politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Sky News is right a move to get rid of Bercow is sensati
Comments
-
Goes to show a broken watch is right twice a day... :-)bigjohnowls said:You do not need a TV licence if you only watch content after it's been shown on television. This includes TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast using a catch-up service.
So if you record live programme you do
According to BBC
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
0 -
YG: 25 March 2010 Con 37 Lab 33
0 -
Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"0 -
Newsnight busy smearing Clarkson.0
-
"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."Smarmeron said:@Ishmael_X
I think I understood it correctly, since it was the basis of the complaint I made against two of their inspectors.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one?WT.ac=home_plt_check
Therefore the original statement "If you never watch live TV no need to buy a licence" was wrong. What you have been up to which has attracted the attention of not one but two tv inspectors, is rather off the point.0 -
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
0 -
She's a bloody disgrace if she does,what if a labour Government bring in more terror laws because of a threat of Islamic attack and ramp up the rhetoric.bigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 7m7 minutes ago
Baroness Warsi sparks fears she may defect after agreeing to speak at wannabe Labour MP’s meeting on Islamophobia: http://sunpl.us/6013N1cF
What will she do then,jump ship with the lib dems
0 -
I think it is BERK OUT!Scott_P said:It's a BERCOUP !!
0 -
But, if they're going to (foolishly) pledge to cut the deficit completely, I don't understand how it's possible to do that by ruling out all the tax rises Ed Balls did today, AND by not cutting spending significantly like the IFS is saying Labour wouldn't do.Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway0 -
Let's have another go!Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
Put up NI (again)
Put up income tax (again)
Increase tax on pensions (again)
* it all up (again)!
0 -
First two ruled outAve_it said:
Let's have another go!Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
Put up NI (again)
Put up income tax (again)
Increase tax on pensions (again)
* it all up (again)!0 -
Ishmael_X
It was my point, they were accusing me of something I didn't do.
Despite never having had a TV in about 10 years.
I know exactly where the law is, and I don't even stray remotely near that line.0 -
Employees and employers?bigjohnowls said:
First two ruled outAve_it said:
Let's have another go!Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
Put up NI (again)
Put up income tax (again)
Increase tax on pensions (again)
* it all up (again)!0 -
Do you believe it? I don't!!!bigjohnowls said:
First two ruled outAve_it said:
Let's have another go!Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
Put up NI (again)
Put up income tax (again)
Increase tax on pensions (again)
* it all up (again)!
More chance of England winning the cricket world cup 2019!!!!0 -
Employees ruled out by LabRobD said:
Employees and employers?bigjohnowls said:
First two ruled outAve_it said:
Let's have another go!Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
Put up NI (again)
Put up income tax (again)
Increase tax on pensions (again)
* it all up (again)!
Neither ruled out by Tories who have biggest black hole according to IFS
0 -
Moses_ said:
Goes to show a broken watch is right twice a day... :-)bigjohnowls said:You do not need a TV licence if you only watch content after it's been shown on television. This includes TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast using a catch-up service.
So if you record live programme you do
According to BBC
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
You may own a TV, like I do, and not need a TV licence (if you only use iPlayer (or watch DVDs or whatever)). At the same time you may not own a TV and still require a licence, if you stream live programmes. It's a mess that simply didn't exist ten years ago.
0 -
No mention of the biting by Thompson. No surprise.TheWatcher said:Newsnight busy smearing Clarkson.
0 -
Usually they don't, but if you have a freshly downloaded and recent live recording, it could constitute evidence.0
-
Ed Balls came out with a list of the 5 priorities for a Labour government. No less than 24 hours later the other Ed came out with a different 5 priorities for a Labour government.Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
I guess this is the definition of "joined up shadow government "
0 -
Well they must be helped by the fact they wouldn't have to decide whether you'd recorded the programme or watched it live. I guess they must just infer from the fact you've got a tuned TV, aerial plugged in, perhaps a hard-disk or VHS recorder there, that you've been watching programmes as they are broadcast.Moses_ said:0 -
Wow, Chris Leslie just said the way Conservatives debate is 'unfair'. He really is the heir to Miliband Minor0
-
OK I will biteTCPoliticalBetting said:
No mention of the biting by Thompson. No surprise.TheWatcher said:Newsnight busy smearing Clarkson.
Who did he bite?
