So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
It's good that he still works for them, but that was an example of the misdirected and sometimes quite extreme censoriousness that Chomsky and others were talking about yesterday.
It's most recently exaggerated by the actions of corporations firing employees after twitter trends, and there's a link between the most stridently expressed identity politics and ultra-individualised capitalism.
As I said yesterday if its disproportionate of course it is wrong and should be stopped. No-one really came up with concrete cases where this was the case. Its all anecdotes that are incomplete or incorrect, as your "recent" "sacking" shows when its from 2014 and he wasnt sacked.
Do people get rubbish and unwarranted abuse on twitter for this? Absolutely.
Do a significant number lose their jobs disproportionately? Not seen any evidence of that at all.
There's two processes at work - a sometimes excessive social-media driven censoriousness, which has for some people definitely affected careers and quietened others, and a reactionary parody of this which is extremely useful for the radical Brexiters and Trumpists of this world, and are like the opening act of their own extremism. They are the two sides of our current extreme identity politics.
The paragraph that Chomsky, Rushdie and others put their name to yesterday is fairly accurate, I think.
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."
1 Editors are fired for running controversial pieces - always happened, any recent examples to discuss? 2 journalists are barred from writing on certain topics - its never been easier for journalists to write about what they really want and publicise it. 3 professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class - investigated for what? was there any disproportionate action taken? 4 a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study - peer review is not always a particularly robust process, if I was in charge of an academic department that wouldnt be a sufficient defence for promoting a study if it was weak, incorrect or misleading. 5 the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes - always happened, any recent examples to discuss?
If these issues are as widespread as believed there should be a dozen well known answers to 1 & 5. During McCarthyism people could have given a dozen examples easily of people impacted - can it be done today? I dont know but I doubt it.
Most of the disproportionate actions taken against them are simply other people on twitter not liking them or speaking unfairly about them, nothing to do with their jobs or preventing academia or journalism functioning.
I don't really agree here. I think we're living in an age where not only can social media make or break people's careers, but can exercise enormous control on what is and what is not acceptable for debate.
I think a number of different things have happened simultaneously over the last ten years that mean that this issue can't simply be dismissed as the "PC gorn mad" tabloid caricatures of yesteryear, about Christmas being cancelled by Labour councils.
A vast expansion in the influence of social media, and a frequent herd mentality among identitarian left and right online ; natural corporate receptiveness to this extreme politics of personal identity ; and a totalising politics of identity from campuses which has grown since the turn of the century, and is the mirror image of white nativism, anti-elite conservative populism in the identity age.
Is there a related problem on Twitter yes - but if thats the case specify it as twitter, not editors losing jobs or directors being sacked for clumsy mistakes. If its the latter name a few?
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
I also love the argument 'We've had this for free for a long time, so no longer getting it for free is wrong!'
See yesterday's argument over hospital parking charges for another example.
Its seems the disease has followed almost exactly the path predicted for it by Professor Gupta and the Oxford team. Predictions that were widely mocked and scorned when I first mentioned them on here weeks ago.
Recently Professor Gupta commented that lockdown and social distancing risk weakening our immune systems because we are not coming into contact with bugs and germs in the normal way.
I suggest we listen for a change.
What?
I don't intend to be mean, but are you perhaps posting from an alternate timeline?
The cornerstone of Gupta's argument was that the actual IFR of covid was about 1 in 10,000. At the absolute most, 1 in 1,000. And we should therefore abandon social distancing as unnecessary.
1 in 10,000 means that the maximum death toll in England for covid, if literally everyone in England was infected and with no hint of herd immunity and including all the shielders who've been assiduously practicing the most strenuous restrictions - would be just over 5,000. We blew past that in English hospitals alone in just one week at the peak of the infection.
Even 1 in 1,000 gives us just over 50,000 dead. That would mean that literally everyone has had it, remember, and had it a while back. You've had it. I've had it. My shielding 79-year-old Mum has had it. People locked up on their own since the start with no-one coming in have had it. And still the death toll has gone past that.
