It's also interesting to me that the biggest post COVID area of weakness for the country is consumer facing services which is still 8% below Feb 2020. It's not what the general narrative would have us believe at all. To me that's suggesting there's a small but significant proportion of people who have permanently disengaged from socialising.
It's probably based on the idea that using cash is more expensive than card, therefore anyone charging less for cash must be making the margin up illegally.
As we can see that is well established as an idea (including on these boards) but if you live near a bank branch with a night safe isn't actually correct.
Indeed. We have had PBers accusing specific and identified businesses of fiddling. I'm sure it gets very exciting, the anti-cash crusade, but there are basic rules to follow on the internet ...
No party will go near the NHS in terms of a major reform . Its too dangerous to their election chances . You can get away with more people treated in the private sector to help lower waiting lists but you’re not asking people to pay anything extra or making fundamental changes to the model .
The French system whilst not perfect has many areas that the British could learn from and its public private model works well.
The private isn’t what many would properly class as in the true sense of the term . It’s non-profit based in the main .
Both main parties have made major reforms to the NHS.
The French system spends more money per person. To quote the ONS:
“In 2017, the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare, which was around the median for members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD (£2,913 per person).
“However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest, with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736).”
Endless reforms is the story of the NHS, a new reorganisation every couple of years, and we are expected to greet each one with great enthusiasm, even when it is a reversal of the same policy and often even the same government.
US healthcare is a nightmare in many ways (despite significantly higher pay, US Doctors report more burnout and depression than even my jaded NHS colleagues). It is a business though, and a thriving one.
People need to get away from the mindset of it being a drain on GDP when it is actually a large part of GDP, and a successful economy. The point of a business is to extract the maximum amount of money from the customer that it can, and the American health industry is very, very good at this. If it were any other industry people would consider this a good thing.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
No party will go near the NHS in terms of a major reform . Its too dangerous to their election chances . You can get away with more people treated in the private sector to help lower waiting lists but you’re not asking people to pay anything extra or making fundamental changes to the model .
The French system whilst not perfect has many areas that the British could learn from and its public private model works well.
The private isn’t what many would properly class as in the true sense of the term . It’s non-profit based in the main .
Both main parties have made major reforms to the NHS.
The French system spends more money per person. To quote the ONS:
“In 2017, the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare, which was around the median for members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD (£2,913 per person).
“However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest, with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736).”
Endless reforms is the story of the NHS, a new reorganisation every couple of years, and we are expected to greet each one with great enthusiasm, even when it is a reversal of the same policy and often even the same government.
US healthcare is a nightmare in many ways (despite significantly higher pay, US Doctors report more burnout and depression than even my jaded NHS colleagues). It is a business though, and a thriving one.
People need to get away from the mindset of it being a drain on GDP when it is actually a large part of GDP, and a successful economy. The point of a business is to extract the maximum amount of money from the customer that it can, and the American health industry is very, very good at this. If it were any other industry people would consider this a good thing.
Depressingly, change 'health' to 'education' in that post and every word until the last two sentences still rings absolutely true.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
In anything but the shortest term, the joke is on them, though. Apart from sports and some big events, watching TV live is obviously on the way out. Changing the rules to require a licence for the iPlayer has bought them some time, but given the quality of much of what's on the iPlayer and the ever-expanding field of alternatives, I'm sure it's only postponed the inevitable.
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Er it's 0.2% for q/q growth in Q2, not 0.4% or 0.9%. Not sure what you mean about competing measures either. The monthly and quarterly data are consistent with each other.
I think too that wet July's figures will not look good next to sunny June's. A lot of sales on trying to clear unsold summer stock, from BBQ meats to summer clothes.
Health care strikes contributing to anaemic growth and to growing waiting lists, with 2 more Consultant strikes planned in August and aseptember. Perhaps it is time for the government to actually negotiate.
Or for Consultants who earn £200k+ pa to stop complaining
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Er it's 0.2% for q/q growth in Q2, not 0.4% or 0.9%. Not sure what you mean about competing measures either. The monthly and quarterly data are consistent with each other.
YoY, and they aren't consistent.
Where on earth does your 0.9% come from? The ONS has 0.4% in the year on year, made up roughly of down 0.1% in Q3 2022, up 0.1% in each of Q4 and Q1 2023, and up 0.2% in the most recent quarter [adding percentages doesn't work, hence the roughness, but having hardly moved in the first three quarters it will be close]
You realize too that a revision in the monthly numbers affects the annual numbers [unless it is just moving data between months].
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Better than expected numbers though, whichever way one looks at it.
Inflation should be down sharply too, as last June and July’s peak petrol prices fall out of the index.
I suspect it doesn’t feel good for many though, especially anyone with a mortgage seeing the effects of interest rate rises, and even possible negative equity issues in London.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The licence fee will definitely make it to 2027, simply because the current BBC Charter which enshrines it as the model for funding the BBC runs until 31st December 2027.
Whether it makes it to 2028 is another question, although given there will probably be a Labour Government at the time of Charter renewal, the answer is probably yes.
That's not a point about the merits - just that it's important to be aware of how and when the decision over funding model is made.
Neither of the 2 Tory Parties have a viable plan to resolve the NHS Crisis
Neither seem to grasp that wage cuts are a major cause of inadequate staffing
Inadequate staffing leads to burn out leads to more people leaving.
Rinse and Repeat
Neither Party can seem to grasp that the private sector cherry picks the easiest more profitable cases leaving all the complex cases with the NHS Both get paid the same despite one been lumbered with all the complex patients
Of course Kid Starver and Pet Shop boy are funded by said Private Sector investors who are due to make a packet to take easiest patients just like the other Toty Party
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Er it's 0.2% for q/q growth in Q2, not 0.4% or 0.9%. Not sure what you mean about competing measures either. The monthly and quarterly data are consistent with each other.
I think too that wet July's figures will not look good next to sunny June's. A lot of sales on trying to clear unsold summer stock, from BBQ meats to summer clothes.
Health care strikes contributing to anaemic growth and to growing waiting lists, with 2 more Consultant strikes planned in August and aseptember. Perhaps it is time for the government to actually negotiate.
Quite possibly, especially construction. Although while we were in Cornwall last month the wet weather probably led to us spending more money not less!
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The BBC probably makes more money licencing its content to the likes of Netflix than it would ever get from overseas subscriptions. Disney have been unable to make the subscription model work profitably, I don't think the BBC has any kind of chance and they don't have theme parks and advertising revenue to subsidise losses in the immediacy.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
I wouldn't add a new tax to broadband connections to fund the BBC, but I would use the VAT already charged and send that to the BBC instead. Similarly for the VAT paid on Sky/Netflix/etc subscriptions.
When you add in the VAT from new TV sales (didn't one PBer recently pay >> £1,000 in VAT on a new TV?) you can probably get reasonably close to the current license fee income and the BBC is incentivised to collaborate with the subscription services, rather than to try and crush them.
Only problem being that the Treasury have to hand over £bns of VAT receipts. So it was a good idea for the good times, but looks impossible now.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The licence fee will definitely make it to 2027, simply because the current BBC Charter which enshrines it as the model for funding the BBC runs until 31st December 2027.
