Ceefax/Teletex
Teletext
When I was growing up in the 70’s the only TV Programme we could watch was non-talkie movies.. such as Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and early Laurel and Hardy films.
I couldn’t watch cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, Scooby Doo, Captain Pugwash and Magic Roundabout.
The 80’s came and Teletext or Ceefax came along and subtitles were available when you press 888.
Ceefax was actually invented in 1974 see below taken from Wikipedia :
Ceefax (phonetic for “See Facts”) is the BBC’s Teletext information service.
The system was announced in October 1972 and following test transmissions in 1973-1974 the Ceefax system went live on the 23 September 1974 with thirty pages. Developed by BBC engineers who were working on ways of providing televisual subtitles for the deaf, it was the first teletext system in the world.
Now, to get a box would cost up to £400 in the 70’s.
Check out this link http://finllfixit.co.uk/01/12/2006/why-i-watch-less-tv/ on how I came across Ceefax.
It went live in 1974 but one of the early problems was its expense. Decoders cost more than £300 while Teletext-enabled TV sets would set consumers back £700.
Ceefax was the Google of its day. You type 101 and it brings up the headline news and also brings up a news flash: (could not use newsflash when watching a programme using subtitles)
Anyone remember the no need to shout weekly news for the Deaf?
Very un PC
We were all excited that programmes would show subtitles and it was intended for deaf people.
The problem was that only certain programmes showed subtitles and you had to look on Ceefax or newspaper TV listings to find out if the programme you wanted to watch will carry subtitles. Also it was not on 24 /7.
Subtitles were not always on 888. At first they were on 170 (BBC1), 270 (BBC2) and 199 (ITV). Can you imagine how confusing that was but thankfully all channels subtitles are on 888
Nowadays 98 % of BBC programmes carry subtitles but the analogue TV’s are being switched off so all programmes will be shown in digital format.
So you either have free Freeview, Sky or Cable in order to watch digital programmes but what about Ceefax?
Subtitles
BBC subtitles provide a transcript of the TV soundtrack, helping deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers to follow programmes. They have been available since the early 1980s.
No other UK broadcaster matches the proportion of programmes subtitled by the BBC. It is committed to subtitling 100% of BBC TV programmes from April 2008.
95% of BBC One and BBC Two is already subtitled, and 80% of BBC Three, BBC Four, CBBC, CBeebies and BBC News 24.
On analogue TV you need Teletext to see subtitles. Press Text on your remote control and type 888. Subtitles appear straight away or whenever a subtitled programme begins.
If you have digital TV, select Subtitles from the set-up menu and follow the instructions for your set-top box or set. Subtitles will appear whenever you switch on.
Now as you see BBC committed to subtitling 100 % of BBC TV programmes 34 years after it first started!
But once British broadcasting becomes fully digital and the analogue signal is switched off, Ceefax will be succeeded by its already flourishing little brother digital text - accessed by the now familiar red button.
Digital text is always slow and pressing the red button during a programme or shortly after it has finished to watch more of it (like a extended programme) carry’s no subtitles so its no use to us.
So yes you might say we have the Internet so why bother with interactive text but to think that they are spending money on it you would have thought of ways of including subtitles for us?
All images taken from this site http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/ with permission
The Red Button text - I don’t think it was tested properly or was intended to be used for carrying so much more visual and audio information.
It is disappointing when TV companies invest money on extras but not making it accessible to all, especially the BBC as we pay a full licence fee.
Personally, sans-subtitles notwithstanding, the Red Button was trying to do too much.
It’s rather surprising, the switch-over to digital at day one, made it quite clear there was no further commitment to CEEFAX. Via READ HEAR (Page 643), I sent a query to BBCi some YEARS ago, and they said there was no guarantee the READ HEAR letter pages would be retained, because I had complained that as a regular contributor, the letters page had vanished, and all we saw was ‘highlights’, I was angry because 643 provided the first clear listings of 888 and signed programs amongst other things, and many older people not on the net, used CEEFAX to keep up with things….. That was when it was made clear CEEFAX was due for the chop, strange now people are only now beginning to realize what was known some time ago, we’ve less than a year before CEEFAX starts to vanish for good.
I knew Ceefax being phased out .well they have stopped carrying it on digital tv.
As most people dont care about Ceefax I always get the “I use the internet”.to which is fair enough what gets me that they are spending our licensce fee money on interactive red button when they could easily spend it on a website. why are they bothering? when money should be spent on more BSL programmes for example!
Contenious point ‘though isn’t it (BSL Programs). For the first time ever the BBC justified the change via the fact the BSL user was no longer supporting the BBC’s primary BSL program (SEE HEAR), why would they put money into more now ? They want proof via bums on seats, and seemingly not prepared to provide it because it is a right, it is a sea change view via the SH program.
I think it is probably time the BSL viewers changed tactics, and lobbied instead some sky or community channels, and ITV to see if they would provide a channel, all the energy has been solely directed (As has subtitling campaigns), on the BBC alone, relatively, the other 200 odd channels, have carried on compeletely without the BSL access at all, and Ofcom is obviously some sort of in joke with them.