It would mean that, with social distancing, the infection rate would have dropped to literally zero quite a while ago. Because we all had already had it by the time the excess death toll in England had passed 50,000. No, actually, we'd all have been infected by three weeks before that point.
That's following Gupta's begrudging absolute top rate for IFR, as well. Remember, it's more likely that we'd all had it when the death toll in England passed 5,000.
So while I'd love for that to be true, allow me to take it with a mountain of salt. Except maybe in an alternate timeline where this was true, which would indeed lead to people being flummoxed at the restrictions being taken, I suppose.
The more interesting possibility arising from her work (and others) is that there might be significant population levels of pre-existing immunity (or at least worthwhile resistance) arising from previous exposure to other coronaviruses. That remains a possibility and would certainly help explain some of the data patterns (while having no impact on Covid IFR)
It would. As well as finding out - if it exists - its parameters. Could it be that infection with a low viral load coupled with resistance to another coronavirus (like one of the ones in the cold virus suite) can help you fight it off without needing to produce antibodies? There does seem to be a cohort of those who've had it without producing antibodies.
If so - would that provide any significant resistance to re-infection, though? No antibodies, after all. Re-infection with a higher viral load - you can see that producing a full infection again.
Or maybe some people have stalwart enough immune systems that they can shrug it off. Would be cool if so, and even cooler if I was one of them...
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
BBC Bitesize could remain as a primarily government funded charity-like institution.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
Dowden says theatres and opera can reopen outdoors from July 11th, enabling Glyndebourne and the Minack Theatre to still have a summer season.
Indoor swimming pools and gyms and sports facilities will reopen from July 25th, 5 a side football and recreational cricket outdoors can restart this weekend
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
BBC Bitesize could remain as a primarily government funded charity-like institution.
You are right. It is a graduate tax - almost totally. You can buy out of the tax by settling early - which is unusual for a tax. Other than that, it is a tax.
It was very badly presented - as a loan when it isn`t - I see that now they have stopped sending annual statements out with a big "debt" showing. Good. The debt is irrelevant and if you pay it off early you need your head examined.
Weird decision by the government to tax me less than my lower-earning peers.
I`m not sure what you mean.
Basic rate tax rate 20% (29% if you are liable for the graduate tax (student loan if you like) but only on income over £26,500 pa (I think)) Higher rate tax rate 40% (49% if you are liable for the graduate tax (studentloan if you like)) Etc
Yes, overall my income tax is lower, but the amount I pay for my student fees is lower because I'll pay it off sooner and therefore incur less interest.
Oh, I see what you are getting at. Liability to the additional tax rates ceases at 30 years or death. Future government may wipe debts (e.g. Corbyn) and if you`ve paid off early you`ll be kicking yourself. Also, you are not factoring in the opportunity cost of paying more than you have to.
Never pay off a student loan early. Golden rule.
Another tip: pay a lot into pensions. It reduces your income that the "loan" repayments are based on.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
Not if I wish to watch live TV on other channels. If we wish to watch live TV on other channels why should I be subject to the TV Tax?
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
BBC Bitesize could remain as a primarily government funded charity-like institution.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I suspect that many of the people protesting against this are the same people who think it's time to end the pension triple lock for the greater good.
Anyway, the poorest pensioners, those who receive pension credits, will not have to pay. I see no reason for distress or financial hardship.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
If you believe this - which imo is florid in the extreme but let's go with it - you have no choice but to leap upon every single change of a word, to a street name, to a habit or custom, and fight it. Fight it with everything you've got until you are completely spent. You may lose, you probably will, but you will at least be able in 40 50 years time, with the woke world established all around you, to point at it and tell your grandkids, "See all this shit? Nothing to do with me. I took a rebel stand. Ask your dad."
It will be my greatest pleasure to be able to say so
You'll be a right old pain in the pipe, rabbiting on about when you could chew tobacco and call a spade a spade.
The literal refusal to call a spade a spade actually goes back to Tacitus, who refers to those things 'per quae egeritur humus aut exciditur caespes' ('by means of which soil is dug out or turf is cut away').
Things were bad enough by the Silver Latin period. There's no need to let the rot spread any further...
