the state of television

[petermisc]

I thought it was made in a biased way for him and his wife being innocent, I go on what the verdict was though. I also think they were guilty.

At the time, I tended to think the same, although I was and am much less convinced about Tecwin Wittock's guilt.  Someone in his position would surely have needed a  LOT of persuading.  My gut feeling is that it would be far more likely to be a plant in the audience, than someone with their own chance to get in the chair.

I frankly don't believe that the major just happened to know the answers, as the programme would have us believe.  However, I am less convinced about his guilt.  I suspect that it is far more likely that he got there through "exam technique", which the programme did touch on.   I am sure that I passed at least one of my school exams more by technique than knowledge.

It did briefly mention his technique of going through the answers in turn and listening to the audience reaction as he did so.  Effectively getting an audience lifeline for every question.  Picking an answer and then listening to the audience reaction would also explain why he changed answer so frequently.  And a large dose of luck in not getting a question where the audience got it wrong.  Even if he hadn't been coached on technique directly by the ringleader, as the programme claimed, I am pretty sure he would have been by his wife.

As ever with these programmes, we need to remember that it is a drama, not a documentary.  How much of it actually happened, and how much was added for dramatic effect.  Did the meeting in the pub between the top Celador guy and the ringleader ever happen in real life, for example?

[petermisc]

I forget to say in my view Andrew Neil is THE best political reporter/journo on TV,

Sadly he has been sidelined now. 

[winkywanky]

Yes well that's your business, i post what I want to see obviously. I pay the licence fee BUT its now for less than it was before, BBC 3 is now online only which doesn't interest me and they were and maybe still will get rid of the red button which i know some disabled and elderly support groups lobbied the BBC about which is why they are holding a review of it instead of stopping it as planned this January. Its all of course about how the BBC spend the licence fee, for a start the over 75 arrangements should go back to being a direct government responsibility not the BBCs in my opinion.

On another point i would like to see all utility company standing charges like Electric, Gas, Water and BT line rental abolished so users only pay for exactly what they use. Put the unit prices up but with a regulator who puts the interests of users first, but that would cost the user only what they have used, not what they have used plus a fixed amount.

Totally agree on that, it was a govt stitch-up IMO.

Standing charges...hmmm..well if they abolished them then low users would pay virtually nothing towards the infrastrucure upkeep/new capacity/new power stations etc. Worth noting.

[Beamer]

Sadly he has been sidelined now.

Looks poorly IMO

[winkywanky]

Really? Oh dear, hope he's OK.

I agree with smiths about him being a titan amongst political interviewers.

[timsussex]

I forget to say in my view Andrew Neil is THE best political reporter/journo on TV, the why is because he does his homework usually and can catch a politician who isn't completely on top of their brief out. And he will push and push them for a direct answer a number of times before moving on. Designed to show them up for what they are doing, purposely avoiding answering the question/s. Sadly is on TV less nowadays but is no youngster. Neil is in the Brian Walden mould for me but sadly doesn't get the same long in-depth time to interview as Walden used to get, which suits politicians down to the ground. However, in a half hour one-to-one he can expose some politicians, Boris was too scared to face him during the GE campaign, no doubt on Cummings advice, good advice from their point of view, he could of lost votes with a Boris gaffe, Cummings steered him well into saying very little and a resounding majority was the outcome.

And i couldn't care less about Neils connections to Murdoch.

Agreed Andrew Neil is excellent I particularly like his "You haven't answered my question but Ive got used to that with all the interviews with politicians I've done over the years "  and his response to someone calling for a second referendum "I dont know what your sides slogan will be but I know what the leavers will use 'Tell the bastards again' "

[smiths]

Totally agree on that, it was a govt stitch-up IMO.

Standing charges...hmmm..well if they abolished them then low users would pay virtually nothing towards the infrastrucure upkeep/new capacity/new power stations etc. Worth noting.

Exactly, those who used little would contribute the least, just as it should be in my view.

[smiths]

At the time, I tended to think the same, although I was and am much less convinced about Tecwin Wittock's guilt.  Someone in his position would surely have needed a  LOT of persuading.  My gut feeling is that it would be far more likely to be a plant in the audience, than someone with their own chance to get in the chair.

I frankly don't believe that the major just happened to know the answers, as the programme would have us believe.  However, I am less convinced about his guilt.  I suspect that it is far more likely that he got there through "exam technique", which the programme did touch on.   I am sure that I passed at least one of my school exams more by technique than knowledge.

