FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > BBC's fee for pensioners
BBC's fee for pensioners
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They get 3.6 billion in FREE money from the British Public and another 1.2 billion in 'other' incomes. It's despicable that it shouldn't be an advert or subscription service in 2020. And it will go that way too. BBC should pay their Managers and Stars less. If they want to subsidise any sector of the population. " If they paid them less, they'd probably go to other channels. Why should pensioners not pay their license fee anyway? I can't think of any country (apart from the US - it would be them) that doesn't have a national broadcaster subsidised by a TV license. The tories want to weaken the BBC because they're clearly not happy to only have the control of 85% of the media in this country. Poor sods. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Furthermore. If the BBC is so good then there will be and endless Q of willing subscribers. Add Advertiser Revenue. Merchandising (odd we are not all entitled to that anyway, bearing in mind we paid a fee to produce it). Onward sales of World Wide sales of programmes. They would be earning a damn sight more than 3.6 billion licence fee alone. " Isn't the point of the BBC that it doesn't have adverts? I think it's become a political issue as the tories bizarrely think it is some sort of left wing institution. I do think it's one of the few things we as a country should be proud about..and I'd hate to see it replaced by some sort of sky clone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Furthermore. If the BBC is so good then there will be and endless Q of willing subscribers. Add Advertiser Revenue. Merchandising (odd we are not all entitled to that anyway, bearing in mind we paid a fee to produce it). Onward sales of World Wide sales of programmes. They would be earning a damn sight more than 3.6 billion licence fee alone. Isn't the point of the BBC that it doesn't have adverts? I think it's become a political issue as the tories bizarrely think it is some sort of left wing institution. I do think it's one of the few things we as a country should be proud about..and I'd hate to see it replaced by some sort of sky clone." Nope. The point of the BBC is to make television content. Not having adverts is so that they can get that money through a license fee. If the got paid for adverts they couldn't charge a license fee - time has moved on since the days of Alexandra Palace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are the BBC still paying compensation to the victims of Jimmy Savile, or have they fully paid up now? " Did he have to give up his knighthood? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Furthermore. If the BBC is so good then there will be and endless Q of willing subscribers. Add Advertiser Revenue. Merchandising (odd we are not all entitled to that anyway, bearing in mind we paid a fee to produce it). Onward sales of World Wide sales of programmes. They would be earning a damn sight more than 3.6 billion licence fee alone. Isn't the point of the BBC that it doesn't have adverts? I think it's become a political issue as the tories bizarrely think it is some sort of left wing institution. I do think it's one of the few things we as a country should be proud about..and I'd hate to see it replaced by some sort of sky clone. Nope. The point of the BBC is to make television content. Not having adverts is so that they can get that money through a license fee. If the got paid for adverts they couldn't charge a license fee - time has moved on since the days of Alexandra Palace. " Which they do brilliantly tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Furthermore. If the BBC is so good then there will be and endless Q of willing subscribers. Add Advertiser Revenue. Merchandising (odd we are not all entitled to that anyway, bearing in mind we paid a fee to produce it). Onward sales of World Wide sales of programmes. They would be earning a damn sight more than 3.6 billion licence fee alone. Isn't the point of the BBC that it doesn't have adverts? I think it's become a political issue as the tories bizarrely think it is some sort of left wing institution. I do think it's one of the few things we as a country should be proud about..and I'd hate to see it replaced by some sort of sky clone. Nope. The point of the BBC is to make television content. Not having adverts is so that they can get that money through a license fee. If the got paid for adverts they couldn't charge a license fee - time has moved on since the days of Alexandra Palace. Which they do brilliantly tbf." Netflix do too - but I choose to subscribe to them, and not be mugged by the BBC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The idea of having subsidised channels is that they can take risks and show programmes that would not be viable commercially. It is a bit like subsidising films like some european countries. Why do you think France has such a vibrant cinema industry for example? When you stop doing so, it's all about making money and you try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and you often end up with shitty programmes in order to attract advertisers. The ratings of BBC2 must be dire at times but it's probably be one of the best channels in Europe. Wanting to commercialise everything is just sad and will hamper creativity. As for those saying, why should I Pay the license fee when I don't often watch the BBC, I feel like saying, why did I pay for the NHS all year when I didn't go to hospital or the doctor? The BBC is a British institution and is recognised as such all over the world. I don't want it to be Channel 4 and show me crappy programmes just because they need to be commercially attractive" If you think of all the great tele shows over the years A big chunk of them have been from the bbc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The idea of having subsidised channels is that they can take risks and show programmes that would not be viable commercially. It is a bit like subsidising films like some european countries. Why do you think France has such a vibrant cinema industry for example? When you stop doing so, it's all about making money and you try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and you often end up with shitty programmes in order to attract advertisers. The ratings of BBC2 must be dire at times but it's probably be one of the best channels in Europe. Wanting to commercialise everything is just sad and will hamper creativity. As for those saying, why should I Pay the license fee when I don't often watch the BBC, I feel like saying, why did I pay for the NHS all year when I didn't go to hospital or the doctor? The BBC is a British institution and is recognised as such all over the world. I don't want it to be Channel 4 and show me crappy programmes just because they need to be commercially attractive If you think of all the great tele shows over the years A big chunk of them have been from the bbc" And they have been exported all over the world because they are in English so they can be bought by so many other countries. The BBC is probably the most respected British thing. People don’t even realise how fantastic it is compared to German, French, Italian, American tv etc... Let’s kill one of the last thing to be proud of.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what do you get for your licence fee television channels BBC One BBC Two BBC Three BBC Four CBBC CBeebies BBC News Channel BBC Parliament BBC ALBA BBC World News S4C BBC Hindi TV BBC Marathi TV BBC Scotland National Radio Radio Glastonbury Radio 1 Radio 1Xtra Radio 2 Radio 2 Country Radio 2 Eurovision Music Jazz Radio 3 Radio 4 Radio 4 Extra Radio 5 live Radio 5 live sports extra Radio 6 Music Asian Network World Service Radio 1 Vintage CBeebies Radio Nations Radio Radio Scotland Radio Cymru 2 Radio Scotland Music Extra Radio nan Gàidheal Radio Ulster Radio Foyle Radio Wales Radio Cymru Radio Berkshire Radio Bristol Radio Cambridgeshire Radio Cornwall Coventry & Warwickshire Radio Cumbria Radio Derby Radio Devon Essex Radio Gloucestershire Radio Guernsey Hereford & Worcester Radio Humberside Radio Jersey Radio Kent Radio Lancashire Radio Leeds Radio Leicester Radio Lincolnshire Radio London Radio Manchester Radio Merseyside Newcastle Radio Norfolk Radio Northampton Radio Nottingham Radio Oxford Radio Sheffield Radio Shropshire Radio Solent Somerset Radio Stoke Radio Suffolk Surrey Sussex Tees Three Counties Radio Wiltshire WM 95.6 Radio York all for the less than the cost of your morning starbuck yet so many are willing to thow it all away .be carefull what you wish for " Or you could donate the £157.50 to a family in a third world country to simply stay alive, and you could watch one of the hundreds of free tv channels, or listen to one of the thousands of free radio stations. Nice to have the choice  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what do you get for your licence fee television channels BBC One BBC Two BBC Three BBC Four CBBC CBeebies BBC News Channel BBC Parliament BBC ALBA BBC World News S4C BBC Hindi TV BBC Marathi TV BBC Scotland National Radio Radio Glastonbury Radio 1 Radio 1Xtra Radio 2 Radio 2 Country Radio 2 Eurovision Music Jazz Radio 3 Radio 4 Radio 4 Extra Radio 5 live Radio 5 live sports extra Radio 6 Music Asian Network World Service Radio 1 Vintage CBeebies Radio Nations Radio Radio Scotland Radio Cymru 2 Radio Scotland Music Extra Radio nan Gàidheal Radio Ulster Radio Foyle Radio Wales Radio Cymru Radio Berkshire Radio Bristol Radio Cambridgeshire Radio Cornwall Coventry & Warwickshire Radio Cumbria Radio Derby Radio Devon Essex Radio Gloucestershire Radio Guernsey Hereford & Worcester Radio Humberside Radio Jersey Radio Kent Radio Lancashire Radio Leeds Radio Leicester Radio Lincolnshire Radio London Radio Manchester Radio Merseyside Newcastle Radio Norfolk Radio Northampton Radio Nottingham Radio Oxford Radio Sheffield Radio Shropshire Radio Solent Somerset Radio Stoke Radio Suffolk Surrey Sussex Tees Three Counties Radio Wiltshire WM 95.6 Radio York all for the less than the cost of your morning starbuck yet so many are willing to thow it all away .be carefull what you wish for " And if you live in one of those places they might just be important to you - So why pay for all the others? You get a *&^&* load of programmes from Sky. Amazon Prime. Netflix. Disney. Now TV. Apple TV. Virgin etc. I can chose or chose NOT to watch any of them. And just as many independant Radio programmes supported by Adverts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's just pay a small fee for a independent channel, say £20,00 a year. One TV and one radio station, why 40 odd radio stations and 5 TV. Other channel's could be subscribed like UK gold that's a BBC commercial channel " You clearly don't get what the BBC is about. What is fascinating is that often the BBC haters are also, Brexiters, climate change deniers, anti-unions, anti-vaccine, pro-privatisation of the NHS, fans of conspiracy theories, flat earthers, pro populist governments etc...It's probably a coincidence. Please note the word OFTEN before you accuse me of putting everybody in the same bag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what do you get for your licence fee Or you could donate the £157.50 to a family in a third world country to simply stay alive, and you could watch one of the hundreds of free tv channels, or listen to one of the thousands of free radio stations. Nice to have the choice "Excellent post !