Television

Press, Volume C, Issue 29634, 3 October 1961, Page 3

Television

Sir, —I would like to thank you for referring my lette” to the chairman of the television group of the Retailers Association. Their reply is not quite correct, and rather out of date. On my visit to England I saw quite a lot of television, and not one owner was paying servicing fees. In fact, they could not understand it. At the Television Exhibition, there were plenty of 21-inch and 23-incn screens and 625-liiic transmission, two years guarantee for the picture tube, prices £6O to £BO. Colour pictures were the great feature of the show. So if the sets were so superior to those in England, why the unnecessary service charge of <lO to £ll a year.—Yours, etc., TELEVISION. October 2, 1061.

Sir,—ln a statement printed on Friday, Mr Hawes took trouble to explain why television sets in this country seem to be expensive. “Britain naturally would produce (them) at a lower price . . . because of the different (?) standards of living and lower wages paid in England.” From these and other remarks one infers that the English, poor, under-privi-leged boobs, have been for the last 15 years putting up with an article greatly inferior to thht which is now obtainable in New Zealand. Mr Hawes also seems a trifle vague about the exact difference in price of sets in the two countries. a matter, one would think, that could be readily ascertainable by a business executive in the trade. All things considered, the British worker on his beggarly wage (£l5 15s'3d in manufacturing industries was the average earnings a week last April, according to Ministry of Labour figures) would seem to be producing greater value for a set costing £BO than his opposite number in this country.- The truth would seem to be not that the local article is superior but that the demand for it is substantially less.—Your, etc., ANGLICE. October 1. 1961.