You know some surprising things, I'll give you that.
But look, perhaps you would like to sign up with your fellow r/w culture warrior, Laurence "Lozza" Fox. He is "creating music and writing to challenge the narrative".
3 levels to choose from. "Fox Club" at £5 pm. "Sly Like a Fox" at £20 pm. Or really push the boat out and go £100 pm for "Top Fox".
I'm being serious. This is what you're hanging with.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
Not if I wish to watch live TV on other channels. If we wish to watch live TV on other channels why should I be subject to the TV Tax?
Why does it matter to you if its live? You can watch it with tiny delay elsewhere legally.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 from 1st August £157.50 to watch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
I dont see that it's wrong? A tiny reduction in direct benefits for pensioners, compared to the significant cuts many other people have experienced, and poor older pensioners on pension credit will continue to get it free anyway.
Quite right. The bit about paying Lineker's salary is one about how well the BBC spends its money, it isn't a point about whether over 75's paying the fee is wrong, so I don't see what connecting the two achieves. I've yet to see a coherent explanation of why it is 'wrong' for over 75s to pay the fee. Why should pensioners not pay it when others do, many of whom would also use arguments of not watching it or struggling to afford it?
Although the situations are not directly comparable, and if this is truly unfair I am sure I will get it in the neck for saying this, but it puts me in mind of hte WASPI women - 'we don't like it therefore it is wrong and unfair'.
The BBC one is a rare one where an argument often advanced for providing a service free to a certain user group is that they are the ones who use it the most!
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I suspect that many of the people protesting against this are the same people who think it's time to end the pension triple lock for the greater good.
Anyway, the poorest pensioners, those who receive pension credits, will not have to pay. I see no reason for distress or financial hardship.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
Not if I wish to watch live TV on other channels. If we wish to watch live TV on other channels why should I be subject to the TV Tax?
You're subjected to all sorts of more or less arbitrary taxes. I don't see why you find this one so objectionable - when it's one of the easier taxes to avoid paying.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Efforts to smear Anneliese Dodds using stale old clips and footage, I see.
She must be cutting through.
Maybe she is, IDK, but while the clips may be old how is showing them a smear? You cannot smear people with their own words, if accurately displayed.
But if the context is false - e.g. masquerading as 2020 as shadow chancellor when actually yonks ago and not shadow chancellor - ok there is possibly a better word but I don't think smear is far wrong.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
Not if I wish to watch live TV on other channels. If we wish to watch live TV on other channels why should I be subject to the TV Tax?
Why does it matter to you if its live? You can watch it with tiny delay elsewhere legally.
It matters because its the law.
If you watch any live channel or stream any live program without a licence fee, even if its non-BBC, then you are breaking the law.
So even if I want to stream Sky News live I need a licence fee. Its a disgrace.
Let people subscribe if they want, don't compel it by law. Is that so hard? What is to be afraid of about making it optional?
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
You can't watch live broadcast TV if you don't pay the fee, he might want to watch other TV channels?
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
You can't watch live broadcast TV if you don't pay the fee, he might want to watch other TV channels?
I’m not making light of a tragic death but a lot of the cast of Glee has ended up dead
I thought that when I heard she was missing, doesn't sounds good from the sound of it to be missing in water and her child unsupervised rarely leads to a good outcome.
Would she be the third death from the show if she has died?
Oliver Dowden appears to be someone totally unsuitable for permanent and fulfilling employment, save for becoming MP. I assume he must have made a mark and his living outside politics.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Efforts to smear Anneliese Dodds using stale old clips and footage, I see.
She must be cutting through.
I really do not agree
She was embarrassing
You support a literal buffoon who can’t string a sentence together. I think your judgment is extremely poor.
I support Rishi if you read my posts yesterday
Aha, you also supported Johnson for election in 2019. I stand by my point.
You supported racist anti-Semite Corbyn. Not sure you should be throwing any stones about 2019.
Corbyn is gone. Johnson is still around. That’s a difference.
The truth of the matter is you can’t attack Dodds for being useless and then support the Government and then by extension, Johnson. He is just as useless.