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what do you get for your licence fee television channels BBC One BBC Two BBC Three BBC Four CBBC CBeebies BBC News Channel BBC Parliament BBC ALBA BBC World News S4C BBC Hindi TV BBC Marathi TV BBC Scotland National Radio Radio Glastonbury Radio 1 Radio 1Xtra Radio 2 Radio 2 Country Radio 2 Eurovision Music Jazz Radio 3 Radio 4 Radio 4 Extra Radio 5 live Radio 5 live sports extra Radio 6 Music Asian Network World Service Radio 1 Vintage CBeebies Radio Nations Radio Radio Scotland Radio Cymru 2 Radio Scotland Music Extra Radio nan Gàidheal Radio Ulster Radio Foyle Radio Wales Radio Cymru Radio Berkshire Radio Bristol Radio Cambridgeshire Radio Cornwall Coventry & Warwickshire Radio Cumbria Radio Derby Radio Devon Essex Radio Gloucestershire Radio Guernsey Hereford & Worcester Radio Humberside Radio Jersey Radio Kent Radio Lancashire Radio Leeds Radio Leicester Radio Lincolnshire Radio London Radio Manchester Radio Merseyside Newcastle Radio Norfolk Radio Northampton Radio Nottingham Radio Oxford Radio Sheffield Radio Shropshire Radio Solent Somerset Radio Stoke Radio Suffolk Surrey Sussex Tees Three Counties Radio Wiltshire WM 95.6 Radio York all for the less than the cost of your morning starbuck yet so many are willing to thow it all away .be carefull what you wish for And if you live in one of those places they might just be important to you - So why pay for all the others? You get a *&^&* load of programmes from Sky. Amazon Prime. Netflix. Disney. Now TV. Apple TV. Virgin etc. I can chose or chose NOT to watch any of them. And just as many independant Radio programmes supported by Adverts. " Because we live in a world where not everything is meant to be about me, me, me, me, me, me. It's also nice to share things even if we don't use them personally. I don't use my local library but I pay for it through my council tax. I don't have a problem with it! It's more and more difficult for people to agree with this type of concepts nowadays because we have been trained to become selfish and individualistic about everything but a national TV is part of a national heritage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You clearly don't get what the BBC is about. " Its about makin TV programmes. No more no less. " What is fascinating is that often the BBC haters are also, Brexiters, climate change deniers, anti-unions, anti-vaccine, pro-privatisation of the NHS, fans of conspiracy theories, flat earthers, pro populist governments etc...It's probably a coincidence. " hahahaha gawd you do reach don't you? Frankly I'm a mass murderer and my eyes are close together too. Typical bad sort. ". . . putting everybody in the same bag." Read what you wrote above this - same bag and all that !!! hahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You clearly don't get what the BBC is about. Its about makin TV programmes. No more no less. What is fascinating is that often the BBC haters are also, Brexiters, climate change deniers, anti-unions, anti-vaccine, pro-privatisation of the NHS, fans of conspiracy theories, flat earthers, pro populist governments etc...It's probably a coincidence. hahahaha gawd you do reach don't you? Frankly I'm a mass murderer and my eyes are close together too. Typical bad sort. . . . putting everybody in the same bag. Read what you wrote above this - same bag and all that !!! hahaha" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. " No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all." You'd like to think. . Anyway, that's not quite the point of the topic. I knew that would attract of a few criticisms from the right wingers. We should probably go back to the main topic. I am to blame for the diversion.
It'd be more intersteing to read your views about the me, me, me,me, me, me society that we live in and local libraries or municipal swimming-pools, etc.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all. You'd like to think. . Anyway, that's not quite the point of the topic. I knew that would attract of a few criticisms from the right wingers. We should probably go back to the main topic. I am to blame for the diversion.
It'd be more intersteing to read your views about the me, me, me,me, me, me society that we live in and local libraries or municipal swimming-pools, etc.. "I believe there is a place for all of them and an advert driven BBC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what do you get for your licence fee television channels BBC One BBC Two BBC Three BBC Four CBBC CBeebies BBC News Channel BBC Parliament BBC ALBA BBC World News S4C BBC Hindi TV BBC Marathi TV BBC Scotland National Radio Radio Glastonbury Radio 1 Radio 1Xtra Radio 2 Radio 2 Country Radio 2 Eurovision Music Jazz Radio 3 Radio 4 Radio 4 Extra Radio 5 live Radio 5 live sports extra Radio 6 Music Asian Network World Service Radio 1 Vintage CBeebies Radio Nations Radio Radio Scotland Radio Cymru 2 Radio Scotland Music Extra Radio nan Gàidheal Radio Ulster Radio Foyle Radio Wales Radio Cymru Radio Berkshire Radio Bristol Radio Cambridgeshire Radio Cornwall Coventry & Warwickshire Radio Cumbria Radio Derby Radio Devon Essex Radio Gloucestershire Radio Guernsey Hereford & Worcester Radio Humberside Radio Jersey Radio Kent Radio Lancashire Radio Leeds Radio Leicester Radio Lincolnshire Radio London Radio Manchester Radio Merseyside Newcastle Radio Norfolk Radio Northampton Radio Nottingham Radio Oxford Radio Sheffield Radio Shropshire Radio Solent Somerset Radio Stoke Radio Suffolk Surrey Sussex Tees Three Counties Radio Wiltshire WM 95.6 Radio York all for the less than the cost of your morning starbuck yet so many are willing to thow it all away .be carefull what you wish for Or you could donate the £157.50 to a family in a third world country to simply stay alive, and you could watch one of the hundreds of free tv channels, or listen to one of the thousands of free radio stations. Nice to have the choice "Problem is that the BBC haters would probably not send £160 to a third world country either. They're often also opposed to this country sending foreign aid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all. You'd like to think. . Anyway, that's not quite the point of the topic. I knew that would attract of a few criticisms from the right wingers. We should probably go back to the main topic. I am to blame for the diversion.
It'd be more intersteing to read your views about the me, me, me,me, me, me society that we live in and local libraries or municipal swimming-pools, etc..
I believe there is a place for all of them and an advert driven BBC.
"I don't especially need or want adverts for washing liquid in the middle of a David Attenborough programme or a Prom concert. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
It is no wonder both countries have obesity problems, this seems a likely reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You guys are so similar to Americans - glued to your tv sets It is no wonder both countries have obesity problems, this seems a likely reason." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After having checked, there are a lot of countries that don't have a TV licence. I am personally against abolishing it. The BBC is fantastic. It's the jewel in the crown of this country. It is so highly respected around the world. It don't think most Brits realise how much the Beeb has in other countries. " "Jewel in the crown"? I think that's a slight exaggeration. It was once, now I would describe it as a chunk of shiny glass swimming around in a bucket of turds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all. You'd like to think. . Anyway, that's not quite the point of the topic. I knew that would attract of a few criticisms from the right wingers. We should probably go back to the main topic. I am to blame for the diversion.
It'd be more intersteing to read your views about the me, me, me,me, me, me society that we live in and local libraries or municipal swimming-pools, etc..
I believe there is a place for all of them and an advert driven BBC.
I don't especially need or want adverts for washing liquid in the middle of a David Attenborough programme or a Prom concert. "Don't get Adverts on Netflix
Lets' not mention the monstrous carbon footprint that David Attenborough added to the globe since 1951 jetting all around the globe with his film crews to bring us the mating habits of a frog - when a local crew could have done the same work and then decided for a long long time that global climate change wasn't sexy enough to mention in his programmes until the climate lobby got big enough to make him see sense. Now he's all Mr Carbon Neutral.