Whether it makes it to 2028 is another question, although given there will probably be a Labour Government at the time of Charter renewal, the answer is probably yes.
That's not a point about the merits - just that it's important to be aware of how and when the decision over funding model is made.
I'm aware of the dates of the charter. Why do you think I picked 2027?
The issue is, whether people will keep paying it. Because if enough don't, it fails.
As it happens, I don't mind paying the licence fee. It is an anachronism but even if I don't watch BBC channels very much I use a lot of BBC content online and on radio. But equally, I can afford to.
I wouldn't be willing to pay a broadband tax to support a TV service though. That would be silly.
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Better than expected numbers though, whichever way one looks at it.
Inflation should be down sharply too, as last June and July’s peak petrol prices fall out of the index.
I suspect it doesn’t feel good for many though, especially anyone with a mortgage seeing the effects of interest rate rises, and even possible negative equity issues in London.
July was also extremely wet, I expect Q3 to register at -0.1 - 0.1, even with falling inflation. As you say mortgage interest rises are starting to bite.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
Instead, they put the archive - which must be among the best in the business even if they did wipe a lot of their earliest programmes - on Britbox, which has not so far as I can see been anything other than a flop.
(By the way, I wonder how ITV feel about Twitter's rebrand given all the effort they put into branding ITVX?)
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
I wouldn't add a new tax to broadband connections to fund the BBC, but I would use the VAT already charged and send that to the BBC instead. Similarly for the VAT paid on Sky/Netflix/etc subscriptions.
When you add in the VAT from new TV sales (didn't one PBer recently pay >> £1,000 in VAT on a new TV?) you can probably get reasonably close to the current license fee income and the BBC is incentivised to collaborate with the subscription services, rather than to try and crush them.
Only problem being that the Treasury have to hand over £bns of VAT receipts. So it was a good idea for the good times, but looks impossible now.
Any general taxation linked to the BBC should be thrown out, whether that's from VAT on TV related products and services or tax on streaming services or tax on internet connections. The BBC provides a services and those services should be paid for by those who receive them, if the BBC can't do that within the budget that gives them then they need to start cutting costs like everyone else in the industry.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
Most of the archive of which you speak was made before the notion of streaming existed, so of course the relevant licenses weren’t negotiated at the time. With more recent stuff, when the matter was relevant, it would have cost more to lock those in and the BBC couldn’t and can’t afford to lock in such deals without the infrastructure to then profit from them.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but therif the's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The BBC probably makes more money licencing its content to the likes of Netflix than it would ever get from overseas subscriptions. Disney have been unable to make the subscription model work profitably, I don't think the BBC has any kind of chance and they don't have theme parks and advertising revenue to subsidise losses in the immediacy.
If the licence fee was removed the BBC should have advertising revenue, Strictly and EastEnders could certainly have advert breaks
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
A sober advice page, but reading between the lines ... for instance
" A TV Licensing Enforcement Officer must verbally caution you that anything you say to them may be used in evidence against you in court. If you have not been cautioned, any evidence gathered from that visit may be inadmissible in court.
Enforcement Officers will aim to complete a document called a ‘Record of Interview’. On this document they will fill out:
your personal details the type of TV you have (or the type of the device on which you are watching licensable content) the television programme you are watching.
The Enforcement Officer will ask you to sign this Record of Interview. By signing this document, you are acknowledging everything the TV Licensing Officer has written is correct.
You should not sign this document if there are sections which have not yet been filled out. It is not merely a document to acknowledge that TV Licensing has visited your house – if you are prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion, this is the primary piece of evidence that will be used against you. If the Record of Interview says that you were watching licensable content without a licence and you do not believe this to be true, you should not sign it."
"Enforcement Officer sounds really official, you know, like POlice Officer. But really they are a bunch of commercial repo men. Yet you have to treat them with as much care as a police officer calling you in for interview??
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
Yes we watch live TV and don't have any subscription TV (I will be the last on the planet to watch game of thrones). The reason for doing so is I would watch too much TV otherwise so a positive decision. In our holiday home we don't have a TV and battled regarding the payment of a TV licence we don't need. They haven't hassled us for a while now, but that was a bit of a battle.
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
The single most regressive tax? How is it more regressive than, say, alcohol duty?
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Ah, the Margaret Ferrier defence.
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
No party will go near the NHS in terms of a major reform . Its too dangerous to their election chances . You can get away with more people treated in the private sector to help lower waiting lists but you’re not asking people to pay anything extra or making fundamental changes to the model .
The French system whilst not perfect has many areas that the British could learn from and its public private model works well.
The private isn’t what many would properly class as in the true sense of the term . It’s non-profit based in the main .
Both main parties have made major reforms to the NHS.
The French system spends more money per person. To quote the ONS:
“In 2017, the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare, which was around the median for members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD (£2,913 per person).
“However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest, with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736).”
Always worth bearing in mind how staggeringly inefficient the US private healthcare system is, but certainly there are things to learn from France and Germany. If I felt the Tories could be trusted I would be happier breaking with some of the NHS shiboleths, but my concern is once you go down the route of some insurance component and a more mixed provision the Tories are going to fuck the whole thing up and sell things to their pals or to well financed US private equity groups, like they fuck up everything they get their avaricious, incompetent and corrupt little hands on. Making the NHS into our state religion may be the only way to protect it from utter destruction next time they get into power.
Or alternatively, may make reforms so difficult the whole thing implodes and whoever is in power can have a free hand with the remains of it (and Labour are just as capable of selling things to their chums and can be even more avaricious, incompetent and corrupt. This is about politicians not particular parties).
Dogma is the enemy of good public sector provision, regardless of whose dogma we are talking about.
The first dogma that needs to go is head count.
In both directions - limiting had count simply leads to hiring people on contract at vast sums.
Of course, expect some fun if/when you get rid of agency working. Think how many nurses and motors top up their NHS wages with a bit of that...
The other direction - thinking that bigger headcount's necessarily speed things up. Time to tell the story of the Mark X depth charge.... But that would take a while. The point is that you need analysis of where the actual bottlenecks are. For example, some chains look like this
problem - GP - referral - consultant - test - consultant - test etc
an alternative strategy is
problem - GP - referral - every test that can be conceived of - consultant - consultant
From my experience with private medicine, they seem to prefer the later.
At this point someone will ping up the MRI stats - more nurses might not make things better, it might be more MRIs and MRI techs, that we need.
This is where Operational Research comes in. Find the real bottlenecks.
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Er it's 0.2% for q/q growth in Q2, not 0.4% or 0.9%. Not sure what you mean about competing measures either. The monthly and quarterly data are consistent with each other.
YoY, and they aren't consistent.
The y/y numbers diverge for a few quarters (Q1 21 through Q2 22) because there is a statistical discrepancy between the expenditure and output based data until supply and use balancing is carried out. I would use the number based on the expenditure data, which are based on a richer set of source data. The output based data are used in early vintages of the data because they are more timely. In any case, there is no particular reason to focus on y/y numbers, as the data are seasonally adjusted - unlike CPI where a y/y comparison makes sense. And in any case the divergence in y/y data reflects a difference in the base comparitor (Q2 22) not the current quarter, where the data are aligned. The UK is not alone in showing discrepancies between GDP data estimated from expenditure, income and output based methodologies. The three methodologies should arrive at the same number but they never do. Each country tends to report the data in different ways, some make more of an effort to align the numbers ex ante, others are more explicit about the divergence, in my experience.