Hypocrisy as always from the PB Tories. Diddums is just sad I called him out again.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
You can't watch live broadcast TV if you don't pay the fee, he might want to watch other TV channels?
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
You can't watch live broadcast TV if you don't pay the fee, he might want to watch other TV channels?
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
You can't watch live broadcast TV if you don't pay the fee, he might want to watch other TV channels?
It does look as if HMG have decided that opening the economy is the only way to protect jobs and there are risks in doing this, but also risks by not doing it
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
If you believe this - which imo is florid in the extreme but let's go with it - you have no choice but to leap upon every single change of a word, to a street name, to a habit or custom, and fight it. Fight it with everything you've got until you are completely spent. You may lose, you probably will, but you will at least be able in 40 50 years time, with the woke world established all around you, to point at it and tell your grandkids, "See all this shit? Nothing to do with me. I took a rebel stand. Ask your dad."
It will be my greatest pleasure to be able to say so
You'll be a right old pain in the pipe, rabbiting on about when you could chew tobacco and call a spade a spade.
The literal refusal to call a spade a spade actually goes back to Tacitus, who refers to those things 'per quae egeritur humus aut exciditur caespes' ('by means of which soil is dug out or turf is cut away').
Things were bad enough by the Silver Latin period. There's no need to let the rot spread any further...
You know some surprising things, I'll give you that.
But look, perhaps you would like to sign up with your fellow r/w culture warrior, Laurence "Lozza" Fox. He is "creating music and writing to challenge the narrative".
3 levels to choose from. "Fox Club" at £5 pm. "Sly Like a Fox" at £20 pm. Or really push the boat out and go £100 pm for "Top Fox".
I'm being serious. This is what you're hanging with.
I've always been more of a hedgehog than a fox (Archilochus, this time).
Ok, he seems to be a bit of a tool. But he'll need to raise his game by orders of magnitude before he arouses my disgust like the other side does.
There is quite the "quality" gap between the 2 sides though - I'm sure you will admit that. It's just so mediocre and tacky out there on the right wing. The jokes, the music, the clothes, bone structures - nothing really comes up to speed.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
Not if I wish to watch live TV on other channels. If we wish to watch live TV on other channels why should I be subject to the TV Tax?
Why does it matter to you if its live? You can watch it with tiny delay elsewhere legally.
It matters because its the law.
If you watch any live channel or stream any live program without a licence fee, even if its non-BBC, then you are breaking the law.
So even if I want to stream Sky News live I need a licence fee. Its a disgrace.
Let people subscribe if they want, don't compel it by law. Is that so hard? What is to be afraid of about making it optional?
You can watch sky news from here without the license fee:
It's wrong that people wanting to watch live TV on non-BBC channels should have to pay the BBC licence fee when there are hundreds of such channels and about 5 BBC channels.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
Whereas for working age people with less disposable income than many pensioners having to find £157.50 is a piece of piss is it?
I think on the whole pensioners are more reliant on TV for their wellbeing than younger people.
So for instance a young single mother with young children struggling to make ends meet should be forced to pay £157.50 if her children want to watch cartoons even if not on the BBC
But wealthy pensioners who own their own home, have a great pension and have little expenditure . . . they should get it for free?
How is that logical?
Not just cartoons, BBC bitesize an important educational tool without schools open.
There's plenty of non-BBC options. My children did their education online with the schools closed, none of it on the BBC. And my children never watch the BBC either.
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
If you were happy never watching the BBC you can easily avoid it legally and watch the vast majority of other content through non license fee paying methods. Most people cant be bothered or watch more BBC than they care to admit.
Not if I wish to watch live TV on other channels. If we wish to watch live TV on other channels why should I be subject to the TV Tax?
Why does it matter to you if its live? You can watch it with tiny delay elsewhere legally.
It matters because its the law.
If you watch any live channel or stream any live program without a licence fee, even if its non-BBC, then you are breaking the law.
So even if I want to stream Sky News live I need a licence fee. Its a disgrace.
Let people subscribe if they want, don't compel it by law. Is that so hard? What is to be afraid of about making it optional?
