colgrave.htm_ (http://essexpub.net/Leytonstone/colgrave.htm) for some information - if you find anything more, anything at all, then contact that site owner and he will welcome any update. Pubs which have a name such as The Colgrave Arms would not normally be named after the landlord, but after a local dignitary or famous/philanthropic person. For example there are many pubs called the Devonshire Arms; the Duke of Devonshire commanded his own regiment in the dim and distant past and as his NCOs 'retired', he provided them with a sum of money with which to set up an inn. Many of them recorded this act of generosity by naming the inn after him. The Onslow Arms in Locksley is named after the local land owners, who probably own the land on which the pub is built and as a tenant on his property you don't want to upset your landlord! DaveD