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Er it's 0.2% for q/q growth in Q2, not 0.4% or 0.9%. Not sure what you mean about competing measures either. The monthly and quarterly data are consistent with each other.
YoY, and they aren't consistent.
I don't see how the quarterly and monthly numbers are consistent.
Monthly (By series):
100.3 -> 100.5 -> 100.4 -> 101.0 (Must be 100.95 to realise +0.5% growth in June rather than +0.6%)
Which is consistent with the monthly growth given of
+0.2% (Apr), -0.1% (May), +0.5% (June)
100.349 -> 100.95 is +0.6% That's a chunky difference from +0.2%.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
The single most regressive tax? How is it more regressive than, say, alcohol duty?
Alcohol duty varies according to what you buy, and you don't have to pay it if you don't use the product the money's levied on (e.g. you don't pay for a whisky bottle if you buy a pint of beer).
That doesn't mean the licence fee is the most regressive tax - I'd actually give that to stamp duty for all sorts of reasons - but it is more regressive than alcohol, or even fuel tax.
It's also interesting to me that the biggest post COVID area of weakness for the country is consumer facing services which is still 8% below Feb 2020. It's not what the general narrative would have us believe at all. To me that's suggesting there's a small but significant proportion of people who have permanently disengaged from socialising.
WFH means fewer people having lunch at in-town eateries?
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
This is completely unrealistic and ignores the very, very real issues with content licencing, residual payment deals for talent and the complexity of international content purchasing/sales. 9/10 times when the BBC procures a TV show it only purchases UK linear and streaming rights which it may then resell to Netflix.
If was going to make a BBC streaming service I'd do £6.99 per month for all non-live content. So no MOTD live or on catchup, but you do get Peaky Blinders and the recent back catalogue and make that available to cord cutters who live in the pure streaming world.
Er... Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Laurence before their night of passion, surely?
If we imagine ourselves moderate Republicans, it'd be an interesting dilemma, wouldn't it?
* Trump is deeply corrupt and clearly willing to fiddle with democracy like a Latin American despot, but not especially right-wing * De Santis is off-the-scale extreme and has all kinds of nutty ideas * Neither of them have any detectable interest in Ukraine or the world generally * The party system is so entrenched that actually switching to the Democrats is almost unthinkable
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
Its easy to give 10% off for cash, if you aren't registering cash sales for 20% VAT.
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Ah, the Margaret Ferrier defence.
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
Having seen the reports on what covid does to the brain, tdo be fair, I do have some sympathy for her position, and that of Dominic Cummings when he went spec-hunting. But explanations are not excuses for people in legislature or government.
Er... Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Laurence before their night of passion, surely?
Nice try but you are not tricking me into reading that filth.
These people would be on stronger ground if they pointed out Juliet was fourteen and therefore it demonstrates grooming by an older man with tragic consequences.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
The single most regressive tax? How is it more regressive than, say, alcohol duty?
Tobacco tax even more so, as consumption is strongly inversely related to social class.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
I wouldn't add a new tax to broadband connections to fund the BBC, but I would use the VAT already charged and send that to the BBC instead. Similarly for the VAT paid on Sky/Netflix/etc subscriptions.
When you add in the VAT from new TV sales (didn't one PBer recently pay >> £1,000 in VAT on a new TV?) you can probably get reasonably close to the current license fee income and the BBC is incentivised to collaborate with the subscription services, rather than to try and crush them.
Only problem being that the Treasury have to hand over £bns of VAT receipts. So it was a good idea for the good times, but looks impossible now.
You then also have to have the argument about what is a subscription service. Amazon Prime being a key example. Yes you can stream movies from it, however its mainly about parcel delivery
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
Its easy to give 10% off for cash, if you aren't registering cash sales for 20% VAT.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
Er... Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Laurence before their night of passion, surely?
Nice try but you are not tricking me into reading that filth.
These people would be on stronger ground if they pointed out Juliet was fourteen and therefore it demonstrates grooming by an older man with tragic consequences.
Romeo was much the same age.
Depicting teenage gang fights with knives, and teen suicide probably a bit more sound as a reason to restrict.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
The single most regressive tax? How is it more regressive than, say, alcohol duty?
Alcohol duty varies according to what you buy, and you don't have to pay it if you don't use the product the money's levied on (e.g. you don't pay for a whisky bottle if you buy a pint of beer).
That doesn't mean the licence fee is the most regressive tax - I'd actually give that to stamp duty for all sorts of reasons - but it is more regressive than alcohol, or even fuel tax.
National Insurance Class 1 must take the biscuit, surely, with the 12% band going down to 2% for higher salaries?
Er... Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Laurence before their night of passion, surely?
If we imagine ourselves moderate Republicans, it'd be an interesting dilemma, wouldn't it?
* Trump is deeply corrupt and clearly willing to fiddle with democracy like a Latin American despot, but not especially right-wing * De Santis is off-the-scale extreme and has all kinds of nutty ideas * Neither of them have any detectable interest in Ukraine or the world generally * The party system is so entrenched that actually switching to the Democrats is almost unthinkable
You are, say, Governor Romney. What do you do?
Romney might run as an Independent if Trump got the nomination again or he could be an option if Trump wins the primaries but convicted and jailed before the convention and the RNC change the rules to prevent convicted criminals being the party nominee.
Pence would also be an option then. Indeed until a few decades ago both the Republicans and Democrats chose their presidential candidate in smoke filled rooms at the convention
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Ah, the Margaret Ferrier defence.
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
Having seen the reports on what covid does to the brain, tdo be fair, I do have some sympathy for her position, and that of Dominic Cummings when he went spec-hunting. But explanations are not excuses for people in legislature or government.
If Cummings' brain - which was not the best to start with - was that fried, he shouldn't have been driving anyway, regardless of his eyesight.
I mean, Johnson himself said it was 'a simple instruction.'
Oddly, I have some sympathy on a human level with both Ferrier and Cummings. I would have hated to have to quarantine in a hotel, or in a shitty two bed flat in Islington rather than a nice house with a garden.
But - Cummings broke his own laws, and Ferrier took an absolutely unacceptable risk travelling by train, given the way air systems on expresses work.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
It implies an 11% charge on credit/debit card usage which is illegal in the UK.
Er... Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Laurence before their night of passion, surely?
Nice try but you are not tricking me into reading that filth.
These people would be on stronger ground if they pointed out Juliet was fourteen and therefore it demonstrates grooming by an older man with tragic consequences.
Romeo was much the same age.
Depicting teenage gang fights with knives, and teen suicide probably a bit more sound as a reason to restrict.
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Not badly-drafted legislation having unforeseen consequences?
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
It implies an 11% charge on credit/debit card usage which is illegal in the UK.
Not if the base price in the menu is based on card usage.
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Ah, the Margaret Ferrier defence.
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
Having seen the reports on what covid does to the brain, tdo be fair, I do have some sympathy for her position, and that of Dominic Cummings when he went spec-hunting. But explanations are not excuses for people in legislature or government.