I think the current ampaigns running agaisnt the BBC is taking the eye completely off the access ball for BSL. It would appear the BSL campaign is based solely at the BBC, because of the licence fee, and they have accepted they haven’t a hope in hell of BSL access anywhere else, bit defeatist isn’t it ? I’ve read half a dozen blogs by Grumpy, Greta and yourself, all, were aimed at ONE channel, the BBC.
Why let the rest have an easy time of it ? SKY’s ‘Community’ Channel I would have thought would broadcast BSL any time the deaf want it, coveringthe costs, and finding the talent seems impossible, obviously SKY ISN’T gonna do it for free. Why don’t the deaf ask the BBC for the funding of SEE HEAR, and produce what they want ?
Because the BBC has traditionally led the way. And you are forced to pay for them, so why should the BBC be left off the hook.
However, I do agree with your sentiments MM, that other broadcasters ought to be looked at because of their size - eg, those owned by Murdoch.
MM,
We aim at one channel as we have to pay for a license ,even if I didn’t watch tv we still have to pay for a tv license just to plug in a BBC micro computer or spectrum into a tv remember them?
I assume that your a lot older than me so I am guessing that you have have paid your licence fee a hell longer than us for what? so they can hear the radio in their cars at work etc, and what ever programmes they like to watch.
What did you get? a couple of channels subtitled.
You have to have a licence to watch other channels inc Sky!
How ever as you know how many subscribers to sky compared to people paying a licence fee is very low and yet they subtitles even have a BSL signer on some sky channels so work that one out!
The sole reason the BBC led the way was because it was a public broadcasting channel, and we all paid for it, if it wasn’t would deaf have ANY TV access now ? There is a campaign to insist the deaf only pay half the licence fee, because we can’t utilise Radio. I think personally the licence fee is fair exchange for the near 100% titles we have, but it’s time we lobbied someone else now. Even with 100% BSL and 100% subtitling on the BBC we would still not, have CHOICE of viewing. BBC ? or not BBC ? hmmmmm !!! Many here pay for SKY and don’t bother lobbying any of the channels for access, wonder why ? Mainly they don’t realise SKY carries channels for others. Murdoch could rattle their cages if only he would take some notice…
Yes 100% subtitles which took a lot of years..but we ain’t going to end there as they are pushing for video on demand and yes you have guess it no subtitles.
Our license fee paying for BBC on-line content take a look at See Hear for example where are the subtitles also the news!.
So we’re still stuck into BBC mode ? The BBC output could all end up crap viewing, a lot already is, then we wouldn’t watch it titled or signed 100%, what choice do you have ? you are a captive audience let’s face it ! Where else can you go ? (OK the net, but that isn’t TV). My BBC viewing is already minimal anyway because I can’t find anything worth watching on a daily basis. I think a lot of TV is dead frankly.
It’s something the access campaigners never allowed for, that we’d sit and watch anything ….. just because it was accessible, I doubt they ever considered the discerning deaf viewer existed.
To be honest, the BBC does output a lot of decent programmes compared to Murdoch’s crap. I don’t think you quite realise how good TV is in this country compared to others, eg, North America and rest of Europe.
Yes, choice is great, but if BBC can lead by example as it frequently do, then others will follow suit.
Lets not forget that the BBC has more flexibility than its commercial rivals when it comes to putting money into potentially non-profit making projects.
Pioneering is expensive business, and second-uptakers always improve on it.
Rivals will follow suit with the BBC eventually and try their own TV on demand over the internet, and if we don’t concentrate on getting the BBC to set an example, then we will have an even bigger uphill start on the commercial broadcasters.
@Kyle
Do agree with you there.. I tend to watch BBC3 as they have loads of good programmes there.
I like documentaries and history rather that tripe like Eastenders!
I wish I had your faith that others would follow the BBC,but most are profit-making channels, if they don’t make that profit they shut down, ITV feels titling isn’t worth the effort…. It’s a commercial world. The BBC is where it is because of its public body status, and an arbitary free hand in our wallets. A LOT of UK viewers want the licence fee got rid of, if they eventually succeed, then the access will stop, the BBC cannot continue to ‘compete’ with SKY and other channels without upping and upping the fee all the time, and at some point viewers will say that’s it.
How much are you prepared to pay for your licence to get your access ? It’s our right (Access), but it aint free. Not that it matters, because you don’t get a choice in that. Our licence fees cover radio, educational output, and internet access for the BBC, it is going to get top heavy and un-fundable soon, it has 8 channels (5 too many) too. The BBC isn’t the sacred cow it used to be anymore. A lot want an end to the fee, and then our access will plummet..
Yes, there are complete idiots out there who wants their licence fee abolished. Clearly they’ve never seen foreign TV or use the BBC website.
Considering the rivals costs a hell a lot more than £12-odd a month and you pay to watch their adverts half the time, I still think the BBC represents good value.