0 -
Of course the get out is that whoever is in power is very likely to need a confidence and supply or coalition or deal by deal arrangement, so you can chuck the manifestoes in the bin before you've looked at them.0
-
They can't...if you go and look at how those who don't have a tv licence are prosecuted there is never any evidence of sort of sophisticated detection. It is overwhelmingly people admitting they have done something they shouldn't have.Moses_ said:
I was once in a situation where I could have a valid exemption from not having a tv licence. Very complicated, but totally within the law. I wrote to the licencing people and they sent questions on a number of occasions, always worded in a way that if I wasn't extremely careful with my answers (and of a high enough intelligence to have done my research to know what the underlying reason for the question was) I would open myself up to admitting watching a tv without a valid licence.
Actual "detection" on non payers is basically impossible these days, and another reason why the licence isn't fit for propose.0 -
Smarmeron said:
Usually they don't, but if you have a freshly downloaded and recent live recording, it could constitute evidence.
Ok good points madeGrandiose said:
Well they must be helped by the fact they wouldn't have to decide whether you'd recorded the programme or watched it live. I guess they must just infer from the fact you've got a tuned TV, aerial plugged in, perhaps a hard-disk or VHS recorder there, that you've been watching programmes as they are broadcast.Moses_ said:
How do they get access to this material given.... It's in my lounge and of course the worst thing of all for these guys....
They have to get past Mrs Moses.
No mean feat that. Scary even0 -
@Grandiose
Do people down your way still have aerials? How Quaint. All digi/cable/sat/ stuff here.0 -
You talking about the bloke who left in 2012?TCPoliticalBetting said:
No mention of the biting by Thompson. No surprise.TheWatcher said:Newsnight busy smearing Clarkson.
0 -
Anthony Massey when Mark Thompson was a producer on Newsnight.bigjohnowls said:
OK I will biteTCPoliticalBetting said:
No mention of the biting by Thompson. No surprise.TheWatcher said:Newsnight busy smearing Clarkson.
Who did he bite?
0 -
Leslie and Hancock on Newsnight re: the Miliband fluff at PMQ todays. They were both interrupting each other. He said that Hancock was interrupting and talking down to people, and that it wasn't fair.....Pulpstar said:
Eh ?Mortimer said:Wow, Chris Leslie just said the way Conservatives debate is 'unfair'. He really is the heir to Miliband Minor
What's he on about ?
0 -
Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping0 -
@bigjohnowls
Need you ask?0 -
SAVE THE FALKLANDS!
KEEP LABOUR OUT!!0 -
As FrancisUrquart notes there is little (if any) actual detection, so it must be either random checks, tip-offs or blundering fools. I'm not sure what the balance is.Moses_ said:Smarmeron said:Usually they don't, but if you have a freshly downloaded and recent live recording, it could constitute evidence.
Ok good points madeGrandiose said:
Well they must be helped by the fact they wouldn't have to decide whether you'd recorded the programme or watched it live. I guess they must just infer from the fact you've got a tuned TV, aerial plugged in, perhaps a hard-disk or VHS recorder there, that you've been watching programmes as they are broadcast.Moses_ said:
How do they get access to this material given.... It's in my lounge and of course the worst thing of all for these guys....
They have to get past Mrs Moses.
No mean feat that. Scary even0 -
Pulpstar Don't disagree0
-
I prefer Daz to ArielSmarmeron said:@Grandiose
Do people down your way still have aerials? How Quaint. All digi/cable/sat/ stuff here.0 -
Ok really not being difficult here but what happens if you just don't answer?FrancisUrquhart said:
They can't...if you go and look at how those who don't have a tv licence are prosecuted there is never any evidence of sort of sophisticated detection. It is overwhelmingly people admitting they have done something they shouldn't have.Moses_ said:
I was once in a situation where I could have a valid exemption from not having a tv licence. Very complicated, but totally within the law. I wrote to the licencing people and they sent questions on a number of occasions, always worded in a way that if I wasn't extremely careful with my answers (and of a high enough intelligence to have done my research to know what the underlying reason for the question was) I would open myself up to admitting watching a tv without a valid licence.
Actual "detection" on non payers is basically impossible these days, and another reason why the licence isn't fit for propose.