Yes, covid brain is a real thing, though as I recall Cummings was just doing a @Byronic chicken run from the city of zombies.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
The single most regressive tax? How is it more regressive than, say, alcohol duty?
Alcohol duty varies according to what you buy, and you don't have to pay it if you don't use the product the money's levied on (e.g. you don't pay for a whisky bottle if you buy a pint of beer).
That doesn't mean the licence fee is the most regressive tax - I'd actually give that to stamp duty for all sorts of reasons - but it is more regressive than alcohol, or even fuel tax.
National Insurance Class 1 must take the biscuit, surely, with the 12% band going down to 2% for higher salaries?
That's a good point. Stamp duty gets bumped down to second.
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Ah, the Margaret Ferrier defence.
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
Having seen the reports on what covid does to the brain, tdo be fair, I do have some sympathy for her position, and that of Dominic Cummings when he went spec-hunting. But explanations are not excuses for people in legislature or government.
If Cummings' brain - which was not the best to start with - was that fried, he shouldn't have been driving anyway, regardless of his eyesight.
I mean, Johnson himself said it was 'a simple instruction.'
Oddly, I have some sympathy on a human level with both Ferrier and Cummings. I would have hated to have to quarantine in a hotel, or in a shitty two bed flat in Islington rather than a nice house with a garden.
But - Cummings broke his own laws, and Ferrier took an absolutely unacceptable risk travelling by train, given the way air systems on expresses work.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
Its easy to give 10% off for cash, if you aren't registering cash sales for 20% VAT.
See what I mean? Putting OGH at risk.
How does that put OGH at risk? Its a true comment and I never identified any business (indeed I responded after the linked Tweet had been deleted)..
There is a remarkable amount of wilful blindness on this site, of the attitude "don't suggest that cash can be used in a dodgy manner".
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
Instead, they put the archive - which must be among the best in the business even if they did wipe a lot of their earliest programmes - on Britbox, which has not so far as I can see been anything other than a flop.
(By the way, I wonder how ITV feel about Twitter's rebrand given all the effort they put into branding ITVX?)
Yes, they should have realised a decade ago where the market was going, and worked hard to get everything licenced. This will be a pain for the older stuff, made before anyone had the concept of either streaming or overseas sales, but the effort should have been made to do it.
That they have saved themselves a few quid by not licensing streaming on newer productions - so they spend a month on iPlayer and then get sold by the production company to Netflix for a secondary run - is an even bigger failure of BBC management. It shouldn’t be hard to get a lot of the cheap filler programming sorted out though, even if the latest Attenborough documentary or Top Gear take more time.
(I think Twitter have upset a lot of people with the “X” rebrand, it’s ubiquitous in many industries, and there a few few trademarks on it such as Microsoft Xbox).
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
It implies an 11% charge on credit/debit card usage which is illegal in the UK.
Has anyone told the card issuers that? Because they're skimming off getting on for that on a large number of smaller transactions via fixed rates.
It's also interesting to me that the biggest post COVID area of weakness for the country is consumer facing services which is still 8% below Feb 2020. It's not what the general narrative would have us believe at all. To me that's suggesting there's a small but significant proportion of people who have permanently disengaged from socialising.
WFH means fewer people having lunch at in-town eateries?
Well, Wetherspoons have decided they only need one outlet in Romford, not two, so there's something going on. And the brunch place near me that staggered through the lockdowns closed last summer. Though someone (the landlord?) has replanted the planters they built to mark an outdoor area after all the plants died in the heatwave.
Other uninformed possibilities are that enough people have been having a rubbish time financially for a while, and cut their avocado toast spending. Or that the new migration model means that they can't get the staff at a viable wage and so just give up.
Meanwhile, in totally unsurprising news, Upminster Residents Association held their very safe seat against the disowned Conservative in the by election yesterday.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
It implies an 11% charge on credit/debit card usage which is illegal in the UK.
Not if the base price in the menu is based on card usage.
Even then I could see then getting fined regardless because cash/card pricing needs to be consistent. Anyway, the idea of a cash discount is going to get them into a huge amount of investigative trouble.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
It implies an 11% charge on credit/debit card usage which is illegal in the UK.
Not if the base price in the menu is based on card usage.
Even then I could see then getting fined regardless because cash/card pricing needs to be consistent. Anyway, the idea of a cash discount is going to get them into a huge amount of investigative trouble.
I think we're probably the only country in the world that would produce two competing GDP figures that are wildly different on the same day. Loads of people this morning asking the same question, "is it 0.4% or 0.9%?" I'm going with 0.4% but other people suggest the 0.9% is probably a more accurate reflection of where we are because the monthly index has proved itself better with fewer revisions than the quarterly number.
Er it's 0.2% for q/q growth in Q2, not 0.4% or 0.9%. Not sure what you mean about competing measures either. The monthly and quarterly data are consistent with each other.
I think too that wet July's figures will not look good next to sunny June's. A lot of sales on trying to clear unsold summer stock, from BBQ meats to summer clothes.
Health care strikes contributing to anaemic growth and to growing waiting lists, with 2 more Consultant strikes planned in August and aseptember. Perhaps it is time for the government to actually negotiate.
Or for Consultants who earn £200k+ pa to stop complaining
Except the vast majority don't. You have a valid point which is devalued by quoting a highly exaggerated figure. One or two might but the vast majority earn much less than this. They still earn a lot so why not quote that.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
The single most regressive tax? How is it more regressive than, say, alcohol duty?
Alcohol duty varies according to what you buy, and you don't have to pay it if you don't use the product the money's levied on (e.g. you don't pay for a whisky bottle if you buy a pint of beer).
That doesn't mean the licence fee is the most regressive tax - I'd actually give that to stamp duty for all sorts of reasons - but it is more regressive than alcohol, or even fuel tax.
National Insurance Class 1 must take the biscuit, surely, with the 12% band going down to 2% for higher salaries?
That's a good point. Stamp duty gets bumped down to second.
And of course zero per cent for pensioners, though that's more parallel universe than regressive.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
A sober advice page, but reading between the lines ... for instance
" A TV Licensing Enforcement Officer must verbally caution you that anything you say to them may be used in evidence against you in court. If you have not been cautioned, any evidence gathered from that visit may be inadmissible in court.
Enforcement Officers will aim to complete a document called a ‘Record of Interview’. On this document they will fill out:
your personal details the type of TV you have (or the type of the device on which you are watching licensable content) the television programme you are watching.
The Enforcement Officer will ask you to sign this Record of Interview. By signing this document, you are acknowledging everything the TV Licensing Officer has written is correct.
You should not sign this document if there are sections which have not yet been filled out. It is not merely a document to acknowledge that TV Licensing has visited your house – if you are prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion, this is the primary piece of evidence that will be used against you. If the Record of Interview says that you were watching licensable content without a licence and you do not believe this to be true, you should not sign it."
"Enforcement Officer sounds really official, you know, like POlice Officer. But really they are a bunch of commercial repo men. Yet you have to treat them with as much care as a police officer calling you in for interview??
Tell them to fuck off. Nothing will happen. They only prosecute the witless who can be cowed or tricked into admitting it.