It did briefly mention his technique of going through the answers in turn and listening to the audience reaction as he did so.  Effectively getting an audience lifeline for every question.  Picking an answer and then listening to the audience reaction would also explain why he changed answer so frequently.  And a large dose of luck in not getting a question where the audience got it wrong.  Even if he hadn't been coached on technique directly by the ringleader, as the programme claimed, I am pretty sure he would have been by his wife.

As ever with these programmes, we need to remember that it is a drama, not a documentary.  How much of it actually happened, and how much was added for dramatic effect.  Did the meeting in the pub between the top Celador guy and the ringleader ever happen in real life, for example?

I don't know the answers here but 1 thing that always made me chuckle was there is actually a person called Tecwin Wittock.

[David1970]

Standing charges...hmmm..well if they abolished them then low users would pay virtually nothing towards the infrastrucure upkeep/new capacity/new power stations etc. Worth noting.

Surely low users would pay a percentage from their higher unit cost, everyone would pay for what they use and not a flat fee plus what they use.

[Squire Haggard]

I forget to say in my view Andrew Neil is THE best political reporter/journo on TV, the why is because he does his homework usually and can catch a politician who isn't completely on top of their brief out. And he will push and push them for a direct answer a number of times before moving on. Designed to show them up for what they are doing, purposely avoiding answering the question/s. Sadly is on TV less nowadays but is no youngster. Neil is in the Brian Walden mould for me but sadly doesn't get the same long in-depth time to interview as Walden used to get, which suits politicians down to the ground. However, in a half hour one-to-one he can expose some politicians, Boris was too scared to face him during the GE campaign, no doubt on Cummings advice, good advice from their point of view, he could of lost votes with a Boris gaffe, Cummings steered him well into saying very little and a resounding majority was the outcome.

And i couldn't care less about Neils connections to Murdoch.

He's the No 1 interviewer IMO. No politician will get away will bullshitting him. He's got a sense of humour and is entertaining on his own show as well. Irreplaceable with these two qualities.

[winkywanky]

Surely low users would pay a percentage from their higher unit cost, everyone would pay for what they use and not a flat fee plus what they use.

Yes, that's true.

It's just that you lose the distinction between paying for how much you use, and paying for the infrastructure and basic running costs.

Of course, they'll get the money somehow, either way.

[smiths]

Yes, that's true.

It's just that you lose the distinction between paying for how much you use, and paying for the infrastructure and basic running costs.

Of course, they'll get the money somehow, either way.

So what, the user pays for what they use, an entirely fair system that in my view should be the law of the land now. The present system is totally unfair in my book. Of course utility companies would lobby and fight tooth and nail to keep standing charges, its their gravy train.

[snaitram99]

Whereas her background makes no odds to me, i couldn't care less, loads and loads of people get jobs due to being well connected, the old school tie network. What interests me is how well they do the job once doing it. She does an excellent job in my book and isn't afraid to ask difficult questions putting politicians on the spot on occasion.

Ms Kuenssberg's paternal grandfather is interesting. He was initially interned as an enemy alien in WW2.

[winkywanky]

So what, the user pays for what they use, an entirely fair system that in my view should be the law of the land now. The present system is totally unfair in my book. Of course utility companies would lobby and fight tooth and nail to keep standing charges, its their gravy train.

I think it's fair to say that the Standing Charge isn't just 'clear profit' which goes straight into their coffers, I should imagine the Regulator includes this money in the overall profits when assessing the Energy companies?

[David1970]

So what, the user pays for what they use, an entirely fair system that in my view should be the law of the land now. The present system is totally unfair in my book. Of course utility companies would lobby and fight tooth and nail to keep standing charges, its their gravy train.

You pay for what you use for both utilities and the BBC, would be the answer.
Why should I pay the same in standing charge as a single person using not a lot of utilities as a large family?
Why should I pay for Radio, 1, 2 ,3, 6 BBC 1, 2, 3. which I don’t consume, scrap the TV taxes, privatisation of the BBC and pay for what to want to consume on BBC

[RogerBoner]

So what, the user pays for what they use, an entirely fair system that in my view should be the law of the land now. The present system is totally unfair in my book. Of course utility companies would lobby and fight tooth and nail to keep standing charges, its their gravy train.