If the other channels were so profiteering, why are there subtitles on them now? Because they latched onto what the BBC pioneered - ie, they didn’t have to go through the costly exercise of R&D which doesn’t please their shareholders or Mr Murdoch for that matter. By getting something already available, they can attract a little more audience without the associated cost of development.
I have to correct you…
Tom and Jerry - never need subtitles, there are no talking in it! Very rare when they do. Due to this, it’ve always been my favourite cartoon, although the latest version is poor in comparasion to the oldies. Likewise with Roadrunner and the Coyote. Bugs Bunny however does talk, but the old cartoons nearly always relies on the visual effect rather than a wisecrack voiced over.
Magic Roundabout - you have to be on a hell a lot of LSD to understand it, so no-one got it…except for those on LSD
Rest of cartoons…yup I agree…although I remember the first time I saw a cartoon subtitled…it was the BBC - the cartoon was The Punisher I think.
JGJones
yes your right about Tom and Jerry.. don’t know why I put them in.. as most cartoons talk and I forgot tom and jerry don’t!
I remember school playground talking about what’s been on and I was unable to join in!
There is some confusion regarding Murdoch and SKY, he doesn’t OWN all the channels he broadcasts or dictates the content of them, he provides the means for them to do it. This doesn’t give him any right to isn’t on our behalf titles or signing is provided. What he could do, is ’suggest’ it would be helpful. That’s all I asked him to do, and he never replied. As for the BBC if you don’t like the programs then what ? It’s value is in access, but NOT, in content, and deaf are getting wise to this (As are hearing for that matter).
MM,
“As for the BBC if you don’t like the programs then what?”
Don’t pay for the TV license
Fintan,
How do you pay for a TV license? Just curious. In the US, we don’t have to pay for a TV license and in many areas, you can get up to 9 free channels using an antenna.
The CeeFax thing is very interesting. I’ve never seen anything like that.
Erick
Erick,
Thanks for your comments on my blog
When you buy a TV in a shop they notify the TV license company and if your not on the register then you have to pay for a License (1 license per house) currently £135.50 per year.
If you don’t pay you will get a £1000 fine..
On the upside you get 8 channels from the BBC and there is no adverts in them
but if using the antenna you get 5 channels 2 of them are BBC other 3 are free to which they contain adverts
Erick,
It is a legal requirement to purchase a TV licence in the UK if you own a device capable of receiving TV signals, even if it doesn’t have the ability to display them for you (eg, VCR player without TV) or a mobile phone where you are playing a downloaded recorded programme that happens to be on air at the exact same time as you are viewing it (although how they prove that is beyond me).
Put simply, a licence is needed for each premises that contain such a device, but there are exceptions. A household may have more than one TV, but only one licence is needed.
You purchase your TV licence in some stores supporting the PayPoint scheme or online. A colour TV licence costs £135 a year or £45 a year for b/w. If you are registered blind, I believe it is a third off and if you’re an old fart (eg, over 74), then it’s free.
You can actually get caught not having a licence for your receiving devices on your premises as there are detector vans zig-zagging around the country and a database of households are checked for those without a TV licence. When you buy such devices, you are required to submit your address to the retailer which will be passed on. Fines are up to £1,000 and a court appearance if you don’t have one when you’re meant to.
Plenty of info here for you… http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk
Fintan,
Thanks for your response. :o) It is very interesting on how things are run differently in the UK and the US. I honestly thought it would be somewhat similar. In the US, you just buy things, and you own them. No license.
The only device you have to pay license for would be a HAM radio- these radios that gets worldwide signal. But not that many people own one. My grandfather used to have one, and he’d chat with people in the UK and Australia in the 50’s and the 60’s. He has told me stories where people could hear his conversations on television sets for 10 square miles. (Signal Interference) No wonder a license is needed! :o)
We get 9 free channels with the use of an antenna, but these channels all have advertisements. We have the choice of regular cable, digital cable, or satellite dish TV.
With a regular cable, you get 180 channels, all with advertisements for $30 a month. It varies from area to area. But, that’s around average.
If you wanted “pay” channels such as HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, TMC, Sundance, Starz, Encore, etc.. These don’t have advertisements and they show movies 24/7. It typically costs $7.00 extra per month per pay channel.
Most Americans tend to have “Standard cable plus one pay channel”. The pay channel actually has 3 or 4 versions- aka HBO2, HBO3, HBO4, etc… So, most Americans pay $37.00 to $40.00 per month.
Digital service is my personal preference. Best quality. We personally have Digital cable plus 16 pay channels. That’s around 480 channels. For that plus high speed cable internet comes to $140 a month. (Internet by itself is $40 a month)
By the way, we have BBC on our tv, and we love watching shows on BBC. The programming on BBC is better than most of our American channels. :o) Thinking about that yearly license fee, I can see why. :o)
Do you guys pay for cable service on top of your license fee?