Ian Beale is coming back to the square with CINDY later this year.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
Er... Romeo and Juliet are married by Friar Laurence before their night of passion, surely?
If we imagine ourselves moderate Republicans, it'd be an interesting dilemma, wouldn't it?
* Trump is deeply corrupt and clearly willing to fiddle with democracy like a Latin American despot, but not especially right-wing * De Santis is off-the-scale extreme and has all kinds of nutty ideas * Neither of them have any detectable interest in Ukraine or the world generally * The party system is so entrenched that actually switching to the Democrats is almost unthinkable
You are, say, Governor Romney. What do you do?
He is currently a Senator but running for Governorships is probably the best they can do from a career perspective, a pretty powerful role where they are the boss and you can win both against party orthodoxy and state traditional voting lines.
Reading between the lines on that story, it’s opponents of DeSantis on school boards deliberately making absurd decisions, to try and gain support for their progressive agenda.
Yeah, it’s not DeSantis’s fault if he passes a stupid, badly-worded law!!
Ah, the Margaret Ferrier defence.
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
Having seen the reports on what covid does to the brain, tdo be fair, I do have some sympathy for her position, and that of Dominic Cummings when he went spec-hunting. But explanations are not excuses for people in legislature or government.
If Cummings' brain - which was not the best to start with - was that fried, he shouldn't have been driving anyway, regardless of his eyesight.
I mean, Johnson himself said it was 'a simple instruction.'
Oddly, I have some sympathy on a human level with both Ferrier and Cummings. I would have hated to have to quarantine in a hotel, or in a shitty two bed flat in Islington rather than a nice house with a garden.
But - Cummings broke his own laws, and Ferrier took an absolutely unacceptable risk travelling by train, given the way air systems on expresses work.
As somebody who has some form with Dominic Cummings put it
'I do believe Dominic Cummings, he is so much of a c**t that he doesn't have a single friend in London to babysit his kids.'
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
A sober advice page, but reading between the lines ... for instance
" A TV Licensing Enforcement Officer must verbally caution you that anything you say to them may be used in evidence against you in court. If you have not been cautioned, any evidence gathered from that visit may be inadmissible in court.
Enforcement Officers will aim to complete a document called a ‘Record of Interview’. On this document they will fill out:
your personal details the type of TV you have (or the type of the device on which you are watching licensable content) the television programme you are watching.
The Enforcement Officer will ask you to sign this Record of Interview. By signing this document, you are acknowledging everything the TV Licensing Officer has written is correct.
You should not sign this document if there are sections which have not yet been filled out. It is not merely a document to acknowledge that TV Licensing has visited your house – if you are prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion, this is the primary piece of evidence that will be used against you. If the Record of Interview says that you were watching licensable content without a licence and you do not believe this to be true, you should not sign it."
"Enforcement Officer sounds really official, you know, like POlice Officer. But really they are a bunch of commercial repo men. Yet you have to treat them with as much care as a police officer calling you in for interview??
If anyone, ever, reads you the standard police caution, then you have every right to say nothing without your lawyer present.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
A sober advice page, but reading between the lines ... for instance
" A TV Licensing Enforcement Officer must verbally caution you that anything you say to them may be used in evidence against you in court. If you have not been cautioned, any evidence gathered from that visit may be inadmissible in court.
Enforcement Officers will aim to complete a document called a ‘Record of Interview’. On this document they will fill out:
your personal details the type of TV you have (or the type of the device on which you are watching licensable content) the television programme you are watching.
The Enforcement Officer will ask you to sign this Record of Interview. By signing this document, you are acknowledging everything the TV Licensing Officer has written is correct.
You should not sign this document if there are sections which have not yet been filled out. It is not merely a document to acknowledge that TV Licensing has visited your house – if you are prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion, this is the primary piece of evidence that will be used against you. If the Record of Interview says that you were watching licensable content without a licence and you do not believe this to be true, you should not sign it."
"Enforcement Officer sounds really official, you know, like POlice Officer. But really they are a bunch of commercial repo men. Yet you have to treat them with as much care as a police officer calling you in for interview??
Tell them to fuck off. Nothing will happen. They only prosecute the witless who can be cowed or tricked into admitting it.
Ian Beale is coming back to the square with CINDY later this year.
It's also interesting to me that the biggest post COVID area of weakness for the country is consumer facing services which is still 8% below Feb 2020. It's not what the general narrative would have us believe at all. To me that's suggesting there's a small but significant proportion of people who have permanently disengaged from socialising.
WFH means fewer people having lunch at in-town eateries?
Eating places near where people live have seen a massive jump in people eating out - WFH, they feel free to actually sit down.
Especially when it's a couple WFH - the joint lunch (switch off the computers, get out of the house) is a thing.
It's also interesting to me that the biggest post COVID area of weakness for the country is consumer facing services which is still 8% below Feb 2020. It's not what the general narrative would have us believe at all. To me that's suggesting there's a small but significant proportion of people who have permanently disengaged from socialising.
WFH means fewer people having lunch at in-town eateries?
Well, Wetherspoons have decided they only need one outlet in Romford, not two, so there's something going on. And the brunch place near me that staggered through the lockdowns closed last summer. Though someone (the landlord?) has replanted the planters they built to mark an outdoor area after all the plants died in the heatwave.
Other uninformed possibilities are that enough people have been having a rubbish time financially for a while, and cut their avocado toast spending. Or that the new migration model means that they can't get the staff at a viable wage and so just give up.
Meanwhile, in totally unsurprising news, Upminster Residents Association held their very safe seat against the disowned Conservative in the by election yesterday.
Havering council has been run by Residents Association councillors for years so no major surprise
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
Undervaluing assets is the stupid kind of "clever" tax avoidance. So you accidentally generated a classic red flag.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
It's a chunky uplift from the valuation. There's no way to reduce due IHT AIUI if property or whatever sells for less than the valuation though - which seems a bit unfair to me if you have a relative that dies during a time of declining prices and low volumes.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
When my mum died some years back I was her executor. I discovered she had let her tax slip as she got older and began to fail - and being a very private person she had rather unwisely failed to get me to deal with it. She had had a large CGT-liable share sale (not deliberate: company takeover) but failed to do anything about it,though in fairness the liability largelyt arose because she hadn't realised that the tax allowance had changed radically. So her estate was due to be stung for double tax plus a fine. I wrote an apologetic letter pdq explaining the situation and how she'd been poorly, and that I wanted to sort it out, and was pleasantly surporised to be told that was OK - just settle up for the original sum. I suppose the fact that she was actually owed overpaid income tax on most of the years in question helped!
You might not miss Wilko, but Britain’s many dying towns will Eerie city centres are being hollowed out by years of relentless decline ... and it’s no exaggeration to say that some cities and towns have been left with row upon row of boarded up shops and buildings.
It’s a doom-loop: each time another place closes, there is less of a reason for people to visit their local town centre.
This wouldn’t be quite so bad if there was a queue of entrepreneurs and start-ups jostling to snap up the empty sites. Free marketeers like to talk about “creative destruction” but it doesn’t reflect the reality of what is going on. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/11/wilko-britains-dying-towns/ (£££)
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
10% off for cash is illegal isn't it
Trousering the remainder without telling HMRC, on the other hand is.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The licence fee will definitely make it to 2027, simply because the current BBC Charter which enshrines it as the model for funding the BBC runs until 31st December 2027.