Also why are water changes so high?

[David1970]

Also why are water changes so high?

Move to Scotland, drinkable water, reasonable cost, no hose pipe ban every summer, it one of the things I would not privatises is Scottish Water.

[winkywanky]

Is Scottish water still publicly owned David?

[David1970]

Is Scottish water still publicly owned David?

Still is, one of these whole own Government originations.
They don’t have share holders or leverage buyouts to pay.
Water is first class, I don’t drink water out of the tap when I am out of Scotland

[winkywanky]

Well my local water is very good but I'm lucky, I've tasted water in a nearby large town which is shite.

I actually think water is such a basic necessity and natural resource, and comes from within our own shores, it ought to be nationally owned and controlled.

[RogerBoner]

It should be almost free as it's a filter pump and drain service 

[winkywanky]

Depends what brand of beer you're drinking.

[smiths]

Also why are water changes so high?

Yes, one good thing in my case is in April both my water company charges and the separate company who does the severage charges both went down a bit in cost.

[snaitram99]

Well my local water is very good but I'm lucky, I've tasted water in a nearby large town which is shite.

I actually think water is such a basic necessity and natural resource, and comes from within our own shores, it ought to be nationally owned and controlled.

It used to be before Mrs. Thatcher privatised it. Most water companies in England are now owned by private equity funds and the like.

Remember they also deal with sewage disposal as well as supply of water, so definitely a fundamental necessity.

[petermisc]

Surely low users would pay a percentage from their higher unit cost, everyone would pay for what they use and not a flat fee plus what they use.

And that is exactly what the current system does.  Providing and maintaining an electrical supply to every home is a very expensive business, the cost of which is largely independent of how much individual households use.  With the standing charge, you are paying the fixed cost of the supply network that you are using, regardless of how much electricity you draw from it.

The alternative is that those people with high electricity bills (those reliant on electricity for cooking and heating, for example), should subsidise those with low bills.

It is interesting that mobile phone billing has gone from a mainly cost per call basis, to a system based almost entirely on a standing charge that each user pays each month, regardless of how much or little of their allowance they actually use.  Many, if not I suspect a majority of people pay for an allowance greater than that they actually use "just in case".

[David1970]

And that is exactly what the current system does.  Providing and maintaining an electrical supply to every home is a very expensive business, the cost of which is largely independent of how much individual households use.  With the standing charge, you are paying the fixed cost of the supply network that you are using, regardless of how much electricity you draw from it.

The alternative is that those people with high electricity bills (those reliant on electricity for cooking and heating, for example), should subsidise those with low bills.

It is interesting that mobile phone billing has gone from a mainly cost per call basis, to a system based almost entirely on a standing charge that each user pays each month, regardless of how much or little of their allowance they actually use.  Many, if not I suspect a majority of people pay for an allowance greater than that they actually use "just in case".

The telephone example is different because the consumer can choose different options, sim only, different tariffs to suit their needs.
When it comes to utilities is one size fits all, if the tariff does not suit your usage, tuff luck. Fixed charge on the bill is the  biggest problem, with consumers who do not use a lot having to pay the same as heavy consumers.
If the bill was totally made up of what you used then that would be fairer.

[petermisc]

I mostly stick to watching the streamers. Amazon Prime and Netflix between them have almost everything a person of good conscience and in search of wholesome entertainment would want to watch.

Getting back to the original subject.  I get my viewing from Freeview, recorded on a PVR so I can choose to watch what I want, when I want.  Awhile back I moved to somewhere where the signal comes from a repeater transmitter, and so only has a limited number of channels.  I therefore bought a Freesat system to make up for the channels I could no longer get (self installation was a doddle).

In practice, I never use the Freesat.  Even during this lock down, I am still recording more off the Freeview than I am ever going to get the chance to watch.  I see absolutely no reason to pay for Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc for even more.  OK, I won't get to watch Game of Thrones until it gets repeated on one of the free to view channels, as it inevitably will, but I can live with that.

One thing that has been brought home to me by this lock down is how very lucky we are in the UK to have strong public service broadcasting. I thank god that in the UK we are not reliant on commercial news channels, such as in the USA where the pandemic is becoming ever more politicised by the rabidly partisan news channels, or on state-run broadcasters like the USSR and China where news of the pandemic was covered up.  And that I am not reliant on the internet for my news, with its "smoke and mirrors" groups with hidden agendas posing as impartial sources, and false news continually being recirculated no matter how often it is refuted.  With news off the internet, it takes so long to check its provenance, that most people don't bother and take it at face value, which is why so many get led into these conspiracy theories and even radicalisation.