Illegally wise, there is a “black box” that you can buy on eBay or on the internet for $20 to $70 dollars, it will give you free pay channels. We don’t have to worry about getting caught unless the cable man’s coming to install or remove cable. If we are caught, it is usually a fine of probably around $500 dollars. In some cases, you might be able to get off with a warning. I don’t own one, but I do know a few that do.
I have to admit if I only had to pay 135 GBP a year, with BBC, I would be perfectly happy with just 8 channels and leave it at that. :o)
Kyle,
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. One learns something new everyday. :o)
1,000 GBP fine is pretty steep… That would convert to almost $2,000 US dollars. Whew. And to actually have a van zigzagging all over to check the signal is truly remarkable. That would be illegal here in the US. (Not for long, though, thanks to our president.)
Best regards,
Erick :o)
P.s.
(I apologize for using “GBP”, I don’t have the symbol on my keyboard for the pound sign)
One thing that came to mind- do Deaf people get a discount in the UK? I mean, if not every channel is captioned or subtitled? Or are they?
In the US, 85% of the programming is captioned with the exception of most religious channels. (No skin off my nose there.) :o)
Cheers,
Erick
No discounts on the licence fee or on any of the subscription channels.
As Fintan said in his blog somewhere, the BBC aim to provide 100% subtitling within a few years.
The British communications regulator that include television - OFCOM - has laid out recommendations for other channels to provide a % of subtitling. I’m not sure on the details here.
Subtitles on subscription channels such as via Sky with Sky’s own channels providing a quite a high level of subtitling. This tapers off rapidly with channels like Bravo, UKTV, UKTV Gold, LivingTV and non-existant for National Geographic.
Sky’s own channels include a mix of US subscription channels such as HBO and comes as standard with their package.
A basic package with Sky is around about £25 a month and can include broadband (dsl) internet thrown in. The more expensive ones are around £40 a month and include movies and sports. I don’t know about the other providers as I’ve never used them.
Erick,
You have to have a licence on everything car ,fishing, theses days and yes I heard about Radio ham so we have to have a license for those.
What I cant understand and even people here (using sky television) pay a subscription and yet get adverts on the channel?
I have been to America and the tv is appalling! so many adverts in between programmes.. it would drive us mad!
Deaf people in the UK don’t get a discount on many things or even the phone!
Only discount we get is train travel we get a third off the price.. but its expensive.
Cheaper to drive or even fly out of the country cheaper to fly to France spain or anywhere in Europe than travel to London by train ..
Kyle,
It appears that we pay around the same amount for our cable services. The only extra fee I can tell so far in the UK is that license fee. But you guys are lucky in having a minimal amount of adverts. :o)
BBC provides 100% captioning here in the US. But, I suspect it’s because the caption companies in the US are the ones doing the captioning.
From what I can tell, you guys get better television service with the minimal amount of advertising. :o)
Fintan,
The advertisments drive us mad too! :o) I agree, why should we get them when we already are paying for the service? I honestly think it’s the greed of American companies. If there’s one thing I hate about America, it’s corporate America.
My wife and I dislike adverts so much that we rent a DVR (Digital Video Recorder) with our cable package. So, we just record programs and watch them later- and skip the advertisments. :o)
We have to have a license for fishing and hunting too.
Wow, it’s that expensive to travel by train? Even if you guys have an excellent train network? We have a train network, but it’s not that good- but the cost of train travel is not too bad. Interestingly, in most cases, it is only 20 dollars less than airplane travel for the same origin and destination.
Hunting and fishing, is hardly comparable in Britain, you don’t get electronic surveillance, and court orders, criminal record, and your local fishing outlet notifying the Authorities every time you buy a rod or bait, but buy a TV here and see what happens ! Hunting and fishing is also free in parts of America, not so here. With hunting and fishing you choose what you hunt and fish, the BBC does not give choice either, and can spend your fee how it likes. It’s like paying for a fishing licence to find they haven’t bothered to stock the rivers with fish… and put Hippos there instead.
MM - the difference with hunting in the UK and the US is simply a matter of size. The US is a bloody big place, and so there are tons of opportunities.
Here, we are on a tiny, crowded island and couldn’t move a mile without seeing somone. Buy a rod, and fish illegally, and you can be done for a number of things. Go offroading, and the ramblers will puncture your tyres.
But this is not the point of the post at all, the TV licence do allow us to have good TV, and if you don’t watch the BBC, other channels, as I’ve repeatedly said, are spurned on by the competition.
I don’t see any ‘competition’ between hearing and deaf access frankly ! The licence allows us to campaign for access at the BBC but not anywhere else. ITV is free it won’t bow to our lobby, without enough cash to do it. SKY just ignores us. I’ll just re-iterate the BBC has bowed to pressures from us, the others haven’t. So what are you going to do ? just lobby the BBC again ? Only when access is available on ALL channels will deaf have any real choice, the views pro/anti BBC access, don’t change that. You’re arguing over one channel while 200 others ignore you.
We’ll end up with a hypothetical and perfectly accessible BBC with nothing worth watching. We need to widen the attack…… European laws exploited to lobby channels going from there, American deaf and the ADA enacted there to effect changes on them, once America complies the rest will. I think the BBC will always be a ’soft’ target for the deaf, time we put ourselves on the real line outside the BBC, let’s see what the deaf campaigners are made of….