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
0 -
We still had an aerial back at my family home (and a landline internet connection). Here we have fibreoptic broadband, but still an aerial I think (we don't use it). My point must surely apply to at least satellite connections, where there isn't another use.Smarmeron said:@Grandiose
Do people down your way still have aerials? How Quaint. All digi/cable/sat/ stuff here.0 -
@Grandiose
The problem is that I have fibre optic broadband, but no TV package.
There are certain things you can watch "live" legally, and others that are a uniform grey colour that spells expensive court cases.0 -
It is all done on the premise that of thought that every household must have a tv these days, and there need a licence cross referenced against known exemptions. So any property that doesn't have one and no doctors note to say why they don't need one gets targeted to some degree or another.Grandiose said:
As FrancisUrquart notes there is little (if any) actual detection, so it must be either random checks, tip-offs or blundering fools. I'm not sure what the balance is.Moses_ said:Smarmeron said:Usually they don't, but if you have a freshly downloaded and recent live recording, it could constitute evidence.
Ok good points madeGrandiose said:
Well they must be helped by the fact they wouldn't have to decide whether you'd recorded the programme or watched it live. I guess they must just infer from the fact you've got a tuned TV, aerial plugged in, perhaps a hard-disk or VHS recorder there, that you've been watching programmes as they are broadcast.Moses_ said:
How do they get access to this material given.... It's in my lounge and of course the worst thing of all for these guys....
They have to get past Mrs Moses.
No mean feat that. Scary even
Then any sign of change of occupant at a particular address also gets attention.
There powers are actually very limited, but people don't know their rights and obviously cave in to demanding letter and potentially somebody at the door.0 -
Hancock says he knew VAT rise was ruled out on Monday
Didn't know why GO didn;t know yesterday or
Why the Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Priti Patel said she disnt know before PMQs
Sounded plausible!!0 -
If it's the BBC when he did it he probably saidTCPoliticalBetting said:
Anthony Massey when Mark Thompson was a producer on Newsnight.bigjohnowls said:
OK I will biteTCPoliticalBetting said:
No mention of the biting by Thompson. No surprise.TheWatcher said:Newsnight busy smearing Clarkson.
Who did he bite?
" do you want lies with that? "0 -
Ed Balls made reference to what he called the "current account deficit" which is little to do with the deficit as we know it... Its about the difference between what we import and what we export.Moses_ said:
Ed Balls came out with a list of the 5 priorities for a Labour government. No less than 24 hours later the other Ed came out with a different 5 priorities for a Labour government.Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
I guess this is the definition of "joined up shadow government "
0 -
Labour's policy is stuff everybody and everybody knows it. Oh - except in Scotland. So much for One Nation.RobD said:
Employees and employers?bigjohnowls said:
First two ruled outAve_it said:
Let's have another go!Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway
Put up NI (again)
Put up income tax (again)
Increase tax on pensions (again)
* it all up (again)!
I admit grudgingly that those brave hearts who were upset at the CCHQ pictures of Miliband did have a point. However that's how you look when you have a thistle stuck up your bum.0 -
I'm showing my youth here, but I'm told you were asked about TV licences when you bought a TV, back in the day. There's just no way this system can continue, it makes little practical sense. Or indeed moral: I can watch hours of iPlayer and pay for none of it, while people less fortunate than me stump up for EastEnders four times a week.Moses_ said:
Ok really not being difficult here but what happens if you just don't answer?FrancisUrquhart said:
They can't...if you go and look at how those who don't have a tv licence are prosecuted there is never any evidence of sort of sophisticated detection. It is overwhelmingly people admitting they have done something they shouldn't have.Moses_ said:
I was once in a situation where I could have a valid exemption from not having a tv licence. Very complicated, but totally within the law. I wrote to the licencing people and they sent questions on a number of occasions, always worded in a way that if I wasn't extremely careful with my answers (and of a high enough intelligence to have done my research to know what the underlying reason for the question was) I would open myself up to admitting watching a tv without a valid licence.
Actual "detection" on non payers is basically impossible these days, and another reason why the licence isn't fit for propose.
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
The future funding of the BBC has to be either through the general taxation, if you think a public broadcaster is justified, or of course scrapped if you don't. "Household levies" just obscure the issue.
0 -
99% of the populace are obviously sheeple, happy to pay for their own brainwashing. I've never had a licence. I've been receiving the threatening letters about every fortnight for 25 years...Moses_ said:
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
Laughable that anyone pays.