You can watch sky news from here without the license fee:
Its really up to you, if it was as important as you make out you wouldnt be paying it.
Pre-recorded videos maybe, but live News then no you can't. If you stream Sky News live you legally need to pay the Licence Fee even if you do it from Sky's website. That is the law.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
If you believe this - which imo is florid in the extreme but let's go with it - you have no choice but to leap upon every single change of a word, to a street name, to a habit or custom, and fight it. Fight it with everything you've got until you are completely spent. You may lose, you probably will, but you will at least be able in 40 50 years time, with the woke world established all around you, to point at it and tell your grandkids, "See all this shit? Nothing to do with me. I took a rebel stand. Ask your dad."
It will be my greatest pleasure to be able to say so
You'll be a right old pain in the pipe, rabbiting on about when you could chew tobacco and call a spade a spade.
The literal refusal to call a spade a spade actually goes back to Tacitus, who refers to those things 'per quae egeritur humus aut exciditur caespes' ('by means of which soil is dug out or turf is cut away').
Things were bad enough by the Silver Latin period. There's no need to let the rot spread any further...
You know some surprising things, I'll give you that.
But look, perhaps you would like to sign up with your fellow r/w culture warrior, Laurence "Lozza" Fox. He is "creating music and writing to challenge the narrative".
3 levels to choose from. "Fox Club" at £5 pm. "Sly Like a Fox" at £20 pm. Or really push the boat out and go £100 pm for "Top Fox".
I'm being serious. This is what you're hanging with.
I've always been more of a hedgehog than a fox (Archilochus, this time).
Ok, he seems to be a bit of a tool. But he'll need to raise his game by orders of magnitude before he arouses my disgust like the other side does.
There is quite the "quality" gap between the 2 sides though - I'm sure you will admit that. It's just so mediocre and tacky out there on the right wing. The jokes, the music, the clothes, bone structures - nothing really comes up to speed.
The left is wonderful to socialize with, I just wouldn't put them in charge of anything...
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
There is no rationale that is my point, it is the law.
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
It's wrong that people wanting to watch live TV on non-BBC channels should have to pay the BBC licence fee when there are hundreds of such channels and about 5 BBC channels.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
There is no rationale that is my point, it is the law.
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
There's a tax on owning a car, on buying chocolate, on travelling by plane. There are taxes on insurance, fuel for private cars, alcohol and tobacco.
There aren't many things that aren't taxed. I don't see anything shocking in there being a tax on watching live broadcast TV.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
It's safer than television if you are driving.
If I'm driving I can listen to Heart or stream my own music, rather than switch on the BBC which typically has been yammering away more than playing music.
Its ridiculous that commercial stations seem to play more music despite the adverts than the advert-free BBC does. Again, if people wish to pay for the radio stations they should.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
There is no rationale that is my point, it is the law.
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
You have submitted hundreds of posts on this - we all get it, you think the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC's output is rubbish. You don't need to keep telling us.
But don't we all pay taxes on things we don't like or use? Personally, for example, I'd rather not pay for Trident, but I accept that's just the way it is. Other will have many other things they never use, but still pay for. It's called a society.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
I think you’re out of touch. Podcasts, of which most BBC Radio is now available, are a huge growth industry. Why do you think the Times have just launched Times Radio?
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
It's safer than television if you are driving.
If I'm driving I can listen to Heart or stream my own music, rather than switch on the BBC which typically has been yammering away more than playing music.
Its ridiculous that commercial stations seem to play more music despite the adverts than the advert-free BBC does. Again, if people wish to pay for the radio stations they should.
Don't you listen to The World Tonight most evenings until you nod off? I do.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
There is no rationale that is my point, it is the law.
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
There's a tax on owning a car, on buying chocolate, on travelling by plane. There are taxes on insurance, fuel for private cars, alcohol and tobacco.
There aren't many things that aren't taxed. I don't see anything shocking in there being a tax on watching live broadcast TV.
It is entirely unexceptional.
All of those taxes go to the general fund and pay for all public services. The licence fee goes to the BBC and doesn't pay for any public services.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
There is no rationale that is my point, it is the law.