Erick - BBC contains no adverts at all whatsoever - not a minimal number…zero. That’s on all of their channels and radio etc.
However they are required by law to provide accessible channels for all people of UK - including languages such as Welsh, Gaelic, BSL etc as well as ethinic minorities and so on.
Yes a lot of their programmes are of high quality and also because of their income, they are also more capable of producing programmes that no other companies would risk - such as the excellent Planet Earth series, Coast, Blue Sea and so on and also covers programmes such as See Hear (ie small audience programmes), Video Nation etc.
For other channels such as ITV, Channel Four etc - they do have adverts, but we have strict rules that regulate how much adverts they are allowed to show - for example unlike USA, where when you are watching a show and then suddenly without warning you are in an advert…
Here - we have a small break - showing name of programme etc and then onto adverts - which have a strict maximum time of showing before you’re faced with a break showing programme is now back on. - so if you are watching an half hour show - you will only get one advert break - half way thru.
MM:
Actually while the licence means we can campagin for BBC to provide shows etc, but you’re wrong that we can’t campagin for other channels such as ITV - that’s what the Ofcom is for. They set rules such as minimum % of subtitles that other channels must show etc - you can campagin at them to improve access so there is something you can do.
This is what the TAG group does and have had plenty of success in the past to improve access. Also DBC (Deaf Broadcasting Council) bought a TV with no speakers to Number 10 to show why we needed subtitles - the PM couldn’t follow the TV with no sound as an example. So there are campagining happening here.
MM,
Electronic surveillance? Wow. That’s pretty extreme, kind of takes the fun out of hunting, in my opinion. I don’t hunt personally, but my father does. I cannot imagine him being tagged electronically.
Speaking of that subject, I have a RSS feed to BBC news, since a lot of “dirty” stuff about the US is on it while our media is filtered. So, I read BBC news. Anyway, I’ve read a lot about the video cameras all over town and people on microphones yelling at civilans like: “You in the red shirt, put that cone back!”.
How long has it been like that in the UK? All of this heavy surveillance?
So, you’re saying that BBC is the only channel you’ve got that has subtiling?
Kyle,
I see what you mean by England being an island with a lot of people, while things here are kind of spaced. Canada is a much better place for hunting. I’ve travelled through Canada from east to west, and it’s a beautiful country with a lot of wildlife. (Much more than the US)
It is almost as if the government in the UK is intentionally keeping its people within a certain class line by putting a fee to everything? I mean, I cannot imagine seeing most of my paycheck go into everything. Here, I keep 3/4 of my paycheck after taxes and bills.
But then again, there are things on the plus side, like having no adverts on BBC. We have BBC here, but it has adverts. Now, I can see why it seems to me that BBC programs don’t have a “transition” between the program and the adverts. It seemed to cut out abruptly to adverts then cut back in abruptly. That would explain it all. (American TV broadast companies obviously insert them)
Joseph,
You’re very lucky to have no adverts. :o) I envy that. Most Americans use that time to run to the restroom, grab a snack, check their mail, etc… Seems to be a waste of money, in my opinion. But, still, it would be very nice to just be able to watch a TV show without interruptions.
For every 5 minutes of programming, we have 2 minutes of adverts. :o( The only time we don’t have adverts is when we have a “pay channel”. Each one of them is $8.00 per month additional to the cable bill. And I believe that there are only around 20 “pay channels” available. But even 8×20 is a lot of money. ($160) So, most Americans just have one pay channel group that contains 2 or 3 pay channels.
Each channel varies. Some channels have a lot of adverts, some has little. The really good ones has less- such as the “History Channel” and “Sci-Fi” channel. I’d say, 1 advert for every 30 minutes. For that reason, many of us have “favorites”. Most of our remote controls has a “last” feature in which we can go back and forth between 2 channels with one touch of the button. If you guys don’t have that, then that button is undoubtedly a result of the heavy adverts here.
How many channels has subtitles?
Fintan,
Great blog entry! It sure has spurred a lot of interest. :o)
No, all the main terrestial channels - thats BBC1, BBC2, ITV (3), Channel 4 and Channel 5 have subtitles with varying degrees of quality and coverage.
“Cable” such as Sky or Virgin Media do contain subtitles on some of the channels such as UKTV, Bravo, LivingTV, Sky One, etc. Many have pretty limited subtitling and the odd one or two do have nearly as much as terrestial channels - eg, Sky One has plenty of subs.
The UK has cameras in nearly every urban centre and I remember my hometown (pop. 10,000) received special funding for 5 CCTVs in the late 1980s and it felt weird being looked at by one of them. Now it’s par for the course. Shopping centres - malls - well, they have just about every surface covered by a CCTV bar the loos.