The recent Horizon programme and the BBC's Fact Check series alone have been worth the licence fee.  I am not saying that the BBC and ITN are perfect, each has their own biases, but I know what they are, I don't have to keep checking.  Most importantly, they are not directly controlled or owned by organisations with a party-political agenda to push. 

[smiths]

The telephone example is different because the consumer can choose different options, sim only, different tariffs to suit their needs.
When it comes to utilities is one size fits all, if the tariff does not suit your usage, tuff luck. Fixed charge on the bill is the  biggest problem, with consumers who do not use a lot having to pay the same as heavy consumers.
If the bill was totally made up of what you used then that would be fairer.

You should pay for what you use, its obvious to me, you shouldn't have to pay for what you use and a set standing charge on top. Its a con in my book, clearly some on here don't agree, that's up to them obviously.

With domestic Water there is NO competition at all of course, its a captive market, if you want water you have to pay what your 1 local company charges. And I think if you move into a property or a new build in my area you have to pay by water meter now. I pay by meter and it works out less for me but if I had young kids it certainly wouldn't.

You can change Gas and Electric as you wish obviously, with my Gas being a very low user where the standing charge is more than the usage costs the savings I can make are tiny by going elsewhere and I have changed a few times so know that. I did get some off my Electric when I changed a while ago though. And with both Gas and Electric there is the price cap now though my usage is far too small to reach anywhere near that.

[smiths]

Getting back to the original subject.  I get my viewing from Freeview, recorded on a PVR so I can choose to watch what I want, when I want.  Awhile back I moved to somewhere where the signal comes from a repeater transmitter, and so only has a limited number of channels.  I therefore bought a Freesat system to make up for the channels I could no longer get (self installation was a doddle).

In practice, I never use the Freesat.  Even during this lock down, I am still recording more off the Freeview than I am ever going to get the chance to watch.  I see absolutely no reason to pay for Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc for even more.  OK, I won't get to watch Game of Thrones until it gets repeated on one of the free to view channels, as it inevitably will, but I can live with that.

One thing that has been brought home to me by this lock down is how very lucky we are in the UK to have strong public service broadcasting. I thank god that in the UK we are not reliant on commercial news channels, such as in the USA where the pandemic is becoming ever more politicised by the rabidly partisan news channels, or on state-run broadcasters like the USSR and China where news of the pandemic was covered up.  And that I am not reliant on the internet for my news, with its "smoke and mirrors" groups with hidden agendas posing as impartial sources, and false news continually being recirculated no matter how often it is refuted.  With news off the internet, it takes so long to check its provenance, that most people don't bother and take it at face value, which is why so many get led into these conspiracy theories and even radicalisation.

The recent Horizon programme and the BBC's Fact Check series alone have been worth the licence fee.  I am not saying that the BBC and ITN are perfect, each has their own biases, but I know what they are, I don't have to keep checking.  Most importantly, they are not directly controlled or owned by organisations with a party-political agenda to push.

I do the same Freeview wise, luckily I have a great signal. I binned Sky years ago when they took the piss once too often, cunts. They were an appalling company when I was a customer and expected me to pay a fortune for the pleasure of phoning them on an 0870 number till I got round that on saynoto0870. I wouldn't now pay to watch programmes of any kind apart from paying the TV licence, no subscriptions, no pay per view. I have a vast dvd collection, now over 10,000 or so films, tv shows etc as well as a huge porn dvd collection. That does me and I bought loads of Sony dvd players of the same model so I have in effect got spare remotes as well for peanuts as a job lot a while ago to future proof myself in case they stop making them. They will see me through the next 10 years at least.

[petermisc]

If the bill was totally made up of what you used then that would be fairer.

If you think that people should only pay for the electricity they use, who do you think should pay the overhead costs of maintaining the supply network? 

[winkywanky]

Getting back to the original subject.  I get my viewing from Freeview, recorded on a PVR so I can choose to watch what I want, when I want.  Awhile back I moved to somewhere where the signal comes from a repeater transmitter, and so only has a limited number of channels.  I therefore bought a Freesat system to make up for the channels I could no longer get (self installation was a doddle).