Whether it makes it to 2028 is another question, although given there will probably be a Labour Government at the time of Charter renewal, the answer is probably yes.
That's not a point about the merits - just that it's important to be aware of how and when the decision over funding model is made.
I'm aware of the dates of the charter. Why do you think I picked 2027?
The issue is, whether people will keep paying it. Because if enough don't, it fails.
As it happens, I don't mind paying the licence fee. It is an anachronism but even if I don't watch BBC channels very much I use a lot of BBC content online and on radio. But equally, I can afford to.
I wouldn't be willing to pay a broadband tax to support a TV service though. That would be silly.
You said, "I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027".
The Charter lasts until midnight on the final day of 2027, so it will.
Given there is likely to be a Labour Government, it is also fairly likely to make it into 2028.
On whether enough people continue to pay it, the evasion rate is estimated at well under 10% and has crept up but not that much. The idea that there will be mass disobedience on this within the next few years is pretty fanciful.
Again, I'm not commenting on the merits, just the practicality.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
It's a chunky uplift from the valuation. There's no way to reduce due IHT AIUI if property or whatever sells for less than the valuation though - which seems a bit unfair to me if you have a relative that dies during a time of declining prices and low volumes.
I think you can, because we're doing that at the moment. Not sure of the details though.
Trying to cancel my TV licence and get a refund (moving away).
Aggressive warnings about police action if I watch TV
Deliberately misleading about what you can watch without one
You can only cancel it 14 days in advance (convinced this is so people forget)
I have to provide proof that I am moving away (so I'm sending them my visa ?!)
I'm never getting a TV licence again.
They kept sending harassing post after my dad died. I had to send a pretty emphatic letter to tell them to lay off. Even then they said they'd start up again in a year, or something, and they did.
Remember in Scotland the law re TV licensing is different. AIUI it's the PF who decides prosecutions - not the BBC or their commercial thugs. I wonder if their bumf even recognises that?
I very much doubt if the licence fee will make it to 2027. But the BBC are totally unready for any replacement.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
The single most regressive tax there is, and with some very dubious collection methods.
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
This is completely unrealistic and ignores the very, very real issues with content licencing, residual payment deals for talent and the complexity of international content purchasing/sales. 9/10 times when the BBC procures a TV show it only purchases UK linear and streaming rights which it may then resell to Netflix.
If was going to make a BBC streaming service I'd do £6.99 per month for all non-live content. So no MOTD live or on catchup, but you do get Peaky Blinders and the recent back catalogue and make that available to cord cutters who live in the pure streaming world.
My point was that the BBC should have been working on this for the past decade, given how obvious it was going to be. The big dramas are more difficult, for the reasons you suggest of residual payments and licensing; but the soaps, comedy shows, and all the daytime crap, would be much easier.
Funding pretty much the whole production of something, but leaving out secondary streaming rights, would be a dereliction of duty for a commercial entity in recent times.
MOTD is the one programme that will never be allowed on an international iPlayer though. At least not unless they edit out all of the Premier League content that’s sold abroad separately.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
It's a chunky uplift from the valuation. There's no way to reduce due IHT AIUI if property or whatever sells for less than the valuation though - which seems a bit unfair to me if you have a relative that dies during a time of declining prices and low volumes.
Not true on the latter. It's entirely possible to revisit the probate valuation for IHT and reclaim overpaid IHT if the actual sale prices are lower.
By the same token, an increase reasonably soon after probate is grounds for paying more IHT. But then you can see if you made any losses on the sale (cost of sale) or on sale of other items.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
It's a chunky uplift from the valuation. There's no way to reduce due IHT AIUI if property or whatever sells for less than the valuation though - which seems a bit unfair to me if you have a relative that dies during a time of declining prices and low volumes.
Not true on the latter. It's entirely possible to revisit the probate valuation for IHT if the actual sale prices are lower.
By the same token, an increase reasonably soon after probate is grounds for paying more IHT. But then you can see if you made any losses on the sale (cost of sale) or on sale of other items.
Interesting. I had been under the (false) impression that Yousaf had been playing a bad hand rather well the last few months.
I think when Sturgeon resigned we said that we would need to wait a few months to see whether the effect on the SNP would be permanent. Looks that way.
No party will go near the NHS in terms of a major reform . Its too dangerous to their election chances . You can get away with more people treated in the private sector to help lower waiting lists but you’re not asking people to pay anything extra or making fundamental changes to the model .
The French system whilst not perfect has many areas that the British could learn from and its public private model works well.
The private isn’t what many would properly class as in the true sense of the term . It’s non-profit based in the main .
Both main parties have made major reforms to the NHS.
The French system spends more money per person. To quote the ONS:
“In 2017, the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare, which was around the median for members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD (£2,913 per person).
“However, of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest, with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736).”
Always worth bearing in mind how staggeringly inefficient the US private healthcare system is, but certainly there are things to learn from France and Germany. If I felt the Tories could be trusted I would be happier breaking with some of the NHS shiboleths, but my concern is once you go down the route of some insurance component and a more mixed provision the Tories are going to fuck the whole thing up and sell things to their pals or to well financed US private equity groups, like they fuck up everything they get their avaricious, incompetent and corrupt little hands on. Making the NHS into our state religion may be the only way to protect it from utter destruction next time they get into power.
Or alternatively, may make reforms so difficult the whole thing implodes and whoever is in power can have a free hand with the remains of it (and Labour are just as capable of selling things to their chums and can be even more avaricious, incompetent and corrupt. This is about politicians not particular parties).
Dogma is the enemy of good public sector provision, regardless of whose dogma we are talking about.
The first dogma that needs to go is head count.
In both directions - limiting had count simply leads to hiring people on contract at vast sums.
Of course, expect some fun if/when you get rid of agency working. Think how many nurses and motors top up their NHS wages with a bit of that...
The other direction - thinking that bigger headcount's necessarily speed things up. Time to tell the story of the Mark X depth charge.... But that would take a while. The point is that you need analysis of where the actual bottle necks are. For example, some chains look like this
You might not miss Wilko, but Britain’s many dying towns will Eerie city centres are being hollowed out by years of relentless decline ... and it’s no exaggeration to say that some cities and towns have been left with row upon row of boarded up shops and buildings.
It’s a doom-loop: each time another place closes, there is less of a reason for people to visit their local town centre.
This wouldn’t be quite so bad if there was a queue of entrepreneurs and start-ups jostling to snap up the empty sites. Free marketeers like to talk about “creative destruction” but it doesn’t reflect the reality of what is going on. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/11/wilko-britains-dying-towns/ (£££)
The free market would allow easy change of use - the problem is often legal, regulatory, landlords, banks and councils colliding to prevent any sensible solution.
Meanwhile, in "a percent either way isn't really the issue" news, the latest infographic from John Burn-Murdoch is sobering.
I guess the question is whether London is saving everyone else's bacon, or the dependence on London tax revenues is what keeps everywhere else poor?
Relative poverty is a measure of inequality more than anything else, but this helps put our conversations around generational inequality into perspective. Also demonstrates that it nothing much has changed since Thatcher.