As for the voice on the cameras - this is a new idea and being tried in different counties. I’ve commented on my blog about what would a deaf person do when someone shouts down the CCTV to them!? - http://www.sterry.me.uk/blog/2007/04/04/talking_cctv_camers_aamp_the_deaf/
Erick you misunderstand. When MM said Electronic surveillance - he meant only for TV’s. For hunting/fishing there’s no electronic surveillance.
For TV - they do detect if you are using a TV without a licence - for that, they have to be parked outside your house, your TV have to be on and watching a particular channel - it’s not an exact science.
In fact what really happen is that they have a database and if an address is registered as having bought a TV, but there’s no record of a TV, they will call around.
They can’t gain entry though as that’s illegal without warranty etc - but they can ask.
If you ignore them etc without proving anything, then they can step it up…TV detection vans are used in the end etc. Most cases often end with people owning up long before then.
UK however is the country with the highest CCTV density in the world - ie more CCTV’s per person than any other countries.
Finally:
“It is almost as if the government in the UK is intentionally keeping its people within a certain class line by putting a fee to everything? I mean, I cannot imagine seeing most of my paycheck go into everything. Here, I keep 3/4 of my paycheck after taxes and bills.”
You’ve shown that you know next to nothing about UK.
True it appears that way, but have you looked into why?
In UK we do pay higher tax…but at the same time we’ve got NHS, free medicial cover for all, including tourists etc whereas you have to pay for your medical issues all the time.
We’ve got better social security etc - basically lot of our tax goes into services for people. It’s not always perfect, but we gain by having things such as better public transport, free health cover etc.
Summary: USA method - pay minimal tax, but you pay for everything else and if you’re homeless/out of a job, you’re screwed
UK (or European) method - pay lots of tax, but is spend on health cover, public transport etc as well as social security etc.
Which is better? Neither - both method have their pro and con’s.
But at the same time…USA does exploit more countries around the world to ensure that it get most of the resources to ensure they get everything cheap and so on, whereas Europe tend to focus more on helping. That’s the impression it’s here.
Anyway no poing going on about it otherwise it’ll just end in a USA vs Europe thing which is pointless. We all know Europe is better
Hi Erick
I read somewhere that, on average, you are caught on CCTV at least 200 times per day. Yeah it does resemble some Orwellian nightmarish scenarios but if you are a good boy (i.e. not Al-Qaeda with a suicide belt) then there is nothing to worry about. On a positive note, having CCTV is useful tool to prevent terrorist outrages being carried out, like we just saw in London Haymarket.
I would like to mention that our roads are too smothered with cameras. Speed cameras everywhere and you will have to take it easy on your Suburban (yup, I’ve been reading your blogs
) unless you are in the Cornish countryside in the middle of the night or own a TomTom. Them lovely tall hedges! We even got number-plate recognition cameras sprouting up now and then, to catch road tax dodgers/banned drivers/”hot” cars.
Kyle,
Thanks again for the link. :o) I have googled these things- but for some reason, they do not appear in the results. I’m sure it has a lot to do with the American version focusing on American sites.
At any rate, CCTV is something that is just starting out here. When the terrorist attack was done on our World Trade Center on 9/11, it really changed our way of life. Security everywhere has gotten really outrageous.
I remember during university, being able to walk on the mall at the capitol hill smoking pot with two other friends, (both during night and during day) and we made it a habit to smoke pot at all the capitol monuments. We used to jokingly refer that to “Smoking Abe Out”. (As in Abraham Lincoln, a past president) So, I’d be doing my homework and my friend would enter my dormitory room and say “Hey, wanna smoke Abe out?” And I’d be like “Hell, yeah man!”
We’d go to the famous statue and sit on his arm and hang out. We’d go to the obelisk, lie down with our backs to the ground, take LSD and put our feet on the side of the obelisk and pretend we were walking up there. We’d go to the Albert Einstein face statue (it’s huge) and we’d sit on one of his hair bangs and smoke pot/take LSD and contemplate the purpose of the universe.
In these days I was a modern day hippie. Since then, I don’t do it anymore. (Just a mini disclaimer there, grins) Anyhow, that area is fenced off and has video cameras everywhere. There is absolutely no way you can do that now. I guess the sad thing is I can tell my son 20 years from now that I was able to do that. Without doubt, he’ll be in shock.
It just shows how things have changed here. While, in the UK, it seems to have been taking place for a while now. I guess we’re only catching up. :o(
Joseph,
MM said “Hunting and fishing, is hardly comparable in Britain, you don’t get electronic surveillance….”
That’s why I misunderstood. Thank you for clearing that up.
It made the hairs on my arm stand up to the thought. So, what a relief! 
One thing that I wonder about- if you buy a TV secondhand, used from your neighbor, does your neighbor transfer his license to you, or do you have to apply for a license for your now “new secondhand” TV set?
Joseph, of course, I know next to nothing about the UK today. That’s why I am asking questions.
Unfortunately, our school system in the US is very focused on US social events and US history. In high school, we spend only 2 weeks on each country talking about their history. It’s not enough. I spent only 2 weeks learning quickly about your medevial period. That’s literally all I learned in high school about all of the UK. That’s it. My teachers didn’t even touch the subject of the UK “today”.