0 -
The current account also includes net income, such as interest and dividends, as well as transfers, such as foreign aidnotme said:
Ed Balls made reference to what he called the "current account deficit" which is little to do with the deficit as we know it... Its about the difference between what we import and what we export.Moses_ said:
Ed Balls came out with a list of the 5 priorities for a Labour government. No less than 24 hours later the other Ed came out with a different 5 priorities for a Labour government.Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
I guess this is the definition of "joined up shadow government "0 -
@RodCrosby
I get very occasional reminders, but it is just one tick and send it in the envelope provided
0 -
Grow a pair, and stop paying.Smarmeron said:@RodCrosby
I get very occasional reminders, but it is just one tick and send it in the envelope provided0 -
If you buy a tv or accessory now, they ask for an address (if you buy in store) or obviously if you buy online they have an address..that is forwarded to the licencing people.Grandiose said:
I'm showing my youth here, but I'm told you were asked about TV licences when you bought a TV, back in the day. There's just no way this system can continue, it makes little practical sense. Or indeed moral: I can watch hours of iPlayer and pay for none of it, while people less fortunate than me stump up for EastEnders four times a week.Moses_ said:
Ok really not being difficult here but what happens if you just don't answer?FrancisUrquhart said:
They can't...if you go and look at how those who don't have a tv licence are prosecuted there is never any evidence of sort of sophisticated detection. It is overwhelmingly people admitting they have done something they shouldn't have.Moses_ said:
I was once in a situation where I could have a valid exemption from not having a tv licence. Very complicated, but totally within the law. I wrote to the licencing people and they sent questions on a number of occasions, always worded in a way that if I wasn't extremely careful with my answers (and of a high enough intelligence to have done my research to know what the underlying reason for the question was) I would open myself up to admitting watching a tv without a valid licence.
Actual "detection" on non payers is basically impossible these days, and another reason why the licence isn't fit for propose.
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
The future funding of the BBC has to be either through the general taxation, if you think a public broadcaster is justified, or of course scrapped if you don't. "Household levies" just obscure the issue.
I had a guy in store a few years back give me a right ear full when I wouldn't tell him, as I was in a rush and I wanted an aerial for something and just wanted to get in, pay me £10 and get out.
There are obviously a million different ways to avoid any of the above if you were to be so inclined.0 -
I pay for the same reason I pay my train fare even though I know which routes are checked, and which stations have barriers: I receive a product or service I value enough to pay the charged amount for. It doesn't matter if I could get away with paying zero, I'm happy paying anyway.RodCrosby said:
99% of the populace are obviously sheeple, happy to pay for their own brainwashing. I've never had a licence. I've been receiving the threatening letters about every fortnight for 25 years...Moses_ said:
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
Laughable that anyone pays.0 -
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?
0 -
they no longer collect addresses for tv purchases.FrancisUrquhart said:
If you buy a tv or accessory now, they ask for an address (if you buy in store) or obviously if you buy online they have an address..that is forwarded to the licencing people.Grandiose said:
I'm showing my youth here, but I'm told you were asked about TV licences when you bought a TV, back in the day. There's just no way this system can continue, it makes little practical sense. Or indeed moral: I can watch hours of iPlayer and pay for none of it, while people less fortunate than me stump up for EastEnders four times a week.Moses_ said:
Ok really not being difficult here but what happens if you just don't answer?FrancisUrquhart said:
They can't...if you go and look at how those who don't have a tv licence are prosecuted there is never any evidence of sort of sophisticated detection. It is overwhelmingly people admitting they have done something they shouldn't have.Moses_ said:
I was once in a situation where I could have a valid exemption from not having a tv licence. Very complicated, but totally within the law. I wrote to the licencing people and they sent questions on a number of occasions, always worded in a way that if I wasn't extremely careful with my answers (and of a high enough intelligence to have done my research to know what the underlying reason for the question was) I would open myself up to admitting watching a tv without a valid licence.
Actual "detection" on non payers is basically impossible these days, and another reason why the licence isn't fit for propose.
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
The future funding of the BBC has to be either through the general taxation, if you think a public broadcaster is justified, or of course scrapped if you don't. "Household levies" just obscure the issue.
I had a guy in store a few years back give me a right ear full when I wouldn't tell him, as I was in a rush and I wanted an aerial for something and just wanted to get in, pay me £10 and get out.