In practice, I never use the Freesat.  Even during this lock down, I am still recording more off the Freeview than I am ever going to get the chance to watch.  I see absolutely no reason to pay for Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc for even more. OK, I won't get to watch Game of Thrones until it gets repeated on one of the free to view channels, as it inevitably will, but I can live with that.

One thing that has been brought home to me by this lock down is how very lucky we are in the UK to have strong public service broadcasting. I thank god that in the UK we are not reliant on commercial news channels, such as in the USA where the pandemic is becoming ever more politicised by the rabidly partisan news channels, or on state-run broadcasters like the USSR and China where news of the pandemic was covered up.  And that I am not reliant on the internet for my news, with its "smoke and mirrors" groups with hidden agendas posing as impartial sources, and false news continually being recirculated no matter how often it is refuted.  With news off the internet, it takes so long to check its provenance, that most people don't bother and take it at face value, which is why so many get led into these conspiracy theories and even radicalisation.

The recent Horizon programme and the BBC's Fact Check series alone have been worth the licence fee.  I am not saying that the BBC and ITN are perfect, each has their own biases, but I know what they are, I don't have to keep checking.  Most importantly, they are not directly controlled or owned by organisations with a party-political agenda to push.

Great post.

The only thing I would possibly disagree with is that as far as I can see, some stuff will probably never become free-to-view, and that includes self-made series on Netflix and Prime?

Another good thing these days, is that if you're canny and willing to do the legwork you can just have Freesat or Freeview as your basic viewing, and then add little individual extras, enabled by smart-TVs. So for instance you could pay £7/mth just for Eurosport, you'd be paying your money direct to them and not needing to buy a 'package' from a platform provider like Sky or Virgin.

[David1970]

If you think that people should only pay for the electricity they use, who do you think should pay the overhead costs of maintaining the supply network?

You add the cost of network to the cost per unit.

[winkywanky]

From a purely pragmatic point of view I guess it might be argued that literally 'paying per unit' with no standing charge, would mean those using the most would be putting the most wear and tear on the network, and paying for that?

If Standing Charges were banished, there would need to be close oversight from the regulatory body to make sure providers didn't use it as an opportunity to make more dosh.

[winkywanky]

Here's an interesting one:

Water bills and water meters.

About 15 yrs ago I had a water meter fitted (my choice). I live alone and am reasonably frugal, I never water the garden for example.

I cannot be sure, but I reckon that after intitally saving me money, over the ensuing years the unit charge has gone up more than 'water rates' have. In other words, I have been penalised for going on a meter and being frugal.

Does anybody actually know about this, or have thoughts on it?

[petermisc]

From a purely pragmatic point of view I guess it might be argued that literally 'paying per unit' with no standing charge, would mean those using the most would be putting the most wear and tear on the network, and paying for that?

Within normal limits, a cable does not wear out because you pass electricity through it, it does not last longer if you don't use it.  The cost of providing and maintaining your domestic supply connection is largely independent of how much electricity you use (unless you are a really heavy user needing a 3-phase supply).

Adding the overhead cost of maintaining the supply network onto the unit cost would mean that those people who use more electricity would be subsidising those who use little.  I don't see why someone dependent on electric for heating or cooking should have to pay extra to subsidise my electricity bill.

The only fair way to pay per unit, would be to have a variable unit cost dependent on how many units you use.  So someone using a lot of electricity would pay a small unit cost, whereas someone using next-to-no electricity would pay an astronomical unit cost.  Making electricity cheaper the more you use would encourage people to use ever-more electricity, which would not be a good thing.

[smiths]

Here's an interesting one:

Water bills and water meters.

About 15 yrs ago I had a water meter fitted (my choice). I live alone and am reasonably frugal, I never water the garden for example.

I cannot be sure, but I reckon that after intitally saving me money, over the ensuing years the unit charge has gone up more than 'water rates' have. In other words, I have been penalised for going on a meter and being frugal.

Does anybody actually know about this, or have thoughts on it?

I pay less and have for years by having a water meter than not, I know this as I ask my water company what it would of cost if I didn't have a water meter and its always more.

[smiths]

You add the cost of network to the cost per unit.

Exactly, users then pay for what they use, an entirely fair system in my book. If you use more you pay more, if you use less you pay less, simple. There is now a price cap not including water so there is a limit to what you can be charged though I have no personal experience of it as I don't use that much.