Not mentioned anywhere by the BBC either.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Problem is that the BBC haters would probably not send £160 to a third world country either. They're often also opposed to this country sending foreign aid. " There you go again!? You don't KNOW what people do at all. But you have a big brush and a bigger bucket of tar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all. You'd like to think. . Anyway, that's not quite the point of the topic. I knew that would attract of a few criticisms from the right wingers. We should probably go back to the main topic. I am to blame for the diversion.
It'd be more intersteing to read your views about the me, me, me,me, me, me society that we live in and local libraries or municipal swimming-pools, etc..
I believe there is a place for all of them and an advert driven BBC.
I don't especially need or want adverts for washing liquid in the middle of a David Attenborough programme or a Prom concert.
Don't get Adverts on Netflix
Lets' not mention the monstrous carbon footprint that David Attenborough added to the globe since 1951 jetting all around the globe with his film crews to bring us the mating habits of a frog - when a local crew could have done the same work and then decided for a long long time that global climate change wasn't sexy enough to mention in his programmes until the climate lobby got big enough to make him see sense. Now he's all Mr Carbon Neutral.
Not mentioned anywhere by the BBC either.
"You’re not picking a bit here. He’s the first to admit that he was late to the party about climate change. A lot of the countries he has filmed in did not have the equipment or the expertise to do this of things. Britain is world famous for its natural history programmes. There’s no equivalent. We are leading the field and it’s something we should be proud of.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, it was obviously slightly tongue in cheek but there is some truth in it to some extent. No. There is absolutely NO truth in it at all. You'd like to think. . Anyway, that's not quite the point of the topic. I knew that would attract of a few criticisms from the right wingers. We should probably go back to the main topic. I am to blame for the diversion.
It'd be more intersteing to read your views about the me, me, me,me, me, me society that we live in and local libraries or municipal swimming-pools, etc..
I believe there is a place for all of them and an advert driven BBC.
I don't especially need or want adverts for washing liquid in the middle of a David Attenborough programme or a Prom concert.
Don't get Adverts on Netflix
Lets' not mention the monstrous carbon footprint that David Attenborough added to the globe since 1951 jetting all around the globe with his film crews to bring us the mating habits of a frog - when a local crew could have done the same work and then decided for a long long time that global climate change wasn't sexy enough to mention in his programmes until the climate lobby got big enough to make him see sense. Now he's all Mr Carbon Neutral.
Not mentioned anywhere by the BBC either.
You’re not picking a bit here. He’s the first to admit that he was late to the party about climate change. A lot of the countries he has filmed in did not have the equipment or the expertise to do this of things. Britain is world famous for its natural history programmes. There’s no equivalent. We are leading the field and it’s something we should be proud of. "If the truth is nit picking - let's nit pick!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway enjoy your evening. Family stuff to do. Non of it involving the BBC (even though I have one that works in National BBC Radio) "You too. It’s been good to chat with you and put the world to right. Take care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They get 3.6 billion in FREE money from the British Public and another 1.2 billion in 'other' incomes. It's despicable that it shouldn't be an advert or subscription service in 2020. And it will go that way too. BBC should pay their Managers and Stars less. If they want to subsidise any sector of the population. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The idea of having subsidised channels is that they can take risks and show programmes that would not be viable commercially. It is a bit like subsidising films like some european countries. Why do you think France has such a vibrant cinema industry for example? When you stop doing so, it's all about making money and you try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and you often end up with shitty programmes in order to attract advertisers. The ratings of BBC2 must be dire at times but it's probably be one of the best channels in Europe. Wanting to commercialise everything is just sad and will hamper creativity. As for those saying, why should I Pay the license fee when I don't often watch the BBC, I feel like saying, why did I pay for the NHS all year when I didn't go to hospital or the doctor? The BBC is a British institution and is recognised as such all over the world. I don't want it to be Channel 4 and show me crappy programmes just because they need to be commercially attractive" Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's just pay a small fee for a independent channel, say £20,00 a year. One TV and one radio station, why 40 odd radio stations and 5 TV. Other channel's could be subscribed like UK gold that's a BBC commercial channel You clearly don't get what the BBC is about. What is fascinating is that often the BBC haters are also, Brexiters, climate change deniers, anti-unions, anti-vaccine, pro-privatisation of the NHS, fans of conspiracy theories, flat earthers, pro populist governments etc...It's probably a coincidence. Please note the word OFTEN before you accuse me of putting everybody in the same bag. " Your right I don't get what the BBC is about. Hence why I don't pay the licence fee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe worth mentioning that the tories are outraged at the BBC’s decision however they don’t seem to be shocked at the fact that we have the lowest pensions in Europe - and by a very long way. Again they’re blaming somebody else for their failure. Why should pensioners have to beg for a free license? If they had decent pensions as it is the case in Europe, they wouldn’t need a free bus pass or a free tv license. And most pensioners vote for these clowns. Another example of turkeys voting for Christmas. " The governemnt paid for the licence for over 75s for years and have now decided not to. Anyone having a go at the BBC for this are having a go at the wrong people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe worth mentioning that the tories are outraged at the BBC’s decision however they don’t seem to be shocked at the fact that we have the lowest pensions in Europe - and by a very long way. Again they’re blaming somebody else for their failure. Why should pensioners have to beg for a free license? If they had decent pensions as it is the case in Europe, they wouldn’t need a free bus pass or a free tv license. And most pensioners vote for these clowns. Another example of turkeys voting for Christmas. The governemnt paid for the licence for over 75s for years and have now decided not to. Anyone having a go at the BBC for this are having a go at the wrong people. " The government gave it back to the BBC to fund - the BBC have said ONLY over 75's with a Pension Credit would get it. So means tested be the BBC actually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe worth mentioning that the tories are outraged at the BBC’s decision however they don’t seem to be shocked at the fact that we have the lowest pensions in Europe - and by a very long way. Again they’re blaming somebody else for their failure. Why should pensioners have to beg for a free license? If they had decent pensions as it is the case in Europe, they wouldn’t need a free bus pass or a free tv license. And most pensioners vote for these clowns. Another example of turkeys voting for Christmas. The governemnt paid for the licence for over 75s for years and have now decided not to. Anyone having a go at the BBC for this are having a go at the wrong people. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does. "Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise).... Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person..."Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey. "Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.
Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun "No, it's a massive generalisation until you know it's true. definitely not it a bad mood, just wondering why you have decided to be deliberately provocative on a thread yet again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.
Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun
No, it's a massive generalisation until you know it's true. definitely not it a bad mood, just wondering why you have decided to be deliberately provocative on a thread yet again."It's a forum. I've not sworn or insulted anybody. Crikey, it's normally me being accused of being a 'snowflake' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.
Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun
No, it's a massive generalisation until you know it's true. definitely not it a bad mood, just wondering why you have decided to be deliberately provocative on a thread yet again.
It's a forum. I've not sworn or insulted anybody. Crikey, it's normally me being accused of being a 'snowflake' "You're right, you've carefully worded it so you don't get a ban, whilst insinuating that people who don't like the license fee are uneducated trump loving racists. The op was to do with the license fee, none of the other stuff is relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.
Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun
No, it's a massive generalisation until you know it's true. definitely not it a bad mood, just wondering why you have decided to be deliberately provocative on a thread yet again.
It's a forum. I've not sworn or insulted anybody. Crikey, it's normally me being accused of being a 'snowflake'
You're right, you've carefully worded it so you don't get a ban, whilst insinuating that people who don't like the license fee are uneducated trump loving racists. The op was to do with the license fee, none of the other stuff is relevant. "Erm, that seems to be how you have translated what I said. Your words, not mine. It's a forum mate, it's not overly provocative. Maybe it's ringing true that's why you are getting so wound up about it?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.
Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun
No, it's a massive generalisation until you know it's true. definitely not it a bad mood, just wondering why you have decided to be deliberately provocative on a thread yet again.
It's a forum. I've not sworn or insulted anybody. Crikey, it's normally me being accused of being a 'snowflake'
You're right, you've carefully worded it so you don't get a ban, whilst insinuating that people who don't like the license fee are uneducated trump loving racists. The op was to do with the license fee, none of the other stuff is relevant.
Erm, that seems to be how you have translated what I said. Your words, not mine. It's a forum mate, it's not overly provocative. Maybe it's ringing true that's why you are getting so wound up about it??"Nope, sorry your generalisation doesn't fit with my views, beliefs or voting record. You knew exactly what you meant when you worded it like that, you just don't like someone pointing out they saw what you were trying to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
Nothing like a bit of casual generalisation hey.