There are obviously a million different ways to avoid any of the above if you were to be so inclined.0 -
@RodCrosby
I haven't had a licence in years.
After I put in the complaint, they put it on computer, and I get an occasional letter inquiring if anything has changed, I tick no, and send it back.
They are being reasonable, so I return the favour.0 -
BBC Sport @BBCSport 7h7 hours ago
The son of rock star Rod Stewart has been named in GB's ice hockey World Championship squad.
When asked about it apparently Rod said.
I don't want to talk about it
Gets Coat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azcy9_F0DCE0 -
Well you learn something new every day.notme said:
they no longer collect addresses for tv purchases.FrancisUrquhart said:
If you buy a tv or accessory now, they ask for an address (if you buy in store) or obviously if you buy online they have an address..that is forwarded to the licencing people.Grandiose said:
I'm showing my youth here, but I'm told you were asked about TV licences when you bought a TV, back in the day. There's just no way this system can continue, it makes little practical sense. Or indeed moral: I can watch hours of iPlayer and pay for none of it, while people less fortunate than me stump up for EastEnders four times a week.Moses_ said:
Ok really not being difficult here but what happens if you just don't answer?FrancisUrquhart said:
They can't...if you go and look at how those who don't have a tv licence are prosecuted there is never any evidence of sort of sophisticated detection. It is overwhelmingly people admitting they have done something they shouldn't have.Moses_ said:
I was once in a situation where I could have a valid exemption from not having a tv licence. Very complicated, but totally within the law. I wrote to the licencing people and they sent questions on a number of occasions, always worded in a way that if I wasn't extremely careful with my answers (and of a high enough intelligence to have done my research to know what the underlying reason for the question was) I would open myself up to admitting watching a tv without a valid licence.
Actual "detection" on non payers is basically impossible these days, and another reason why the licence isn't fit for propose.
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
The future funding of the BBC has to be either through the general taxation, if you think a public broadcaster is justified, or of course scrapped if you don't. "Household levies" just obscure the issue.
I had a guy in store a few years back give me a right ear full when I wouldn't tell him, as I was in a rush and I wanted an aerial for something and just wanted to get in, pay me £10 and get out.
There are obviously a million different ways to avoid any of the above if you were to be so inclined.0 -
if Osborne and Cameron had already decided before yesterday, and Osborne kept it quiet at the select committee in order to ambush Labour at a later date, you have to give him enormous credit for timing and strategy.bigjohnowls said:Hancock says he knew VAT rise was ruled out on Monday
Didn't know why GO didn;t know yesterday or
Why the Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury) Priti Patel said she disnt know before PMQs
Sounded plausible!!
It was deployed for maximum impact.0 -
What do you mean, he has been there since 2010.Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?0 -
compouter2 said:
What do you mean, he has been there since 2010.Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?
0 -
What Grandoise said but on this occasion I really would like to have a choice rather than court or jail....RodCrosby said:
99% of the populace are obviously sheeple, happy to pay for their own brainwashing. I've never had a licence. I've been receiving the threatening letters about every fortnight for 25 years...Moses_ said:
Not known at this address, previous occupant moved on ... The dog ate it and ate the postman as well?
If 10% or the populace did that it's over.... As you say not fit for modern purpose.
Laughable that anyone pays.
In ny position I cannot afford either even the threat of it.
Really is a pain. It just is
0 -
EdM would happily let the Argies invade Englandcompouter2 said:
What do you mean, he has been there since 2010.Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?0 -
Still no general media hype for the Cameron / Miliband programme on C4 / Sky tomorrow night.
If BBC, ITV etc don't plug it then it is only going to get an audience of approx 2m to 3m.
It's also arguably going to be too late to lead the BBC and ITV 10pm News programmes as it runs from 9pm to 10.30pm.
Miliband has won the coin toss and is going second. So the format is:
Cameron - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Cameron - audience Q & A
Miliband - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Miliband - audience Q & A
If BBC / ITV want to lead on it at 10pm they will almost certainly have to go with Cameron first. But hard to see them having any poll results by then.
Huge contrast to 2010.0 -
Its right that no one from a major party or any party stand against the Speaker. He is the Speaker.Garethofthevale said:What I don't get is if the Tories and LDs want rid of Bercow the easiest way to get rid of him would surely be to both stand candidates in Buckingham.