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
There's a tax on owning a car, on buying chocolate, on travelling by plane. There are taxes on insurance, fuel for private cars, alcohol and tobacco.
There aren't many things that aren't taxed. I don't see anything shocking in there being a tax on watching live broadcast TV.
It is entirely unexceptional.
If I buy a Kia then my tax on that isn't bunged to Nissan. If I buy some Dairy Milk then my tax on that isn't bunged to Nestle If I fly by EasyJet then my tax on that isn't bunged to British Airways
And so on and so forth for everything else. I wouldn't care if TVs were taxed to fund education, the NHS etc - but to fund the BBC when I'm choosing to watch a different supplier? No thanks.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
It's safer than television if you are driving.
If I'm driving I can listen to Heart or stream my own music, rather than switch on the BBC which typically has been yammering away more than playing music.
Its ridiculous that commercial stations seem to play more music despite the adverts than the advert-free BBC does. Again, if people wish to pay for the radio stations they should.
Surely you put talking radio on to discourage your passenger from talking all the time?
Never rely on journalists for anything involving sums.
Yeah, is anyone surprised that gyms have the toughest regulations?
Yes. The disease is not spread by sweat, and the gym is one of the only places where people don’t tend to speak to each-other and generally keep a 2m distance anyway.
I think what bothers me most about the BBC is radio, it's a completely pointless form of media now and yet if I want to watch live sports on Sky I have to pay for countless radio stations.
It's safer than television if you are driving.
If I'm driving I can listen to Heart or stream my own music, rather than switch on the BBC which typically has been yammering away more than playing music.
Its ridiculous that commercial stations seem to play more music despite the adverts than the advert-free BBC does. Again, if people wish to pay for the radio stations they should.
Surely you put talking radio on to discourage your passenger from talking all the time?
I put music on so the kids don't pester me to put music on!
For about 12 months the only thing played in my car seemed to be the soundtrack to The Greatest Showman.
Doesn't the great orange snowflake realise the SC has probably given him cover to shield his tax affairs until after the election ?
Or perhaps he's now worrying more about the actual legal consequences to him, post election.
If he loses in November, before he goes, Donald Trump will try and issue a pre-emptive presidential pardon that absolves Donald Trump from all future charges arising from the public disclosure of his tax affairs.
So the BBC are going ahead and charging pensioners over 75 £157.50 to eatch their output irrespective of whether they do
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
Its very wrong Gary Lineker is paid so much for so little work. Why is it wrong to charge pensioners the same fee as everyone else?
Pensioners over 75 have enjoyed free tv licences for the last 20 years and to many the sudden shock of finding £157.50 will cause distress and even financial hardship
I think you are over egging it. £13 per month.
Yet Netflix is only £5.99 a month.
The BBC is disgracefully incompetent and expensive and the licence fee should be abolished.
I do not, generally, think that, but the over 75 debate pushes me closer to that way.
I think its wrong to force me to pay for a service that I find to be quite shit when I happily pay for other services by choice. Its not about bias or anything like that, since I so rarely watch the BBC I couldn't tell you if its biased or not, I just think its very, very poor quality.
As @noneoftheabove notes, why don't you just not pay the license if you don't watch it.
Jeez.
Because its the law that you need to do so since I do watch live TV.
Just out of interest what do you watch live?
Sport, Sky News, Sky Sports News, PMQs, the Budget - and the kids watch Disney Jr.
Actually that is shocking that you need to pay the BBC to watch Sky.
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
There is no rationale that is my point, it is the law.
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
There's a tax on owning a car, on buying chocolate, on travelling by plane. There are taxes on insurance, fuel for private cars, alcohol and tobacco.
There aren't many things that aren't taxed. I don't see anything shocking in there being a tax on watching live broadcast TV.
It is entirely unexceptional.
If I buy a Kia then my tax on that isn't bunged to Nissan. If I buy some Dairy Milk then my tax on that isn't bunged to Nestle If I fly by EasyJet then my tax on that isn't bunged to British Airways
And so on and so forth for everything else. I wouldn't care if TVs were taxed to fund education, the NHS etc - but to fund the BBC when I'm choosing to watch a different supplier? No thanks.