Well, not a generalisation if it might be true. I did say I was only thinking, not stating fact. You see in a bad mood this morning, have a cuppa and enjoy the sun
No, it's a massive generalisation until you know it's true. definitely not it a bad mood, just wondering why you have decided to be deliberately provocative on a thread yet again.
It's a forum. I've not sworn or insulted anybody. Crikey, it's normally me being accused of being a 'snowflake'
You're right, you've carefully worded it so you don't get a ban, whilst insinuating that people who don't like the license fee are uneducated trump loving racists. The op was to do with the license fee, none of the other stuff is relevant.
Erm, that seems to be how you have translated what I said. Your words, not mine. It's a forum mate, it's not overly provocative. Maybe it's ringing true that's why you are getting so wound up about it??"Well I'm an SNP supporter, voted for Scottish independence, not a fan of of our glorious leader in Westminster, believe in climate change and fully support our over stretched NHS. I want the the BBC licence fee scrapped. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person..."hahahaha Yea we all wear red sox when we go walking too. The ability you have to connect nothing with nothing is astonishing. Sounds more like a reaching for reason as to why people don't think like you . . . Hate BLM for crying out loud, that's a nasty accusation you should be ashamed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
hahahaha Yea we all wear red sox when we go walking too.
The ability you have to connect nothing with nothing is astonishing.
Sounds more like a reaching for reason as to why people don't think like you . . .
Hate BLM for crying out loud, that's a nasty accusation you should be ashamed."Ouch, the lady doth protest too much...
Why get so wound up if it doesn't have some element of truth? There, stay calm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
hahahaha Yea we all wear red sox when we go walking too.
The ability you have to connect nothing with nothing is astonishing.
Sounds more like a reaching for reason as to why people don't think like you . . .
Hate BLM for crying out loud, that's a nasty accusation you should be ashamed.
Ouch, the lady doth protest too much...
Why get so wound up if it doesn't have some element of truth? There, stay calm "I didn't state it as fact, just wondering. You seriously need to calm down! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
hahahaha Yea we all wear red sox when we go walking too.
The ability you have to connect nothing with nothing is astonishing.
Sounds more like a reaching for reason as to why people don't think like you . . .
Hate BLM for crying out loud, that's a nasty accusation you should be ashamed.
Ouch, the lady doth protest too much...
Why get so wound up if it doesn't have some element of truth? There, stay calm "There you go again, you can't find one reason why you said it so it's got to be other person who is at fault. I only said it as a joke how dull! - doesn't even rate as poor sophomore humour. NO truth in it at all. And you know it. Yes. I do protest and not enough. Throwing accusations of racism around as if it's just a game is despicable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
hahahaha Yea we all wear red sox when we go walking too.
The ability you have to connect nothing with nothing is astonishing.
Sounds more like a reaching for reason as to why people don't think like you . . .
Hate BLM for crying out loud, that's a nasty accusation you should be ashamed.
Ouch, the lady doth protest too much...
Why get so wound up if it doesn't have some element of truth? There, stay calm
There you go again, you can't find one reason why you said it so it's got to be other person who is at fault. I only said it as a joke how dull! - doesn't even rate as poor sophomore humour.
NO truth in it at all. And you know it.
Yes. I do protest and not enough. Throwing accusations of racism around as if it's just a game is despicable.
"Nope, not accusations of racism. A lot of people that don't like BLM are not necessarily racist, they claim it to be done kind of Marxist movement. These issues are nuanced, I'm sure you know that. I listen to some of the more right leaning media fairly often, radio talk shows and such. I'm afraid it is often the case that there are a lot of people that hold all these values true and have this commonality. So, did I say you? No. Did I say everybody? No, but feel free to totally throw your toys out of your pram. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did I say everybody? No, but feel free to totally throw your toys out of your pram." When you talk on a public forum - you INCLUDE everybody - so expect to get an answer from EVERYBODY. Toys out of the pram  - oh dear! yet another defence mechanism that has no basis except to be patronising!
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did I say everybody? No, but feel free to totally throw your toys out of your pram. When you talk on a public forum - you INCLUDE everybody - so expect to get an answer from EVERYBODY. Toys out of the pram - oh dear! yet another defence mechanism that has no basis except to be patronising!
"I include everybody to comment, but not a accusing anybody. It's just a hypothesis. But, here you go again. I'm sorry, I forgot, anybody who posts, has to totally agree with you. Noted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But, here you go again. I'm sorry, I forgot, anybody who posts, has to totally agree with you. Noted." And again - a patronising reply! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But, here you go again. I'm sorry, I forgot, anybody who posts, has to totally agree with you. Noted. And again - a patronising reply!" How on earth is it patronising? You just keep berating me for a hypothesis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person..."I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole"Again, did I say 'everybody'.....don't believe I did? But, is it possible that there are people that do hold all these corresponding views. It is certainly possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole
Again, did I say 'everybody'.....don't believe I did? But, is it possible that there are people that do hold all these corresponding views. It is certainly possible.
"After all, there has to be a few people that hold these beliefs, otherwise The Daily Mail wouldn't have a readership | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole"Doesn't matter what you say - he/she will still say it's your fault he/she said it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole
Again, did I say 'everybody'.....don't believe I did? But, is it possible that there are people that do hold all these corresponding views. It is certainly possible.
"Many things are possible but you seem to be trying to link many things together. It is also possible that those that support the license fee are also Marxists, remainers, racist, country haters, Euro lovers,trump supporters and want the NHS privatised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole
Doesn't matter what you say - he/she will still say it's your fault he/she said it. "So what I have said is not remotely possible? Ok,you know everything. Again I apologise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole
Again, did I say 'everybody'.....don't believe I did? But, is it possible that there are people that do hold all these corresponding views. It is certainly possible.
Many things are possible but you seem to be trying to link many things together. It is also possible that those that support the license fee are also Marxists, remainers, racist, country haters, Euro lovers,trump supporters and want the NHS privatised. "I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. " You clearly used it as a device to tar others that do not fit your realm of thinking. and when you are called to qualify it you attack them again with a similar patron'ism. Then you say I didn't mean everyone while not actually excluding anyone in the same sentence. If you don't qualify what you said with (and you didn't) 'that I'm sure not everyone feels this way' then you are saying that everyone who doesn't like paying for the BBC fits being a hater of BLM and the rest of the nonsense diatribe. You can see clearly above that quite a few have told you that they don't fit your throw-away paragraph of pigeon-holing. So instead of blaming themfor what you said, be a bit more contrite and just say - yup I see that now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. You clearly used it as a device to tar others that do not fit your realm of thinking. and when you are called to qualify it you attack them again with a similar patron'ism. Then you say I didn't mean everyone while not actually excluding anyone in the same sentence. If you don't qualify what you said with (and you didn't) 'that I'm sure not everyone feels this way' then you are saying that everyone who doesn't like paying for the BBC fits being a hater of BLM and the rest of the nonsense diatribe. You can see clearly above that quite a few have told you that they don't fit your throw-away paragraph of pigeon-holing. So instead of blaming themfor what you said, be a bit more contrite and just say - yup I see that now. "How about stop getting offended about things if they dont apply to you?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. You clearly used it as a device to tar others that do not fit your realm of thinking. and when you are called to qualify it you attack them again with a similar patron'ism. Then you say I didn't mean everyone while not actually excluding anyone in the same sentence. If you don't qualify what you said with (and you didn't) 'that I'm sure not everyone feels this way' then you are saying that everyone who doesn't like paying for the BBC fits being a hater of BLM and the rest of the nonsense diatribe. You can see clearly above that quite a few have told you that they don't fit your throw-away paragraph of pigeon-holing. So instead of blaming themfor what you said, be a bit more contrite and just say - yup I see that now.
How about stop getting offended about things if they dont apply to you??"How about an open forum is an open forum and you include EVERYONE. Expect EVERYONE to reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Now, I wonder if there is a correlation between those who want the license fee to go and voted Leave, deny climate change, love Boris, think Trump is not too bad, hate BLM, think the NHS needs looking at (privatise)....
Just thinking out loud. Always seems a certain type of person...
I am ok with the license fee but voted Tory and brexit. Don't like trump and don't deny climate change. BLM has led to my most stressful time at work so although its a worthy cause its worded badly and the actions by some are crazy. How do I fit in your pigeon hole
Again, did I say 'everybody'.....don't believe I did? But, is it possible that there are people that do hold all these corresponding views. It is certainly possible.
Many things are possible but you seem to be trying to link many things together. It is also possible that those that support the license fee are also Marxists, remainers, racist, country haters, Euro lovers,trump supporters and want the NHS privatised.