In 2005, when Bercow was a Con the vote was Con 57%, Lab 20%, LD 20%, UKIP 3%
In 2010 as speaker it was Bercow 44%, John Stevens 21%, Farage 17%, various others 18%
Now if Bercow picked up much of the LD and Lab vote, then that suggests he didn't hold on to much of his Con vote.
UKIP and Green are already standing against him and if Con and LD did too I couldn't see him winning
However it seems equally right that given the power of the Speaker over his electorate that any election should be by secret ballot.
Previously in more realistic less televised days the Speaker was 'elected' by acclamation not election. Now when clearly we have a Celebrity Speaker it has become inevitable that it should be not only be by ballot but secret ballot.
This is all that is being proposed. If centuries of tradition are being overturned the fault lies not with those proposing the quite democratic change.
Were Cameron Miliband or Clegg as leaders elected by public or secret ballot? Are strikes called by public ballot?
The fact that Labour are upset shows that the change is needed.0 -
ay, renaming a huge swathe of antartica as queen elizabeth land was an entirely responsible move too...Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?0 -
Went to MATT Forde political party in Victoria tonight.. Very good I thoroughly recommend it to all PBers
Neil kinnock is the guest in May, April and June tbc
Got to chat w him and David Lammy in the pub after... Lammy is a down to earth kind of bloke it seems0 -
means tested owl taxDanny565 said:
But, if they're going to (foolishly) pledge to cut the deficit completely, I don't understand how it's possible to do that by ruling out all the tax rises Ed Balls did today, AND by not cutting spending significantly like the IFS is saying Labour wouldn't do.Pulpstar said:
Lets have a go:Danny565 said:Can Nick Palmer (or anyone else) please tell me what Labour's economic policies are? I genuinely have no idea at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, Ed Balls says he will get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament (the same as the Tories), then the next week the IFS says there's a huge difference between the Tories' deficit reduction plans and Labour's. Then there's occasionally suggestions that Labour would close the deficit mainly through tax rises, but today Balls said Labour wouldn't raise any of the 3 main taxes.
Not to mention how they don't seem to be able to give a clear (or consistent) answer to the question of "would a Labour government cut spending significantly?"
Put up the top rate of tax
Put a tax on £2million homes
Put the IHT threshold up to a million.
Two out of those three anyway0 -
I was flicking around the channels earlier and I did see a an advert for it with Paxman and Burley...and they hardly managed to build up my excitement and I am not your average guy in the street who normally turns over when politics comes on.MikeL said:Still no general media hype for the Cameron / Miliband programme on C4 / Sky tomorrow night.
If BBC, ITV etc don't plug it then it is only going to get an audience of approx 2m to 3m.
It's also arguably going to be too late to lead the BBC and ITV 10pm News programmes as it runs from 9pm to 10.30pm.
Miliband has won the coin toss and is going second. So the format is:
Cameron - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Cameron - audience Q & A
Miliband - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Miliband - audience Q & A
If BBC / ITV want to lead on it at 10pm they will almost certainly have to go with Cameron first. But hard to see them having any poll results by then.
Huge contrast to 2010.
Is it even mentioned on the front pages of any papers?0 -
you obviously missed this part of my postcompouter2 said:
What do you mean, he has been there since 2010.Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
The most disgraceful thing for me was labour harping on about the attack on a surface warship within the exclusion zone irrespective of the direction of travel. As someone who just may have received an incoming from that that vessel that confirmed my perceptions of labour entirely.
Then they did Iraq...........
0 -
Labour fears?bigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 7m7 minutes ago
Baroness Warsi sparks fears she may defect after agreeing to speak at wannabe Labour MP’s meeting on Islamophobia: http://sunpl.us/6013N1cF0 -
No one is interested in the debates or interviews
Only in England-Lithuania euro 20160 -
I'm sure this will have been posted but I can't be bothered to look for it. This is how to bitch slap. Dear Jeremy....Love Piers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011547/Piers-Morgan-Dear-Jeremy-big-mistake-hitting-loyal-hard-working-producer-not-again.html0 -
There's no mention of it anywhere.FrancisUrquhart said:
I was flicking around the channels earlier and I did see a an advert for it with Paxman and Burley...and they hardly managed to build up my excitement and I am not your average guy in the street who normally turns over when politics comes on.MikeL said:Still no general media hype for the Cameron / Miliband programme on C4 / Sky tomorrow night.