[winkywanky]

Within normal limits, a cable does not wear out because you pass electricity through it, it does not last longer if you don't use it.[/b]  The cost of providing and maintaining your domestic supply connection is largely independent of how much electricity you use (unless you are a really heavy user needing a 3-phase supply).

Adding the overhead cost of maintaining the supply network onto the unit cost would mean that those people who use more electricity would be subsidising those who use little.  I don't see why someone dependent on electric for heating or cooking should have to pay extra to subsidise my electricity bill.

The only fair way to pay per unit, would be to have a variable unit cost dependent on how many units you use.  So someone using a lot of electricity would pay a small unit cost, whereas someone using next-to-no electricity would pay an astronomical unit cost.  Making electricity cheaper the more you use would encourage people to use ever-more electricity, which would not be a good thing.

I probably should have used a better term than wear and tear, clearly there are upkeep costs, maintenance and new kit requirements on an ongoing basis. Whether that ought to be payable for on a per-unit basis is the nub of it I guess.

Surely the proposition at the end of your post is effectively what the Standing Charge does?

[winkywanky]

I pay less and have for years by having a water meter than not, I know this as I ask my water company what it would of cost if I didn't have a water meter and its always more.

I'm going to do that 

[petermisc]

I probably should have used a better term than wear and tear, clearly there are upkeep costs, maintenance and new kit requirements on an ongoing basis. Whether that ought to be payable for on a per-unit basis is the nub of it I guess.
Surely the proposition at the end of your post is effectively what the Standing Charge does?

Exactly.  There are two costs involved in you using electricity.  There is the cost of providing and maintaining your connection to the network, that is largely independent of how much electricity you use, and there is the cost of generating the units of electricity you use.  Currently we pay for it on that basis, which to me seems entirely fair and transparent.  I don't understand why people want to "hide" the connection charge in the unit cost of electricity.  People keep saying it would be fairer, but how exactly?  All I can see is that it would result in some people, generally the less well off, subsidising the bills of others.  How would this be fairer?

[winkywanky]

I think if the overheads were simply factored into a per-unit charge, that would effectively mean everyone paid for them pro-rata of usage?

In essence, everyone would pay the same percentage of their bill towards the network.

[winkywanky]

So for example if your annual energy bill was £1200, £120 of that might be towards the network upkeep.

If your annual energy bill was £600, £60 of that might be towards network upkeep?

[smiths]

I think if the overheads were simply factored into a per-unit charge, that would effectively mean everyone paid for them pro-rata of usage?

In essence, everyone would pay the same percentage of their bill towards the network.

Indeed, I am amazed everyone cant grasp this very simple point even if they don't agree which is up to them of course, its not rocket science. You pay for what you use only not what you use AND a set standing charge.

1 example in my case, my gas bill for a quarter may be £45, I am a very low user of gas, out of that £28 is for the standing charge, the other £17 is for my usage. That to me isn't a fair system and in addition even if my usage was £0 for the quarter unless I had the supply cut off I would still have to pay the £28 standing charge.

[NIK]

King Nuts is spot on about the accented continuity announcers with their stupid gangsta accents. How many more times do we have to hear about BBC i playah! 
Yes we know you are employing black announcers, thank you.

[NIK]

Sometimes I think my humour is wasted here.

You are a voice crying in the wilderness, mate.
This place has turned into snowflake central.
Don’t forget we must all love each other -
Unless they are Trump, Farage, Robinson, JRC or all other old white ‘gammons’ . 

[GingerNuts]

I pay less and have for years by having a water meter than not, I know this as I ask my water company what it would of cost if I didn't have a water meter and its always more.

There's no option for you to pay any other way so do you ask just out of curiosity?

[Matrix]

Paying for water and water meters?

You lot are going soft.

[David1970]

Paying for water and water meters?

You lot are going soft.

Got agree, why would you?
I take it you get your water from Scottish Water?

[GingerNuts]

Paying for water and water meters?

You lot are going soft.

Got agree, why would you?
I take it you get your water from Scottish Water?

In Scotland you pay via a meter or an amount is added to your Council Tax.

Do neither of those things apply to you?

[David1970]

In Scotland you pay via a meter or an amount is added to your Council Tax.

Do neither of those things apply to you?

Mine is paid via council tax.