I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. "I'm not offended and not sure why you think I am I'm saying what is also possible in my statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does. "I'm quite a fan of the BBC and watch it/ listen to it much more than others forms though going by the results you show I'm probably in the minority now. If that leads to it going to adverts or subscription then so be it if that's the opinion of the majority of people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
I'm quite a fan of the BBC and watch it/ listen to it much more than others forms though going by the results you show I'm probably in the minority now. If that leads to it going to adverts or subscription then so be it if that's the opinion of the majority of people"Perhaps because of Netflix and Sky, Virgin et-al there is so much more out there - albeit at cost - my thinking is that we ought to have the choice to pay or not - when the surveys (just google for them) asked 'How about a Tiered System of levels of access' (like sky packages etc) they mostly answered 'No. Just scrap it and let us choose to buy or not'. I'm not anti-BBC in any way shape or form - we just need the choice to choose what we watch and that choice is really with our wallets (or go freeview/sat). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its very difficult to defend an organisation that thinks its OK to take money off old people (with the treat of prison) & give it to rich celebrities " Indeed - and we thought we didn't have debtors prisons anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
I'm quite a fan of the BBC and watch it/ listen to it much more than others forms though going by the results you show I'm probably in the minority now. If that leads to it going to adverts or subscription then so be it if that's the opinion of the majority of people
Perhaps because of Netflix and Sky, Virgin et-al there is so much more out there - albeit at cost - my thinking is that we ought to have the choice to pay or not - when the surveys (just google for them) asked 'How about a Tiered System of levels of access' (like sky packages etc) they mostly answered 'No. Just scrap it and let us choose to buy or not'.
I'm not anti-BBC in any way shape or form - we just need the choice to choose what we watch and that choice is really with our wallets (or go freeview/sat).
"Fully understand your point and have watched things on Amazon which were very good. I guess not having a choice is the biggest problem. Not sure I can think of other things we are forced to buy. I like the BBC as it is but fully appreciate its an old way of doing things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
I'm quite a fan of the BBC and watch it/ listen to it much more than others forms though going by the results you show I'm probably in the minority now. If that leads to it going to adverts or subscription then so be it if that's the opinion of the majority of people
Perhaps because of Netflix and Sky, Virgin et-al there is so much more out there - albeit at cost - my thinking is that we ought to have the choice to pay or not - when the surveys (just google for them) asked 'How about a Tiered System of levels of access' (like sky packages etc) they mostly answered 'No. Just scrap it and let us choose to buy or not'.
I'm not anti-BBC in any way shape or form - we just need the choice to choose what we watch and that choice is really with our wallets (or go freeview/sat).
Fully understand your point and have watched things on Amazon which were very good. I guess not having a choice is the biggest problem. Not sure I can think of other things we are forced to buy. I like the BBC as it is but fully appreciate its an old way of doing things. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm content to pay the licence fee because I get my money's worth out of it. I regard it as a subscription of about £13/month. In terms of available content, it is far better value for money than any other media subscription service. Nor do I have a problem with pensioners wealthy enough, having to pay the licence fee. That said, I reckon it's on its way out because you shouldn't be forced to pay for something you don't want. I'm not sure how many million people would stop paying it, given the choice; after all, not everyone is a whining cunt who doesn't recognise a bargain when it's available. However, if they offer all their services worldwide, on subscription, rather than selling off certain programmes abroad, they'll probably be able to make up the shortfall. If they can't, they can always cut down on all the terrible shit they make and concentrate on the good stuff." Do you have any other PAY services like Netflix. Disney+. Sky. Virgin. Now TV. Apple TV? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its very difficult to defend an organisation that thinks its OK to take money off old people (with the treat of prison) & give it to rich celebrities " Well we just voted one into power? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
I'm quite a fan of the BBC and watch it/ listen to it much more than others forms though going by the results you show I'm probably in the minority now. If that leads to it going to adverts or subscription then so be it if that's the opinion of the majority of people"In terms of quality the bbc is up there with one of the best in the world. I personally don't mind paying a few quid a month | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get back to the main thread its all about the lying gits at the BBC, they asked for and got an above inflation rise in the licence fee. In return for taking on the over 75s free license. Now they have moved the goal posts, but they don't give a shit. " When you saying lying gets do you mean an organisation which is that transparent it has to publicise how much its staff get paid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm content to pay the licence fee because I get my money's worth out of it. I regard it as a subscription of about £13/month. In terms of available content, it is far better value for money than any other media subscription service. Nor do I have a problem with pensioners wealthy enough, having to pay the licence fee. That said, I reckon it's on its way out because you shouldn't be forced to pay for something you don't want. I'm not sure how many million people would stop paying it, given the choice; after all, not everyone is a whining cunt who doesn't recognise a bargain when it's available. However, if they offer all their services worldwide, on subscription, rather than selling off certain programmes abroad, they'll probably be able to make up the shortfall. If they can't, they can always cut down on all the terrible shit they make and concentrate on the good stuff." Spot on as asual | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw?" Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link." People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get back to the main thread its all about the lying gits at the BBC, they asked for and got an above inflation rise in the licence fee. In return for taking on the over 75s free license. Now they have moved the goal posts, but they don't give a shit. When you saying lying gets do you mean an organisation which is that transparent it has to publicise how much its staff get paid?" Every company with more than 200 employees has to publish how much it's staff gets paid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get back to the main thread its all about the lying gits at the BBC, they asked for and got an above inflation rise in the licence fee. In return for taking on the over 75s free license. Now they have moved the goal posts, but they don't give a shit. When you saying lying gets do you mean an organisation which is that transparent it has to publicise how much its staff get paid?" One problem with that. The bbc hides how much is paid to top stars by paying them through production companies. Not exactly transparent... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The key phrase you are forgetting 'I wonder'... As for patronising, you are constantly at it on here. Never wrong about anything, are you?? "The key phrase is "seems like a certain kind of person". You can hide behind your "hypothesis" disclaimer all you want but it is clear that it is your opinion. Even after applying your hypothesis defence it is still your statement and conclusion so playing innocent is nothing more than lighting the fuse and running away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. You clearly used it as a device to tar others that do not fit your realm of thinking. and when you are called to qualify it you attack them again with a similar patron'ism. Then you say I didn't mean everyone while not actually excluding anyone in the same sentence. If you don't qualify what you said with (and you didn't) 'that I'm sure not everyone feels this way' then you are saying that everyone who doesn't like paying for the BBC fits being a hater of BLM and the rest of the nonsense diatribe. You can see clearly above that quite a few have told you that they don't fit your throw-away paragraph of pigeon-holing. So instead of blaming themfor what you said, be a bit more contrite and just say - yup I see that now.
How about stop getting offended about things if they dont apply to you??
How about an open forum is an open forum and you include EVERYONE. Expect EVERYONE to reply."I totally expect everyone to reply,but don't expect a shutdown of the debate which is what you want because you are offended despite the fact it apparently because it doesn't apply to you. Although it doesn't apply to to you but you are so angry about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. " It so doesn't apply to you that you keep getting so angry about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. It so doesn't apply to you that you keep getting so angry about it ""And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. It so doesn't apply to you that you keep getting so angry about it
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao."Fact remains. You still can't leave it alone. The only one you moaned about was BLM......says it all... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. It so doesn't apply to you that you keep getting so angry about it
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao.
Fact remains. You still can't leave it alone. The only one you moaned about was BLM......says it all..."Always on here pontificating to everybody, never wrong are you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. It so doesn't apply to you that you keep getting so angry about it
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao.
Fact remains. You still can't leave it alone. The only one you moaned about was BLM......says it all..."Actually BLM was just what I pointed out - Trump is an idiot said that many times on here. Climate change is real said that more than once on here. NHS needs a shit load of work. etc etc. Time to get with the facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao. It so doesn't apply to you that you keep getting so angry about it
"And that's all you're left with? . . . lmao.
Fact remains. You still can't leave it alone. The only one you moaned about was BLM......says it all...