If BBC, ITV etc don't plug it then it is only going to get an audience of approx 2m to 3m.
It's also arguably going to be too late to lead the BBC and ITV 10pm News programmes as it runs from 9pm to 10.30pm.
Miliband has won the coin toss and is going second. So the format is:
Cameron - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Cameron - audience Q & A
Miliband - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Miliband - audience Q & A
If BBC / ITV want to lead on it at 10pm they will almost certainly have to go with Cameron first. But hard to see them having any poll results by then.
Huge contrast to 2010.
Is it even mentioned on the front pages of any papers?
Remember last time - each debate was the lead story for about two days before and afterwards. And that's what is needed to generate the huge audience - if everyone is told "this is a mega event" then people watch.
None of the above is happening this time.
I expect much more for the 7 person debate next week - but it looks as if tomorrow's event is going to pass in a very low key fashion.0 -
Give it a year or so and the gloating might be reversed....If I was Piers I would be making sure the lawyers I have on call are absolutely top notch...never know what the future might bring.Roger said:I'm sure this will have been posted but I can't be bothered to look for it. This is how to bitch slap. Dear Jeremy....Love Piers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011547/Piers-Morgan-Dear-Jeremy-big-mistake-hitting-loyal-hard-working-producer-not-again.html
In other news...hidden deep far from the front page of the clusterf##k new bbc new website...
The judge hearing claims for damages by victims of phone hacking against Mirror Group Newspapers has adjourned to consider his judgement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320516770 -
She ought to have been expelled by the Tories after her disgraceful decision to attend a meeting in Parliament arranged by a supporter of Al Qaeda. Labour should withdraw the whip from Andy Slaughter and other MPs doing the same.isam said:
Labour fears?bigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 7m7 minutes ago
Baroness Warsi sparks fears she may defect after agreeing to speak at wannabe Labour MP’s meeting on Islamophobia: http://sunpl.us/6013N1cF
0 -
There is an election and politicians are being interviewed. Wow. Is this a plot or something? Kipper K seems very pro Labour.FrancisUrquhart said:
I was flicking around the channels earlier and I did see a an advert for it with Paxman and Burley...and they hardly managed to build up my excitement and I am not your average guy in the street who normally turns over when politics comes on.MikeL said:Still no general media hype for the Cameron / Miliband programme on C4 / Sky tomorrow night.
If BBC, ITV etc don't plug it then it is only going to get an audience of approx 2m to 3m.
It's also arguably going to be too late to lead the BBC and ITV 10pm News programmes as it runs from 9pm to 10.30pm.
Miliband has won the coin toss and is going second. So the format is:
Cameron - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Cameron - audience Q & A
Miliband - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Miliband - audience Q & A
If BBC / ITV want to lead on it at 10pm they will almost certainly have to go with Cameron first. But hard to see them having any poll results by then.
Huge contrast to 2010.
Is it even mentioned on the front pages of any papers?
The fact that Mr K wants 'poll results', and instantly, just shows why 'debates' are a perversion of true argument true campaigning.0 -
Now Paxman might destroy Cameron and / or Miliband tomorrow, but the trailer sounded just like the ones from his final year on Newsnight...mailing it in.Flightpath said:
There is an election and politicians are being interviewed. Wow. Is this a plot or something? Kipper K seems very pro Labour.FrancisUrquhart said:
I was flicking around the channels earlier and I did see a an advert for it with Paxman and Burley...and they hardly managed to build up my excitement and I am not your average guy in the street who normally turns over when politics comes on.MikeL said:Still no general media hype for the Cameron / Miliband programme on C4 / Sky tomorrow night.
If BBC, ITV etc don't plug it then it is only going to get an audience of approx 2m to 3m.
It's also arguably going to be too late to lead the BBC and ITV 10pm News programmes as it runs from 9pm to 10.30pm.
Miliband has won the coin toss and is going second. So the format is:
Cameron - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Cameron - audience Q & A
Miliband - Paxman interview (18 mins)
Miliband - audience Q & A
If BBC / ITV want to lead on it at 10pm they will almost certainly have to go with Cameron first. But hard to see them having any poll results by then.
Huge contrast to 2010.
Is it even mentioned on the front pages of any papers?