Literally, everything I know about your history is self-taught from reading books in my personal library & on the internet.
Unfortunately, I was born and raised in America, & I lived the American lifestyle. I am doing absolutely everything in my power to break free from that and educate myself.
I am more than aware that each country has its pros and cons. Unlike most people, such as yourself, I do not claim that my country is better.
I am an American, so my questions and perspectives are American, just like yours is British. The trick here is to keep that in mind, hmm?
In regards to medical insurance, we have something similar to that, but it is only provided to people that are “poor enough”. If your income is less than $24k a year, you qualify for free medical insurance. If you make more than $24k, it is very highly likely that our employers provide health insurance as a pay package.
So, in a sense, everyone is covered. The homeless do not have health insurance because those people are not working. Those people are not doing what they can to have a home. We have so many services and so many shelters that there is just no excuse for homelessness.
It is so easy to become rich in this country. One just has to put their mind to it. Most literally, homeless people CHOSE to be homeless. Most people in the US that are homeless are war veterans or people that has a mental illness. Unfortunately, the US doesn’t do enough to help these people and reach out to them.
When we visit foreign countries, our medical insurance follows us. It only cost $100 dollars, one-time payment, to be covered in a foreign country.
So, I can say that you really don’t know that much about the US neither, my friend.
But I don’t hold it against you. I understand. I just wish you would treat me the same way. 
I have visited Canada, and it has a national health insurance. I can only say that their doctors are so backwards that I refuse to see a doctor again in Canada. Doctors in Canada treat patients like people on an assembly line.
I popped my knee back in 1999 in Canada while demonstrating to my fiancee how to use a Samurai sword (it’s a funny story, more about that later if you like) and my knee popped out of socket. So, I went to the hospital in Canada. They took a x-ray of my knee, and do you know what they told me? “The doctor that reads x-rays are not in today, so you will have to come tomorrow to find out the results”. I didn’t even get an interpreter neither– even after I repeatedly requested one.
American doctors are required to know everything, & are required to be able to read x-rays & see to any health problem. Doctors in the US are top of the line and I only have to wait 5 minutes before I see my family doctor. I go in there, and the doctor provides an ASL certified interpreter and the interpreter is already on site prior to my arrival. Their job starts the minute I open the door at the doctor’s. And the doctor stays with me until his job is done. Then I leave the office. My employer pays for it. I pay nothing. I don’t even have to arrange for an interpreter. The doctor’s secretary does that without asking.
Most employers in the US pays for health insurance. It includes some cosmetic stuff. Cochlear implant is covered by medical insurance. Even teeth bleaching is covered by medical insurance. Eyeglasses, covered. X ray, covered. The only thing that is not covered is voluntary plastic surgery. If you got in a car accident and got disfigured, the plastic surgery is covered. If your teeth look like crap, you can get it fixed, and it’s covered.
Our public transportation and all that is paid for by our taxes. It costs .75 cents out of your pocket for most local city bus destinations. Some people’s employers pay for these. In fact, many employers will pay for gasoline/petrol on a mileage basis if you use your car during your work hours.
“But at the same time… USA does exploit more countries around the world to ensure that it get most of the resources to ensure they get everything cheap and so on, whereas Europe tend to focus more on helping. That’s the impression it’s here.”
Without doubt. I do not disagree on that. Unfortunately, that’s how our government is. It doesn’t mean that we, the people think that way. We help each other quite a bit. You just don’t read about it, because our media is corrupted.
This, to me isn’t about Europe VS US. This is about learning things and having a good chat. At least, to me. I respect your national pride. I don’t have any national pride. So, I don’t see what the problem is.
Joseph, I honestly think that you have some animousity towards me simply because I am an American and keep making American statements. Please just keep in mind that I am simply a person living under a government that even I don’t like.
Whether you may see it or not, I believe that you and I are very alike in many ways. We are simply end products of our respective countries.
Cheers,
Erick
Tony,
Whew, I just posted 2 very long rambling posts, so I’ll keep this one short.
That’s quite a lot of cameras. I do know I don’t feel comfortable with people taking my pictures or taking videos of me. I just feel that my body is my property, and if they want to take pictures, they need to pay me.
But, I really do understand the need for security. We are becoming that way too. I guess, what is going on in the UK camera-wise is just a preview of what is to come here.
In regards to my Suburban, grins… For the most part, I drive it very reasonably. But on the highways, I like to go fast! (That is, whenever my family is not in there with me)
Cheers,
Erick
“I don’t have any national pride. So, I don’t see what the problem is.” - reading rest of your comment…I don’t believe that
As for national pride…ah, that’s easy, us Welsh folks know we’re better than those damn English/Scots/Irish (nation bashing is a national sport in UK since we’re made up of 4 countries along with the islanders, and we have Hell as well (we call it Isle of Wright))
BTW regarding CCTV’s although you wouldn’t be comfortable with that…however how come people aren’t doing anything about Bush’s authorisation of wire-tapping which was illegal itself?? Never could get it…
Guess apathy doesn’t just affect UK, but USA as well…
Joseph,
Ok, ok, maybe I do have a tiny smidgen of national pride.