Always on here pontificating to everybody, never wrong are you "And that childish response just isn't worth the digital ink. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm content to pay the licence fee because I get my money's worth out of it. I regard it as a subscription of about £13/month. In terms of available content, it is far better value for money than any other media subscription service. Nor do I have a problem with pensioners wealthy enough, having to pay the licence fee. That said, I reckon it's on its way out because you shouldn't be forced to pay for something you don't want. I'm not sure how many million people would stop paying it, given the choice; after all, not everyone is a whining cunt who doesn't recognise a bargain when it's available. However, if they offer all their services worldwide, on subscription, rather than selling off certain programmes abroad, they'll probably be able to make up the shortfall. If they can't, they can always cut down on all the terrible shit they make and concentrate on the good stuff. Do you have any other PAY services like Netflix. Disney+. Sky. Virgin. Now TV. Apple TV? " Netflix, Amazon Prime and NOWTV. The three of them cost me less than a subscription to Sky, for a lot more content. The fact I have them is irrelevant to me thinking the licence fee is worth it. I listen to a lot of informative radio from the BBC - made by contributors independent of them; something unavailable on any of the outlets you listed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand "Peoples money pays for bin collections Peoples money pays for the police Peoples money pays for the nhs Really don't see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
"Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms. Bin collections are a necessity. The police are a necessity. The NHS is a necessity. The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks. If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way."Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them."Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?"Some people do? And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale. It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit. I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.? I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format. Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever. "I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money "I'll try and catch benefit st | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money
I'll try and catch benefit st
"Well that is a Channel 4 programme, so free viewing but I am sure you will enjoy being entertained by the plight of those less fortunate than you. Enjoy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money
I'll try and catch benefit st
Well that is a Channel 4 programme, so free viewing but I am sure you will enjoy being entertained by the plight of those less fortunate than you. Enjoy "A left wing socialist who hates poor people. Your powers of perception are beyond compare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money
I'll try and catch benefit st
Well that is a Channel 4 programme, so free viewing but I am sure you will enjoy being entertained by the plight of those less fortunate than you. Enjoy
A left wing socialist who hates poor people.
Your powers of perception are beyond compare."Are you describing yourself as a "left wing socialist"? That is hilarious. You are about as "socialist" as Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler put together. You really need to check your privilege. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money
I'll try and catch benefit st
Well that is a Channel 4 programme, so free viewing but I am sure you will enjoy being entertained by the plight of those less fortunate than you. Enjoy
A left wing socialist who hates poor people.
Your powers of perception are beyond compare.
Are you describing yourself as a "left wing socialist"? That is hilarious. You are about as "socialist" as Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler put together. You really need to check your privilege. "Dearie me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money
I'll try and catch benefit st
Well that is a Channel 4 programme, so free viewing but I am sure you will enjoy being entertained by the plight of those less fortunate than you. Enjoy
A left wing socialist who hates poor people.
Your powers of perception are beyond compare.
Are you describing yourself as a "left wing socialist"? That is hilarious. You are about as "socialist" as Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler put together. You really need to check your privilege.
Dearie me."What an eloquent response, well done for using the extent of your intelligence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Ah - "whataboutism", good response Some people may deem them a necessity for the profits they generate, or even for the morale of the nation. Do poor people pay the same as rich people for them through taxation? Do they pay £13 a month for them? No, I do not think they do, so your comparison is a little feeble. You do seem to have contempt for those less fortunate than you - again, not really the mantra of the left, is it?
Some people do?
And some people think its obscene that people struggling to pay their kids are being forced to financially support a family whose wealth and privilege is of the scale.
It's not whatabouttery at all.. you were looking for things which we pay for and see no benefit.
I'm assuming at 1 point the bbc was a 'service ' before the age of millions of channels.It provided news,entertainment and information .which we all paid for.?
I agree though time has moved on and perhaps the way it is funded needs to be looked into.However my concern is that it is being driven by political reasons and if and when it's gone we will end up with an American style news format.
Your last sentence has no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with you regarding the UK Royal Family, but that is not the point of this thread - you are just clumsily attempting to deflect from that. I could no longer be bothered discussing poverty with you, you seem to have nothing but an arrogant contempt for those less fortunate than you. I have checked the BBC tv schedule for you - there is a 3 hour marathon of repeated tennis matches on at 2pm, I will leave you to vegetate in front of that. Just think, 3 hours of old tennis matches for you to watch alone - what fun, and well worth the money
I'll try and catch benefit st
Well that is a Channel 4 programme, so free viewing but I am sure you will enjoy being entertained by the plight of those less fortunate than you. Enjoy
A left wing socialist who hates poor people.
Your powers of perception are beyond compare.
Are you describing yourself as a "left wing socialist"? That is hilarious. You are about as "socialist" as Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler put together. You really need to check your privilege.
Dearie me.
What an eloquent response, well done for using the extent of your intelligence. "Sorry I'm just off to check my privilege whatever the fuck that means. You will have to make up stories about other people. Have a nice day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm going by what I hear on right leaning media. A lot of people have these views in common and a lot don't. I don't know why people get so offended by it. If that's what people believe, great. If you don't think this country has divided over certain lines in the last few years, fine. Just going by what I hear and see on social media or on the radio. You clearly used it as a device to tar others that do not fit your realm of thinking. and when you are called to qualify it you attack them again with a similar patron'ism. Then you say I didn't mean everyone while not actually excluding anyone in the same sentence. If you don't qualify what you said with (and you didn't) 'that I'm sure not everyone feels this way' then you are saying that everyone who doesn't like paying for the BBC fits being a hater of BLM and the rest of the nonsense diatribe. You can see clearly above that quite a few have told you that they don't fit your throw-away paragraph of pigeon-holing. So instead of blaming themfor what you said, be a bit more contrite and just say - yup I see that now.
How about stop getting offended about things if they dont apply to you??
How about an open forum is an open forum and you include EVERYONE. Expect EVERYONE to reply.
I totally expect everyone to reply,but don't expect a shutdown of the debate which is what you want because you are offended despite the fact it apparently because it doesn't apply to you. Although it doesn't apply to to you but you are so angry about it "People pointing out your nonsense is not them "being offended". Also, the only one wanting conversation shut down is you. You seem to think you can say what you want but others cant respond to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them."Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'. Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest."They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income Do they still have servants?' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'"Yes all paid for by the grant that the other poster mentions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
Yes all paid for by the grant that the other poster mentions"Must be a neat trick to relinquish all of your income and still be one of the richest people on the planet. Its nice to know the royal family actually pay for us though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'"What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us. In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore. Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
Yes all paid for by the grant that the other poster mentions
Must be a neat trick to relinquish all of your income and still be one of the richest people on the planet.
Its nice to know the royal family actually pay for us though.
"If you dont believe me all you need to do is look up "sovereign grant". I know this is an inconvenient truth for you however your avoidance of it just serves to highlight your biased snd blinkered opinion even more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
"Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage."Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties. "The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
Yes all paid for by the grant that the other poster mentions
Must be a neat trick to relinquish all of your income and still be one of the richest people on the planet.
Its nice to know the royal family actually pay for us though.
If you dont believe me all you need to do is look up "sovereign grant".
I know this is an inconvenient truth for you however your avoidance of it just serves to highlight your biased snd blinkered opinion even more. "The tax payer funds the sovereign grant..in return from the profits of the properties the queen holds she is awarded a grant.The money comes from the duchy of Lancaster who has assets totalling £715 million. Its estimated the queen owns 1 6th of the land on the planet..quite how this came about escapes me? Still I'm glad they "chip in for us, Still.not sure how this equates to them relinquishing their income | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
"Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do. Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage."As the other poster mentioned that money was originally created by the royal estate, given to the treasury and then a percentage of it handed back in the form of a grant. Apparently 15 percent is paid back to the queen though at one point it did rise to 25 percent to fund renovation of Buckingham palace. Once completed it goes back to 15 percent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
Yes all paid for by the grant that the other poster mentions
Must be a neat trick to relinquish all of your income and still be one of the richest people on the planet.
Its nice to know the royal family actually pay for us though.
If you dont believe me all you need to do is look up "sovereign grant".
I know this is an inconvenient truth for you however your avoidance of it just serves to highlight your biased snd blinkered opinion even more. "The poster you are quoting describes himself as a "left wing socialist". You need to look no further for the reasons the left were so thoroughly trounced at the last UK general election than this poster's appalling attitude towards the poor, and other groups such as the Jewish people in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
As the other poster mentioned that money was originally created by the royal estate, given to the treasury and then a percentage of it handed back in the form of a grant. Apparently 15 percent is paid back to the queen though at one point it did rise to 25 percent to fund renovation of Buckingham palace. Once completed it goes back to 15 percent."The tax payer contributes towards the royal family. That was my original point and it's a fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
Yes all paid for by the grant that the other poster mentions
Must be a neat trick to relinquish all of your income and still be one of the richest people on the planet.
Its nice to know the royal family actually pay for us though.
If you dont believe me all you need to do is look up "sovereign grant".
I know this is an inconvenient truth for you however your avoidance of it just serves to highlight your biased snd blinkered opinion even more.