There was a long and hard-fought discussion over whether to keep it or delete it.
Even more importantly:
"I formally request that the caption of the first two images in the article is changed from "Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer" to "The subjects of two films, Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer". Nobody's familiar with Barbie's in-universe full name. Likewise, nobody knows Oppenheimer's "Oppie" nickname (unless you read well into American Prometheus and/or other biographies about him). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)"
If I understand correctly his position is a) nothing wrong with taking gifts from friends, b) he's too dumb to realise it needed declaring (but also still smart enough to be a justice), c) the Supreme Court is immune from any oversight or interference from any other branch once appointments are done with, so screw you who cares if it should have been declared.
Whatever it was it seems to be gone now so I shall never know.
Photo of menu of clearly identifiable restaurant giving 10% off for cash, explicitly as part of the save cash campaign. Decidedly imprudent comment by the tweeter.
My barber recently bought a contactless thing (connected to his phone) after HMRC had a word.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Bloody hell.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
It's a chunky uplift from the valuation. There's no way to reduce due IHT AIUI if property or whatever sells for less than the valuation though - which seems a bit unfair to me if you have a relative that dies during a time of declining prices and low volumes.
Not true on the latter. It's entirely possible to revisit the probate valuation for IHT if the actual sale prices are lower.
By the same token, an increase reasonably soon after probate is grounds for paying more IHT. But then you can see if you made any losses on the sale (cost of sale) or on sale of other items.
OK That's good to know, and sounds fair to me.
It's essential for the executor to make a final check when wrapping up the estate that sales etc as well as stuff not known about at probate valuation such as lost bank accounts haven't brought it over the IHT limit - if it was below the IHT limit originally - or increased the IHT liability. But of course things like share sales at a loss, and deeds of variation giving stuff to charities (and political parties ...) can be counted on the other side. I seem to recall that HMRC aren't bothered if the final figure is a bit higher than reported at probate, so long as it doesn't actually change the tax situation, edit] and there is no need to report such changes if no new tax is due, but it is always very prudent to keep records and to deposit a copy of the final accounts with your lawyer.
You might not miss Wilko, but Britain’s many dying towns will Eerie city centres are being hollowed out by years of relentless decline ... and it’s no exaggeration to say that some cities and towns have been left with row upon row of boarded up shops and buildings.
It’s a doom-loop: each time another place closes, there is less of a reason for people to visit their local town centre.
This wouldn’t be quite so bad if there was a queue of entrepreneurs and start-ups jostling to snap up the empty sites. Free marketeers like to talk about “creative destruction” but it doesn’t reflect the reality of what is going on. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/11/wilko-britains-dying-towns/ (£££)
The commercial property market is as screwed as the residential property market - but for the opposite reason, there’s too much supply, and landlords can’t afford to take the hit on devaluing the property by reducing rents. Eventually there will be a total collapse of the sector.
Comments
US healthcare is a nightmare in many ways (despite significantly higher pay, US Doctors report more burnout and depression than even my jaded NHS colleagues). It is a business though, and a thriving one.
People need to get away from the mindset of it being a drain on GDP when it is actually a large part of GDP, and a successful economy. The point of a business is to extract the maximum amount of money from the customer that it can, and the American health industry is very, very good at this. If it were any other industry people would consider this a good thing.
If there's an attempt to tax broadband connections to subsidise broadcast TV there will be absolute hell to pay. I can foresee actual rioting. It might of course also lead to the rapid rollout of nationwide 5G.
The smart move is a subscription model, at any rate for overseas customers on iPlayer, but there's no sign the BBC are willing to consider it. If they'd done that 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this mess now.
You realize too that a revision in the monthly numbers affects the annual numbers [unless it is just moving data between months].
Inflation should be down sharply too, as last June and July’s peak petrol prices fall out of the index.
I suspect it doesn’t feel good for many though, especially anyone with a mortgage seeing the effects of interest rate rises, and even possible negative equity issues in London.
Whether it makes it to 2028 is another question, although given there will probably be a Labour Government at the time of Charter renewal, the answer is probably yes.
That's not a point about the merits - just that it's important to be aware of how and when the decision over funding model is made.
Neither of the 2 Tory Parties have a viable plan to resolve the NHS Crisis
Neither seem to grasp that wage cuts are a major cause of inadequate staffing
Inadequate staffing leads to burn out leads to more people leaving.
Rinse and Repeat
Neither Party can seem to grasp that the private sector cherry picks the easiest more profitable cases leaving all the complex cases with the NHS Both get paid the same despite one been lumbered with all the complex patients
Of course Kid Starver and Pet Shop boy are funded by said Private Sector investors who are due to make a packet to take easiest patients just like the other Toty Party
Does anyone watch live TV any more, apart from sports and the occasional coronation?
Fund the genuine public service broadcasting from taxation, and let the BBC either charge subscriptions or carry advertising on their entertainment channels.
How they haven’t sorted out their licensing for an international iPlayer I have no idea. They should have had most of the archive up there by now, and charging foreigners £10 a month for it would make billions. I’d buy it, or at least alternate it with Netflix.
This Dr gets the plan
https://twitter.com/search?q=private sector nhs plan&src=typed_query
When you add in the VAT from new TV sales (didn't one PBer recently pay >> £1,000 in VAT on a new TV?) you can probably get reasonably close to the current license fee income and the BBC is incentivised to collaborate with the subscription services, rather than to try and crush them.
Only problem being that the Treasury have to hand over £bns of VAT receipts. So it was a good idea for the good times, but looks impossible now.
The issue is, whether people will keep paying it. Because if enough don't, it fails.
As it happens, I don't mind paying the licence fee. It is an anachronism but even if I don't watch BBC channels very much I use a lot of BBC content online and on radio. But equally, I can afford to.
I wouldn't be willing to pay a broadband tax to support a TV service though. That would be silly.
(By the way, I wonder how ITV feel about Twitter's rebrand given all the effort they put into branding ITVX?)
Democratic lawmakers slam Thomas after latest report he accepted lavish gifts
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4148413-democratic-lawmakers-slam-thomas-after-report-accepted-lavish-gifts/
A sober advice page, but reading between the lines ... for instance
" A TV Licensing Enforcement Officer must verbally caution you that anything you say to them may be used in evidence against you in court. If you have not been cautioned, any evidence gathered from that visit may be inadmissible in court.
Enforcement Officers will aim to complete a document called a ‘Record of Interview’. On this document they will fill out:
your personal details
the type of TV you have (or the type of the device on which you are watching licensable content)
the television programme you are watching.
The Enforcement Officer will ask you to sign this Record of Interview. By signing this document, you are acknowledging everything the TV Licensing Officer has written is correct.
You should not sign this document if there are sections which have not yet been filled out. It is not merely a document to acknowledge that TV Licensing has visited your house – if you are prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion, this is the primary piece of evidence that will be used against you. If the Record of Interview says that you were watching licensable content without a licence and you do not believe this to be true, you should not sign it."
"Enforcement Officer sounds really official, you know, like POlice Officer. But really they are a bunch of commercial repo men. Yet you have to treat them with as much care as a police officer calling you in for interview??
'It's not her fault. She's just hard of thinking.'