It's very revealing that the only two hypothecated taxes fund the BBC and universities.
Never rely on journalists for anything involving sums.
Yeah, is anyone surprised that gyms have the toughest regulations?
Yes. The disease is not spread by sweat, and the gym is one of the only places where people don’t tend to speak to each-other and generally keep a 2m distance anyway.
Comments
Yet we're forced by law to pay the TV tax even though we almost never watch the BBC.
As well as finding out - if it exists - its parameters. Could it be that infection with a low viral load coupled with resistance to another coronavirus (like one of the ones in the cold virus suite) can help you fight it off without needing to produce antibodies? There does seem to be a cohort of those who've had it without producing antibodies.
If so - would that provide any significant resistance to re-infection, though? No antibodies, after all. Re-infection with a higher viral load - you can see that producing a full infection again.
Or maybe some people have stalwart enough immune systems that they can shrug it off. Would be cool if so, and even cooler if I was one of them...
Indoor swimming pools and gyms and sports facilities will reopen from July 25th, 5 a side football and recreational cricket outdoors can restart this weekend
She must be cutting through.
Never pay off a student loan early. Golden rule.
Another tip: pay a lot into pensions. It reduces your income that the "loan" repayments are based on.
He really is going for the financially competent angle. Probably their best hope, gonna upset the Corbyn clan though.
Anyway, the poorest pensioners, those who receive pension credits, will not have to pay. I see no reason for distress or financial hardship.
Ok, he seems to be a bit of a tool. But he'll need to raise his game by orders of magnitude before he arouses my disgust like the other side does.
She was embarrassing
Jeez.
If you watch any live channel or stream any live program without a licence fee, even if its non-BBC, then you are breaking the law.
So even if I want to stream Sky News live I need a licence fee. Its a disgrace.
Let people subscribe if they want, don't compel it by law. Is that so hard? What is to be afraid of about making it optional?
Would she be the third death from the show if she has died?
The truth of the matter is you can’t attack Dodds for being useless and then support the Government and then by extension, Johnson. He is just as useless.
Hypocrisy as always from the PB Tories. Diddums is just sad I called him out again.
Diddums
I would not like to be making these decisions
https://news.sky.com/videos
Its really up to you, if it was as important as you make out you wouldnt be paying it.
4D chess and the grand capitulation
What is the rationale - satellite space or something? I know that the BBC pays Sky for satellite space...
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1281236923047182337?s=20
I have no care what you think or ignore
The Twitter account of the person posting it (see Isam's original post) is something to behold; I'm sure he's a patron of Lozza Fox.....
You must by law pay the licence fee if you watch any TV live, that is the law. That doesn't just include terrestrial TV - as a specific example if you were to live stream a football match from a non-BBC channel on your phone then you must by law pay the licence fee.
Just make the BBC fee an optional fee for those who wish to subscribe to the BBC. If the BBC is great then everyone will subscribe. What is the issue?
EDIT: PS Thank You for acknowledging that it is shocking.
Or perhaps he's now worrying more about the actual legal consequences to him, post election.
Never rely on journalists for anything involving sums.
There aren't many things that aren't taxed. I don't see anything shocking in there being a tax on watching live broadcast TV.
It is entirely unexceptional.
Just for the lols.
Its ridiculous that commercial stations seem to play more music despite the adverts than the advert-free BBC does. Again, if people wish to pay for the radio stations they should.
But don't we all pay taxes on things we don't like or use? Personally, for example, I'd rather not pay for Trident, but I accept that's just the way it is. Other will have many other things they never use, but still pay for. It's called a society.
If I buy some Dairy Milk then my tax on that isn't bunged to Nestle
If I fly by EasyJet then my tax on that isn't bunged to British Airways
And so on and so forth for everything else. I wouldn't care if TVs were taxed to fund education, the NHS etc - but to fund the BBC when I'm choosing to watch a different supplier? No thanks.
For about 12 months the only thing played in my car seemed to be the soundtrack to The Greatest Showman.
Imagine if those machines now have to be 10 feet apart