The poster you are quoting describes himself as a "left wing socialist". You need to look no further for the reasons the left were so thoroughly trounced at the last UK general election than this poster's appalling attitude towards the poor, and other groups such as the Jewish people in the UK."Do you make up fairytales about everyone or just me? Cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?"If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who? "Can you ask my question How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land? How did this come about? Genuine question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question."Do you now understand how the funding works and its not tax payers money in the first place? I believe she has so much is due to being head of the commonwealth. However the history works out the fact remains they are a net asset. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?"Lets make a simple analogy so that you can grasp this. Imagine your parents decided to give you their house and savings in return for you letting them stay with you and helping with thier ill health. Would you shove them in the grotty basement, make them feed themself and change their own incontinence pad whilst you sat upstairs counting 'your' money saying 'my' house, my rules? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question."1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
Do you now understand how the funding works and its not tax payers money in the first place?
I believe she has so much is due to being head of the commonwealth. However the history works out the fact remains they are a net asset."So when we used to own half the world..whenever we colonised a country..big chunks were given to the queen and she still owns them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
Lets make a simple analogy so that you can grasp this.
Imagine your parents decided to give you their house and savings in return for you letting them stay with you and helping with thier ill health. Would you shove them in the grotty basement, make them feed themself and change their own incontinence pad whilst you sat upstairs counting 'your' money saying 'my' house, my rules?"Bit of a difference between a house and a 6th of the planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
Do you now understand how the funding works and its not tax payers money in the first place?
I believe she has so much is due to being head of the commonwealth. However the history works out the fact remains they are a net asset.
So when we used to own half the world..whenever we colonised a country..big chunks were given to the queen and she still owns them?"Is that a yes you now understand ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to."So she doesn't own the land? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to.
So she doesn't own the land?"I'm not 100 percent sure if she owns them or its because our monarch is head of the commonwealth. I do know the Romans brought the idea of imperial ownership to us. It's the same with the Catholic church and pope who heads an organization that owns huge amounts. Same with some Muslim monarchs. The fact is she is our monarch who provides more money to the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to.
So she doesn't own the land?
I'm not 100 percent sure if she owns them or its because our monarch is head of the commonwealth. I do know the Romans brought the idea of imperial ownership to us. It's the same with the Catholic church and pope who heads an organization that owns huge amounts. Same with some Muslim monarchs. The fact is she is our monarch who provides more money to the country."From what I've read the queen,or the crown is the biggest landowner on the planet.And I still don't fully understand how she owns land abroad as the days of empire are long gone I'm not sure how we can call ourselves a modern society when 1 family can own a 6th of the planet because it was simply given to them,but whatever. In return for the proceeds of these assets they are given a substantial grant which the taxpayer contributes towards. If people wanna believe in some medieval system where we bow and scrape to a family born into untold wealth and privilege,that's upto them. Wasn't it only relatively recently she started paying tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to.
So she doesn't own the land?
I'm not 100 percent sure if she owns them or its because our monarch is head of the commonwealth. I do know the Romans brought the idea of imperial ownership to us. It's the same with the Catholic church and pope who heads an organization that owns huge amounts. Same with some Muslim monarchs. The fact is she is our monarch who provides more money to the country.
From what I've read the queen,or the crown is the biggest landowner on the planet.And I still don't fully understand how she owns land abroad as the days of empire are long gone
I'm not sure how we can call ourselves a modern society when 1 family can own a 6th of the planet because it was simply given to them,but whatever.
In return for the proceeds of these assets they are given a substantial grant which the taxpayer contributes towards.
If people wanna believe in some medieval system where we bow and scrape to a family born into untold wealth and privilege,that's upto them.
Wasn't it only relatively recently she started paying tax?"I think your missing the point The money they earn and give to the treasury far greater than what they receive in a grant so they are a net contributor. I ask you again do you now understand the funding model? If this was not the case like they ceased to exist as our monarch then it means less money for the country. Medieval or not it provides the country with funds and as said its how its done throughout the world. I understand you don't agree with her inheriting so much but those are the facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Additionally the sovereign grant is only part of their income Income from the duchy of lancaster which is owned by the public goes straight to the queen" Again the land belongs to the monarch so it's their earnings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does. "Funny there are left wing militant petitions 99% that say anyone who doesnt support the BBC Is a Bigited fool . There are also Left wing Miltant petitions That 81% , call for all bigots to be extradited . Nobody cares where to it seems . A petition set up & run by some politically minded foolishness means absolutely nothing to anybody Other than some "Patronising " pedant to throw weight to there undeniably bored state of mind on a political forum on a swingers sight. If i have offended you in anyway I apologise to absolutley nobody | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to.
So she doesn't own the land?
I'm not 100 percent sure if she owns them or its because our monarch is head of the commonwealth. I do know the Romans brought the idea of imperial ownership to us. It's the same with the Catholic church and pope who heads an organization that owns huge amounts. Same with some Muslim monarchs. The fact is she is our monarch who provides more money to the country.
From what I've read the queen,or the crown is the biggest landowner on the planet.And I still don't fully understand how she owns land abroad as the days of empire are long gone
I'm not sure how we can call ourselves a modern society when 1 family can own a 6th of the planet because it was simply given to them,but whatever.
In return for the proceeds of these assets they are given a substantial grant which the taxpayer contributes towards.
If people wanna believe in some medieval system where we bow and scrape to a family born into untold wealth and privilege,that's upto them.
Wasn't it only relatively recently she started paying tax?
I think your missing the point
The money they earn and give to the treasury far greater than what they receive in a grant so they are a net contributor. I ask you again do you now understand the funding model? If this was not the case like they ceased to exist as our monarch then it means less money for the country. Medieval or not it provides the country with funds and as said its how its done throughout the world. I understand you don't agree with her inheriting so much but those are the facts"Surely it would depends on who inherits all those millions of pounds worth of assets? Would we be better off without them?I don't know but other countries seem to cope. And its not really done throughout the world surely as not every country has a constitutional.monarch?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Additionally the sovereign grant is only part of their income Income from the duchy of lancaster which is owned by the public goes straight to the queen Again the land belongs to the monarch so it's their earnings " The public own the land of the duchy of lancaster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Additionally the sovereign grant is only part of their income Income from the duchy of lancaster which is owned by the public goes straight to the queen Again the land belongs to the monarch so it's their earnings The public own the land of the duchy of lancaster" Wrong, again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Funny there are left wing militant petitions
99% that say anyone who doesnt support the BBC
Is a Bigited fool .
There are also Left wing Miltant petitions
That 81% , call for all bigots to be extradited .
Nobody cares where to it seems .
A petition set up & run by some
politically minded foolishness
means absolutely nothing to anybody
Other than some "Patronising " pedant
to throw weight to there undeniably bored
state of mind on a political forum on a swingers sight.
If i have offended you in anyway
I apologise to absolutley nobody
"Funnily enough there are also polls with no political allegiance and i have never seen one in favour of a tv licence. The yougov polls has a tracker showing 59% rating it as unfair/very unfair whereas only 16% regard it as fair/very fair. The vast majority (39%) regard it as very unfair. Charging pensioners is only going to increase that percentage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Additionally the sovereign grant is only part of their income Income from the duchy of lancaster which is owned by the public goes straight to the queen Again the land belongs to the monarch so it's their earnings The public own the land of the duchy of lancaster Wrong, again." Stand corrected on that one Apparently Charles owns half of Cornwall for some reason | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Funny there are left wing militant petitions
99% that say anyone who doesnt support the BBC
Is a Bigited fool .
There are also Left wing Miltant petitions
That 81% , call for all bigots to be extradited .
Nobody cares where to it seems .
A petition set up & run by some
politically minded foolishness
means absolutely nothing to anybody
Other than some "Patronising " pedant
to throw weight to there undeniably bored
state of mind on a political forum on a swingers sight.
If i have offended you in anyway
I apologise to absolutley nobody
Funnily enough there are also polls with no political allegiance and i have never seen one in favour of a tv licence.
The yougov polls has a tracker showing 59% rating it as unfair/very unfair whereas only 16% regard it as fair/very fair. The vast majority (39%) regard it as very unfair. Charging pensioners is only going to increase that percentage."If you asked the entire human race About Death being unfair , probably 85%+ would say it is UNFAIR. Still sh*t happens & we get on with it . The argument something is fair or not is Diluted by the necessity to have balance . Something not driven by making money in order to lay for it . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Funny there are left wing militant petitions
99% that say anyone who doesnt support the BBC
Is a Bigited fool .
There are also Left wing Miltant petitions
That 81% , call for all bigots to be extradited .
Nobody cares where to it seems .
A petition set up & run by some
politically minded foolishness
means absolutely nothing to anybody
Other than some "Patronising " pedant
to throw weight to there undeniably bored
state of mind on a political forum on a swingers sight.