You’re right, we should do something about Bush’s wiretapping laws. At first, congress kept approving laws with a “stamp er and go” mentality due to the 9/11 event.
It had a lot to do with the fact that for the first time in our history, the house of reprenstatives and the senate as well as the executive branch was mostly Republican. Checks and balances were out in the window when that happened.
Fortunately, we had mid-elections, not too long ago and a lot of Democrats replaced Republicans in congress… And that was a result of Bush’s illegal laws. And we are now going after him.
The problem is, you’ve got religious Americans that support the president. And then you’ve got mostly non-religious or moderately religious people that are not supporting Bush. The problem is, 60% of the US is religious. That really hurts our country… Because they have majority control.
But, there is light in the end of the tunnel. Recently, the vice president was required to report an overseeing committee… He didn’t like the idea of reporting to anyone higher than him. So, he foolishly declared that the office of the vice presidency is not a part of the executive branch. (Since the overseeing committee oversees the executive branch.)
So, the Democrats, bless their hearts- fired back and is going to introduce a bill into congress saying that since the Vice Presidency is no longer a part of the executive branch… He can no longer receive federal funding. He can no longer recieve a pay. He can no longer live in the house that America provides for him. And above of all, he must return all the monies he received in his whole vice-presidency.
Right now, the vice president is really squirming big time! I live to watch him squirm. That arrogant anus.
It’s a big mess, indeed. I think that all our problems come from an universal problem- Greed & Lust for Power by those that benefit.
I’m not comfortable with the wiretapping neither. I think that is worse than video cameras all over the place.
Be assured- Bush is percieved as a dictator to many Americans. We just are afraid to do something. But that fear is slowly going away… I mean, Bush only has a very short time of his presidency left. Maybe when he is no longer in power, people will throw rotten tomatoes and lettuce at that jerk.
Try http://www.google.co.uk and select the radio button “Search from UK and Ireland only” just below the search bar.
Alternatively, just put in “uk” after your search string.
As for Europe, I think its similar to the American model - medical care in France is VERY BLOODY EXPENSIVE! There are differences, but it is closer to that of USA than to UK but with more benefits.
I would suggest reading some other blogs about public services, such as Random Acts of Reality, Nee Naw, Inspector Gadget, PC Copperfield, Mr Chalk and The Law West of Ealing Broadway. Links are on my website but they are easily Googlable.
Kyle,
Thank you so much, that’ll be most useful. Hat tips to you.
That will be very useful for my genealogy research as well. (My father’s side of the family is supposedly from Kent County, England. My mother’s family is from Ireland.)
P.S.,
I just saw your blog for the first time. It’s really nice.
That’s a very nice 4×4 you’ve got. I’m on my way out in a few minutes. But, I’ll definitely take the time to read your blog very soon.
Blimey lots of posting by Erick..
You wrote “Whew, I just posted 2 very long rambling posts” don’t worry I can trim the post
(only kidding)
What really gets me that the Americans really need to read up on history on the world not just the UK.
Apart from that they are ok
You also asked if we get discount on anything for being Deaf.. I am wondering if you do in USA?
Oh by the way Kyle.. stop nicking my readers!!!
Hi Fintan,
Ha ha, indeed.
I really enjoy chatting with you guys. It’s always so interesting to learn new things and at the same time, have some friends outside the US.
I agree, Americans need to read up history on the world, most definitely. To be honest, Americans focus more on African, Chinese, and Russian history much more than the UK for some reason.
For an American, I am very well educated- let alone a Deaf American- but I still need to learn more about the UK and Australia.
As for Discounts in the US, there are some discounts here and there but none that is really widespread. Some phone companies provide half-price for Deaf people that owns a TTY since to them, it takes longer to type a message rather than speak. Also, phone companies give away free TTY’s to customers that request them.
For SOME city buses, there are discounts on bus passes.
For some states, you get a discount to enter or use state facilities. For example, in New York State, there is a state park called “Green Lakes”- it’s a gorgeous place. It costs $7.00 to park there. It includes a lake/beach to swim in, trails to walk, golfing, picnic areas and the such. But for a Deaf person with a state access pass, it is only $1.00, also cabins cost around $40-$110 to rent. But, with that state pass, it is $3.00 per night.
Occasionally, you can convince a movie theatre to give you a discount since there is no subtitles. But, that is going out of vogue since we have many movie theatres with subtitles available.
There are other such discounts here and there. Sometimes if you stay in a hotel that is missing Deaf equipment that is required by law. You can scare them into giving you a discount. It really depends on where you are, who you deal with, and how you handle the situation.
Pagers, there are discounts for mobile pagers with internet access for Deaf people too.
There are more, I’m sure, that I am forgetting to mention.
Take care,
Erick
[...] your Ebay and read Ceefax the list is [...]