The fact that Mr K wants 'poll results', and instantly, just shows why 'debates' are a perversion of true argument true campaigning.0 -
GN all0
-
Perhaps no one noticed but Germany played Australia tonight. For 80 minutes the Ozies were 2-1 head FFS. Only then did Germany get an equaliser to end it as a draw..... At home in Germany .... against OZ?Ave_it said:No one is interested in the debates or interviews
Only in England-Lithuania euro 2016
Heart of stone country ... Sat in Germany now and the bleating is a joy to behold.
0 -
Its part of the British Antarctic territory.dugarbandier said:
ay, renaming a huge swathe of antartica as queen elizabeth land was an entirely responsible move too...Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?0 -
YouGov is the new Gold Standard!TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%
0 -
Which Labour MP is most likely to get "stuck on a train" if a tight Queen's speech vote is needed :P
1) Danzcuk
2) Woodcock
3) Murphy0 -
I believe the word is Schadenfreude!Moses_ said:
Perhaps no one noticed but Germany played Australia tonight. For 80 minutes the Ozies were 2-1 head FFS. Only then did Germany get an equaliser to end it as a draw..... At home in Germany .... against OZ?Ave_it said:No one is interested in the debates or interviews
Only in England-Lithuania euro 2016
Heart of stone country ... Sat in Germany now and the bleating is a joy to behold.0 -
Cyclefree
"She ought to have been expelled by the Tories after her disgraceful decision to attend a meeting in Parliament arranged by a supporter of Al Qaeda. Labour should withdraw the whip from Andy Slaughter and other MPs doing the same."
Rather difficult to understand your much touted views on freedom of the press. All I can work out is that freedom of speech should be an absolute right but only for people approved by you.0 -
Haha!isam said:
Labour fears?bigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 7m7 minutes ago
Baroness Warsi sparks fears she may defect after agreeing to speak at wannabe Labour MP’s meeting on Islamophobia: http://sunpl.us/6013N1cF0 -
Presumably he arrived on a Downtown Train.bigjohnowls said:BBC Sport @BBCSport 7h7 hours ago
The son of rock star Rod Stewart has been named in GB's ice hockey World Championship squad.
When asked about it apparently Rod said.
I don't want to talk about it
Gets Coat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azcy9_F0DCE
Ice hockey being a violent sport, remember that the First Cut is the Deepest.0 -
Penguins had a 99.9% vote in favour LOLFlightpath said:
Its part of the British Antarctic territory.dugarbandier said:
ay, renaming a huge swathe of antartica as queen elizabeth land was an entirely responsible move too...Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?0 -
Its important to let such meetings, as long as peaceful, carry on in public.Cyclefree said:
She ought to have been expelled by the Tories after her disgraceful decision to attend a meeting in Parliament arranged by a supporter of Al Qaeda. Labour should withdraw the whip from Andy Slaughter and other MPs doing the same.isam said:
Labour fears?bigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 7m7 minutes ago
Baroness Warsi sparks fears she may defect after agreeing to speak at wannabe Labour MP’s meeting on Islamophobia: http://sunpl.us/6013N1cF
Not least you can watch everyone go in, everyone leave and turn up & get a nice copy of the attendees list.0 -
@Y0kel
So easy even the "Met" could manage it?
MPs 'monitored by Scotland Yard during 1990s'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-320445800 -
- when they weren't reading paperbacks.....Sunil_Prasannan said:
Penguins had a 99.9% vote in favour LOLFlightpath said:
Its part of the British Antarctic territory.dugarbandier said:
ay, renaming a huge swathe of antartica as queen elizabeth land was an entirely responsible move too...Moses_ said:
I wishbigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
A new Falklands invasion by Argentina is “a live threat”, says the Defence Secretary
Are the Sun reporting news 33 years late or just ramping
Serious economic issues and financial problems in Argentina. The President is also under investigation. She and the government need to to deflect attention quickly and take the heat of and with an uncertain election in UK perfect opportunity. They even printed a bank note with Malvinas don't you know?
Our present government is taking a responsible approach to protect and defend the sovereign right of the people of the FI to be governed as they wish under the United Nations.
However If the utter fuckwit makes it to No 10 who knows?
maybe one of them opened a betting book
0 -
Oh dear. The petrol head who packs a punch. North Yorkshire police investigate. That should keep him occupied for the next 20 years0