If i have offended you in anyway
I apologise to absolutley nobody
Funnily enough there are also polls with no political allegiance and i have never seen one in favour of a tv licence.
The yougov polls has a tracker showing 59% rating it as unfair/very unfair whereas only 16% regard it as fair/very fair. The vast majority (39%) regard it as very unfair. Charging pensioners is only going to increase that percentage.
If you asked the entire human race
About Death being unfair , probably
85%+ would say it is UNFAIR.
Still sh*t happens & we get on with it .
The argument something is fair or not is
Diluted by the necessity to have balance .
Something not driven by making money
in order to lay for it ."Oops pay for it . Sorry for the spilling mastikes Phat fingas im afraid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Funny there are left wing militant petitions
99% that say anyone who doesnt support the BBC
Is a Bigited fool .
There are also Left wing Miltant petitions
That 81% , call for all bigots to be extradited .
Nobody cares where to it seems .
A petition set up & run by some
politically minded foolishness
means absolutely nothing to anybody
Other than some "Patronising " pedant
to throw weight to there undeniably bored
state of mind on a political forum on a swingers sight.
If i have offended you in anyway
I apologise to absolutley nobody
Funnily enough there are also polls with no political allegiance and i have never seen one in favour of a tv licence.
The yougov polls has a tracker showing 59% rating it as unfair/very unfair whereas only 16% regard it as fair/very fair. The vast majority (39%) regard it as very unfair. Charging pensioners is only going to increase that percentage.
If you asked the entire human race
About Death being unfair , probably
85%+ would say it is UNFAIR.
Still sh*t happens & we get on with it .
The argument something is fair or not is
Diluted by the necessity to have balance .
Something not driven by making money
in order to lay for it ."Why is it necessary to have balance with regards to the tv licence? Will we die without it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the Patagonian Nose Flute Hour on BBC Radio 47 is worth the licence fee alone, but I am quite wealthy and £160 is not even half a morning's wage for me. I think it is a shame that my continued support of the BBC forces poorer people to keep on paying the same as me, but like many of the posters on this thread I do not really care that much about them as long as I get to enjoy Eastenders etc without the trauma of not watching it for a few minutes during a commercial break. Does the UK still have food banks, btw? Food banks.. bbc. A logical link. People's money pays for food, people's money pays for the BBC. It's not that difficult to understand
Peoples money pays for bin collections
Peoples money pays for the police
Peoples money pays for the nhs
Really don't see it.
Ok, I guess I will have to explain it in very simple terms.
Bin collections are a necessity.
The police are a necessity.
The NHS is a necessity.
The BBC is an entertainment channel. It is a luxury, not a necessity. The poor are for forced to pay for a luxury that they may not want, or need. Food is a necessity. The £13 per month that poor people are forced to pay for an unwanted luxury could be spent on food, reducing the need for foodbanks.
If you still have difficulty understanding this, please ask any 4 year old child to explain simple economics to you. And you support a party that is "supposed" to be tolerant, and "for the people"?? You make me laugh, but not in a good way.
Are the royal family a necessity?we chip in for them.
Wrong again. The royal family "chip in" for us. They have relinquished all of their income to the treasury and in return they recieve a percentage of it back in the form of 'the sovereign grant'.
Basically we give them some of their own money back and the treasury keeps the rest.
They seem to do doing ok fir someone who has'relinquished all of their income
Do they still have servants?'
What if they do? It's their money to spend. The fact remains that we are not paying for them and they are actually paying towards us.
In contrast, the bbc take government money and on top of that want to charge every household to pay for content production that they then also make money from by selling it back to us in the form of physical media and broadcasting rights the world over. Not only are they being paid three times to make content the publishing and broadcasting rights bring in a passive income for evermore.
Tell me agin why they need to milk even more money from pensioners?
Seems a bit strange as statistics.co states the taxpayer contributed £68 million to the royal family in 2019 we also funded the renovations to frogmore cottage.
Context is a wonderful thing. The taxpayer did and does give money to the royals however the crux of this is that they money the treasury are 'giving' them is an allowance in return for the royals 'giving' all of the money made by the crown estate to the treasury. The royals give 100% and recieve back 25% of it to enable them to continue their duties.
"The Sovereign Grant for 2019-20 is £82.4 million which is 25% of £329.4 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated. It was announced in November 2019 that the Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million. This is 25% of The Crown Estate's revenue surplus in 2018-19 which was £343.5 million.5 Nov 2019"
Hmmm..I was just told the royal family "chip in for us
So the taxpayer does fund them?indirectly but we do.
Cam I ask how come the royal family came to own so much property and assets?
If I earn and give you £100 and later you give me back £25 who is better of? Who funded who?
Can you ask my question
How can 1 person own 6.6 billion acres of land?
How did this come about?
Genuine question.
1 person doesn't. You still havent grasped the concept of the crown estate and i suspect you won't even try to.
So she doesn't own the land?
I'm not 100 percent sure if she owns them or its because our monarch is head of the commonwealth. I do know the Romans brought the idea of imperial ownership to us. It's the same with the Catholic church and pope who heads an organization that owns huge amounts. Same with some Muslim monarchs. The fact is she is our monarch who provides more money to the country.
From what I've read the queen,or the crown is the biggest landowner on the planet.And I still don't fully understand how she owns land abroad as the days of empire are long gone
I'm not sure how we can call ourselves a modern society when 1 family can own a 6th of the planet because it was simply given to them,but whatever.
In return for the proceeds of these assets they are given a substantial grant which the taxpayer contributes towards.
If people wanna believe in some medieval system where we bow and scrape to a family born into untold wealth and privilege,that's upto them.
Wasn't it only relatively recently she started paying tax?
I think your missing the point
The money they earn and give to the treasury far greater than what they receive in a grant so they are a net contributor. I ask you again do you now understand the funding model? If this was not the case like they ceased to exist as our monarch then it means less money for the country. Medieval or not it provides the country with funds and as said its how its done throughout the world. I understand you don't agree with her inheriting so much but those are the facts
Surely it would depends on who inherits all those millions of pounds worth of assets?
Would we be better off without them?I don't know but other countries seem to cope.
And its not really done throughout the world surely as not every country has a constitutional.monarch?."Well it's a different topic if we were to get rid of them as would need to make up the shortfall. The monarch is the legal owner of her possessions and land so removing them would not change who owns the land ect and she would then keep all the income. Many other other places do have monarchs and work in similar ways. also the Catholic church owns vast amounts of land and gets an income from it. I'm already guilty of being deflected so apologise to other users. Started of explaining the funding model lol. I hope you can now acknowledge this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Additionally the sovereign grant is only part of their income Income from the duchy of lancaster which is owned by the public goes straight to the queen Again the land belongs to the monarch so it's their earnings The public own the land of the duchy of lancaster Wrong, again. Stand corrected on that one Apparently Charles owns half of Cornwall for some reason " Because he is Prince of Wales. Will go to William when he becomes king | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To bring it back to the point of discussion . . . There are quite a few surveys and petitions out there to scrap the tv licence. One has 93% want it scrapped. Another has 63% want it scrapped. Both 2020 too. Just a matter of time before those BBC bandits have to earn an income just like the rest of media does.
Funny there are left wing militant petitions
99% that say anyone who doesnt support the BBC
Is a Bigited fool .
There are also Left wing Miltant petitions
That 81% , call for all bigots to be extradited .
Nobody cares where to it seems .
A petition set up & run by some
politically minded foolishness
means absolutely nothing to anybody
Other than some "Patronising " pedant
to throw weight to there undeniably bored
state of mind on a political forum on a swingers sight.
If i have offended you in anyway
I apologise to absolutley nobody
Funnily enough there are also polls with no political allegiance and i have never seen one in favour of a tv licence.
The yougov polls has a tracker showing 59% rating it as unfair/very unfair whereas only 16% regard it as fair/very fair. The vast majority (39%) regard it as very unfair. Charging pensioners is only going to increase that percentage.
If you asked the entire human race
About Death being unfair , probably
85%+ would say it is UNFAIR.
Still sh*t happens & we get on with it .
The argument something is fair or not is
Diluted by the necessity to have balance .
Something not driven by making money
in order to lay for it .
Why is it necessary to have balance with regards to the tv licence? Will we die without it?"Balance for media . Will we die without it ? One could say it is possible . The crystal palace transmitting station Also Belmont transmitting station Mendip transmitting station & Croydon transmitting station. All used by other media source radio stations With advertising but set up by the beeb. Media outlets that were a lifeline for those during lockdown Some even provided food contact to those Who were unable to get out . Y9u do understand that without the beeb most of this stuff Would not have been possible. Anyway not to digress more, that should satisfy your question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
