Theo Markettos wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1KwN_JOLYg
"Dedicated to the long suffering residents of the Heygate Estate"
Look closely at the external shots and you see that nearly every
flat has a satellite dish. These people aren't poor, they just have
inexplicable priorities.

Umm... Digital switchover in London is in 2012. In flats it might be
difficult to upgrade the aerial system (because that might mean one
on the roof and a shared distribution system, which everyone would
have to agree to and pay for), so going for a satellite option isn't
that silly. As we're continually being told that we must switch over
sooner or later and the zillions of exciting new channels that await
us, maybe they're just prepared?

http://www.freeview.co.uk/home
It feeds my TiVo with more programmes and films I want to see than I have
time to watch.

On 26 May 2008 15:10:44 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
wrote:

Umm... Digital switchover in London is in 2012. In flats it might be
difficult to upgrade the aerial system (because that might mean one on the
roof and a shared distribution system, which everyone would have to agree to
and pay for), so going for a satellite option isn't that silly. As we're
continually being told that we must switch over sooner or later and the
zillions of exciting new channels that await us, maybe they're just
prepared?

Doubt it. Over many years in the UK it's seemed to be the case that
people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children properly
somehow *can* afford to have satellite television, to run cars and to
smoke cigarettes, none of which are essential activities to life but
are nonetheless rather expensive activities.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On May 26, 3:26*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On 26 May 2008 15:10:44 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos

wrote:
Umm... Digital switchover in London is in 2012. *In flats it might be
difficult to upgrade the aerial system (because that might mean one on the
roof and a shared distribution system, which everyone would have to agree to
and pay for), so going for a satellite option isn't that silly. *As we're
continually being told that we must switch over sooner or later and the
zillions of exciting new channels that await us, maybe they're just
prepared?

Doubt it. *Over many years in the UK it's seemed to be the case that
people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children properly
somehow *can* afford to have satellite television, to run cars and to
smoke cigarettes, none of which are essential activities to life but
are nonetheless rather expensive activities.

But imagine having lots of strong, healthy poor people with no
alternative to roaming the streets. Keep em hooked on the TV drug, I
say.

On Mon, 26 May 2008, John Rowland wrote:

Theo Markettos wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1KwN_JOLYg
"Dedicated to the long suffering residents of the Heygate Estate"
Look closely at the external shots and you see that nearly every
flat has a satellite dish. These people aren't poor, they just have
inexplicable priorities.

Umm... Digital switchover in London is in 2012. In flats it might be
difficult to upgrade the aerial system (because that might mean one
on the roof and a shared distribution system, which everyone would
have to agree to and pay for), so going for a satellite option isn't
that silly. As we're continually being told that we must switch over
sooner or later and the zillions of exciting new channels that await
us, maybe they're just prepared?

http://www.freeview.co.uk/home
It feeds my TiVo with more programmes and films I want to see than I have
time to watch.

I think Theo's point was that the existing aerial system in the flats
might not be up to the job of receiving digital TV. I know the idea is
that DTV can be received with the same antenna and cabling as analogue TV,
but i think in practice it's not always that simple. Digital has slightly
different perfoemance requirements to analogue, so it is possible that a
substandard aerial setup might not do. Hence, dishes.

tom

--
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

In message , at
16:58:58 on Mon, 26 May 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Digital has slightly different perfoemance requirements to analogue, so
it is possible that a substandard aerial setup might not do. Hence,
dishes.

The dishes are almost certain to pre-date Freeview. They are to pick up
Sky Sports etc (which is also unavailable on Freeview).

--
Roland Perry

Good on him for cancelling the shameful deal!

On May 26, 7:52*pm, alex_t wrote:
Good on him for cancelling the shameful deal!

Yeah. Instead of doing a deal with the elected government that
benefited people in Venezuela and people in London, we should have
invaded the country, killed several hundred thousand people and handed
the oilfields to companies owned by Dick Cheney.

That wouldn't be at all shameful.

On 26 May, 16:58, Tom Anderson wrote:
Digital has slightly
different perfoemance requirements to analogue, so it is possible that a
substandard aerial setup might not do. Hence, dishes.

It's the distribution amplifiers that are the problem. In large
systems you use one per TV channel rather than trying to amplify the
whole band, so in some systems there will only be amplifiers for the
analogue channels and you won't be able to get the digital multiplexes
at all.

Anyway, the premise that Sky TV is a luxury item is flawed. It's
always been targeted as being affordable to low income groups. It's a
fraction of the cost of a monthly bus pass for one person, for
instance.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

MIG wrote:
On May 26, 2:46 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:50:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Gordon said he was abolishing 10% tax. Most people would (and did)
immediately assume he was reducing the 10% tax to 0% whereas in fact he
put it up to 20%
I think in practice what he should have done was somewhere in the
middle (remove 10p band, leave upper band at 22p, move allowance up
(and 40% band down if applicable) so that as few people in the 10p
band are disadvantaged as possible). I'm all for tax simplification,
but the way this was done smelt strongly of "attempted vote winner"
rather than common sense.

If the scheme is unethical (as a piece of dressed-up foreign aid) it's
best to nip it in the bud.
Agreed.

Which proportion of our oil comes from schemes that are more ethical
(or less unethical)?

Also, what's so ethical about apparently being more concerned about the
wellbeing of poor Venezuelans than about the wellbeing of your own
constituents? It's lucky for Boris I don't believe his reasons for
scrapping the scheme, really*, or some serious reductio ad absurdam
would be deployed.

As for the 10% thing, I remember thinking at the time 'hey, this is
smacking the working poor in order to bribe the voting lower middle
classes'. As a result I didn't think it anything out of the ordinary
for the Blair government and put it on the ****list along with the rest
of their rubbish.

Tom

* If he'd announced it by saying 'I'm scrapping it because I don't
believe that being on income support entitles you to cut-price
transport' I'd have applauded his political courage and honesty.
Instead, what sticks in the mind is the sneaky way it came out and the
dishonesty of the official spin.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:37:55 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 23:33:28 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith which provides cheap fuel for London's
buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of London said
half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which
was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr Johnson said he
thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm

Applause.

What - for sneaking out a controversial announcement, that will double
fares for the poorest people, in the middle of a bank holiday weekend
hoping people wouldn't notice?

The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

I'm interested to know where this policy change was in the Tory
manifesto for the Mayoralty.

I didn't read the manifesto in any detail - but whenever anyone asked
me about the choice, I made sure to point out the Chavez deal, as it
wasn't well known and deserved to be mentioned. (Yes, I also gave an
assesment of Ken's pros and other cons and the pros and cons of
Boris.)

Livingstone has said "It shows that he [Johnson] is more interested in
pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda..."

True, if pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda is dismantling the
policies you implemented to pursue your left-wing ideological
agenda...

So the right thing for London's public transport users is for
politicians to play "I smash your ideology while I build mine" is it?

No. It's appalling that Livingstone should call this pursuing a
right-wing ideological agenda.