In both directions - limiting had count simply leads to hiring people on contract at vast sums.
Of course, expect some fun if/when you get rid of agency working. Think how many nurses and motors top up their NHS wages with a bit of that...
The other direction - thinking that bigger headcount's necessarily speed things up. Time to tell the story of the Mark X depth charge.... But that would take a while. The point is that you need analysis of where the actual bottlenecks are. For example, some chains look like this
problem - GP - referral - consultant - test - consultant - test etc
an alternative strategy is
problem - GP - referral - every test that can be conceived of - consultant - consultant
From my experience with private medicine, they seem to prefer the later.
At this point someone will ping up the MRI stats - more nurses might not make things better, it might be more MRIs and MRI techs, that we need.
This is where Operational Research comes in. Find the real bottlenecks.
Monthly (By series):
100.3 -> 100.5 -> 100.4 -> 101.0 (Must be 100.95 to realise +0.5% growth in June rather than +0.6%)
Which is consistent with the monthly growth given of
+0.2% (Apr), -0.1% (May), +0.5% (June)
100.349 -> 100.95 is +0.6% That's a chunky difference from +0.2%.
That doesn't mean the licence fee is the most regressive tax - I'd actually give that to stamp duty for all sorts of reasons - but it is more regressive than alcohol, or even fuel tax.
If was going to make a BBC streaming service I'd do £6.99 per month for all non-live content. So no MOTD live or on catchup, but you do get Peaky Blinders and the recent back catalogue and make that available to cord cutters who live in the pure streaming world.
* Trump is deeply corrupt and clearly willing to fiddle with democracy like a Latin American despot, but not especially right-wing
* De Santis is off-the-scale extreme and has all kinds of nutty ideas
* Neither of them have any detectable interest in Ukraine or the world generally
* The party system is so entrenched that actually switching to the Democrats is almost unthinkable
You are, say, Governor Romney. What do you do?
Depicting teenage gang fights with knives, and teen suicide probably a bit more sound as a reason to restrict.
Pence would also be an option then. Indeed until a few decades ago both the Republicans and Democrats chose their presidential candidate in smoke filled rooms at the convention
I mean, Johnson himself said it was 'a simple instruction.'
Oddly, I have some sympathy on a human level with both Ferrier and Cummings. I would have hated to have to quarantine in a hotel, or in a shitty two bed flat in Islington rather than a nice house with a garden.
But - Cummings broke his own laws, and Ferrier took an absolutely unacceptable risk travelling by train, given the way air systems on expresses work.
There is a remarkable amount of wilful blindness on this site, of the attitude "don't suggest that cash can be used in a dodgy manner".
That they have saved themselves a few quid by not licensing streaming on newer productions - so they spend a month on iPlayer and then get sold by the production company to Netflix for a secondary run - is an even bigger failure of BBC management. It shouldn’t be hard to get a lot of the cheap filler programming sorted out though, even if the latest Attenborough documentary or Top Gear take more time.
(I think Twitter have upset a lot of people with the “X” rebrand, it’s ubiquitous in many industries, and there a few few trademarks on it such as Microsoft Xbox).
Other uninformed possibilities are that enough people have been having a rubbish time financially for a while, and cut their avocado toast spending. Or that the new migration model means that they can't get the staff at a viable wage and so just give up.
Meanwhile, in totally unsurprising news, Upminster Residents Association held their very safe seat against the disowned Conservative in the by election yesterday.
HMRC are quite interesting as an organisation. I know someone who does investigations for them and they put a lot of emphasis on being fair and reasonable to encourage people to be honest. An example of that, I suppose.
Ian Beale is coming back to the square with CINDY later this year.
If they were being fair and reasonable over my cousin's estate, I'd hate to see what them being utter dickheads looks like.
(Story - my cousin had a flat in London. Poor condition, sold at auction as stands. Multiple valuations were obtained and an average declared for probate, which was granted after IHT was paid.
It then went for 40% more on the day as two bidders were very keen on it.
Next thing we know, threats of a prosecution for fraud are coming our way.)
From a moral perspective, this ain't difficult.
'I do believe Dominic Cummings, he is so much of a c**t that he doesn't have a single friend in London to babysit his kids.'
Caicedo to Liverpool for £110 million.
What a time to be alive.
You sure as hell don’t want to sign anything.
"Angus MacNeil: SNP MP announces expulsion from party after chief whip row - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66470026
Sir John Curtice says Sturgeon arrest and trans row chipped away at party’s standing but new leader has had a bigger impact
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-slump-mainly-down-to-humza-yousaf-says-top-pollster-9b3j7hn5v
Especially when it's a couple WFH - the joint lunch (switch off the computers, get out of the house) is a thing.
Eerie city centres are being hollowed out by years of relentless decline
...
and it’s no exaggeration to say that some cities and towns have been left with row upon row of boarded up shops and buildings.
It’s a doom-loop: each time another place closes, there is less of a reason for people to visit their local town centre.
This wouldn’t be quite so bad if there was a queue of entrepreneurs and start-ups jostling to snap up the empty sites. Free marketeers like to talk about “creative destruction” but it doesn’t reflect the reality of what is going on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/11/wilko-britains-dying-towns/ (£££)
The Charter lasts until midnight on the final day of 2027, so it will.
Given there is likely to be a Labour Government, it is also fairly likely to make it into 2028.
On whether enough people continue to pay it, the evasion rate is estimated at well under 10% and has crept up but not that much. The idea that there will be mass disobedience on this within the next few years is pretty fanciful.
Again, I'm not commenting on the merits, just the practicality.
Funding pretty much the whole production of something, but leaving out secondary streaming rights, would be a dereliction of duty for a commercial entity in recent times.
MOTD is the one programme that will never be allowed on an international iPlayer though. At least not unless they edit out all of the Premier League content that’s sold abroad separately.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-11182175/A-property-inherited-overvalued-50k-IHT-back.html
By the same token, an increase reasonably soon after probate is grounds for paying more IHT. But then you can see if you made any losses on the sale (cost of sale) or on sale of other items.
I guess the question is whether London is saving everyone else's bacon, or the dependence on London tax revenues is what keeps everywhere else poor?
I think when Sturgeon resigned we said that we would need to wait a few months to see whether the effect on the SNP would be permanent. Looks that way.
In both directions - limiting had count simply leads to hiring people on contract at vast sums.
Of course, expect some fun if/when you get rid of agency working. Think how many nurses and motors top up their NHS wages with a bit of that...
The other direction - thinking that bigger headcount's necessarily speed things up. Time to tell the story of the Mark X depth charge.... But that would take a while. The point is that you need analysis of where the actual bottle necks are. For example, some chains look like this
consultant->test The free market would allow easy change of use - the problem is often legal, regulatory, landlords, banks and councils colliding to prevent any sensible solution.
"I formally request that the caption of the first two images in the article is changed from "Barbara Millicent "Barbie" Roberts and Julius Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer" to "The subjects of two films, Barbie and J. Robert Oppenheimer". Nobody's familiar with Barbie's in-universe full name. Likewise, nobody knows Oppenheimer's "Oppie" nickname (unless you read well into American Prometheus and/or other biographies about him). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barbenheimer#Okay,_everyone,_let's_do_this!