h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've long thought there's no such thing as normal... the greatest delusion being the belief one has no delusions at all (stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Dawkins). I've been called 'crazy' by people who, when I look at their behaviour from a later state of Calm, were being no less crazy than I was.

I agree Mr. D - I was being a bit tongue in cheek by saying 'normal'. I'd say with bipolar, unless you're slipping over into full psychosis, which only happens now and then, one of the main difficulties is that you experience the same thing others do, but x10. So eg in that PR set-up, I was starting to feel impatient..at the end of what had been a very good process, but to me it felt overwhelming, my impatience, so I react with *anger* which to others seems way out of proportion to the actual frustration. Then you get a positive feedback happening. Others get angry by my, to them unreasonable response..I get more angry...and well you see the result.

It's often unbelievably hard to not react according to your own perceptions, and yes I struggle manfully. But then if I'm having trouble sleeping and eating I start to lose touch with socially acceptable norms...and become quite reckless.

A very common response is to be told to just get a goodnight's sleep and get some food down you. Well if your brain chemistry has changed and the parts of the brain that control appetite and sleep are messed up, you simply * cant*. I suppose that's the equivalent of the 'pull yourself together' syndrome. And its incredible annoying. Because you'd like nothing better. So its up the tabs and deal with the annoying side effects.

It's quite ironic though because I have big problems with dealing with people with a completely different problem to mine, ie schizophrenia. And again the average person might find that a bit difficult and confusing, but for a bipolar the confusion and madness that some schizophrenics have, seems unbearable to be around..because it starts to feel they are sending you crazy.

When I was in hospital the first time..and I was starting to get much better I remember the 'high' bipolars organised a disco in someone's room; someone put a notice on the door, 'bipolars only' ie no schizophrenics. There is a hierachy in a psychiatric set-up just like in real life, manic bipolars are on the top. Severely paranoid schizophrenics are at the bottom. Depressive psychotics somewhere in the middle..and a variety of other stuff..sometimes just keep themselves to themselves. Though LSD overdosers usually fit with manic bipolars.

I'm just writing this from my own perspective to try to explainthings a bit.

this might interest you???

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8313770/BBC-wont-pursue-iPad-TV-licence-cheats.html

I've completely changed my opinion on the Licence fee now. I'd probably pay it now even if I didn't have a telly or computer - when I see what the alternative is becoming.

The BBC may have its issues but as long as it's advert-free and not bound by the whims of sponsors I think we need to support it as best we can.

We used to have a licence fee here and we still had adverts on the state TV channels Eventually the fee was scrapped with the idea that the money would come from the general tax take (a much better idea given that pretty much everyone watches tv and/or listens to the national radio).

Yes taking it from general tax makes sense..but I somehow think that would be politically unacceptable here. But I was worried from reading Taff's link that the beeb haven't sorted out the technology to be able to detect people accessing their output via iPlayer or the new app.

I now rarely use my telly for tv, 90% of the time I get it through my computer. Most of the time I only watch BBC channels and Channel 4. I could very easily get rid of my TV. The BBC really should confront this or fewer and fewer people will actually pay the Licence Fee.

Most households would still have a regular tv though wouldn't they? I can't remember what they did here with second TVs in the same house. The licence was attached to the TV I think - a friend of mine who had a tv for watching videos but lived somewhere where there was no tv reception still had to buy a licence.

Here, the BBC catch people not paying the Licence fee by using 'detector vans' that can detect if someone is receiving a tv signal. Video wouldn't register obviously. And it appears neither will computer reception. I can easily imagine in the future more and more people will just use their computers for watching tv. I think in Taff's article it said more and more young people are doing it this way..( I'm glad I've got something in common with young people ).

Probably at the moment most households yes, will have at least one tv to receive a signal. But computer screens are getting bigger and better and can receive HD, plus sound is really good with computers. I access mine via a separate quality soundcard and headphones. It's so much better than the tv, and makes all the difference to the experience.

I think its very short sighted not to see how things might easily develop.

effers, are there realy any detector vans???

if so how do they work??

to my knowledge no one has been convicted using evidence from a detector van,

if they had been the technology within the van would have to exposed to scrutiny by both the prosecution and the defence and would be in the public domain, just like speed cameras.

I'm divided about the detector van thing... the 'science' behind it is shrouded in myth and mystery, yet too much of the stuff claiming it's all a massive chiz sounds a bit to conspiracy-theory-ish for my liking (lots of ranting about "rule by fear" and whatnot).

My understanding of the way it works is that the van will pick up the signal..but then this results in a visit in which someone looks around your house to see if there is a tv set in it. A friend without a tv had a visit and that's what happened. Of course that wasn't involving a van, just the fact that he wasn't registered as having a licence.

The BBC used to put out ads about the detector vans..but I don't remember one for a while.

A distant relative of mine was prosecuted..though I don't know any of the details of how the evidence was collected, so it does happen.

every FOI question is met by the usual lawer yes/no/we cannot divulge that information crap

they have never used any detection van evidence in court

it was originally a PR scam, why should it be any different today

Just curious:

Do you not have cable television over there? Over here, broadcast TV is pretty much non-existent in urban areas.



I keep thinking of the Python bit with the cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge.

>they have never used any detection van evidence in court<

Yes as I said, my understanding is the evidence used is due to the visit and the fact that a tv is present on the premises.

I find it incredible though that the BBC used to put out ads saying, 'there are tv detector vans regularly in your area' if that's a downright lie.

Give some evidence Taff of it all being a PR scam, and that no detector van evidence has ever been used in court.

Until next year (I think) we still get good old analogue broadcasts!

Most people have digital cable or satellite now, but the licence fee still applies if the TV recieves an outside signal... some people get quite cross about this but I tend to ask them what they'd rather have... the BBC as it is: offering quality programming free from adverts, sponsorship and most other commercial nonsense. Or just another advert-riddled wow zappo channel that's interchangable with any other and you probably won't watch anyway?

'the evidence used is due to the visit '

How does this visit work, Effers? Do they have to get a warrant or do BBC employees have some sort of carte blanche to poke about in people's homes for televisions? What if the home owner answers the door and says to the BBC employee 'no thank you' and slams the door?

""Give some evidence Taff of it all being a PR scam, and that no detector van evidence has ever been used in court.""


were back at the god argument, you can't prove a negative

"Give some evidence that no detector van evidence has ever been used in court."

they have access to a massive data base and whenever you buy equipment capable of receiving a tv signal, computers are included, the shop is obliged to take your name and address and pass it on to TVL

they compare who has a licence with a list of adresses and the electoral role

then they turn up at the door and generaly blag their way in, be nosiey and ask questions,

there have been reports of people who do not own a tv being harrased by TVL because they dont have a licence and not having a TV is inconcievable to them

>How does this visit work, Effers?<

When it happened to my friend without a tv, the man just asked to come in and check he had no tv. Because he had nothing to hide he let him in, but I agree it might be quite a different story if someone did have something to hide.