BBC launches consultation on TV licence fee for over-75s

[Java Jive]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46274054

"BBC launches consultation on TV licence fee for over-75s

The BBC is launching a consultation period to decide how licence fees
for over-75s should be paid for.

They are currently financed by a government-funded scheme, which is due
to end in 2020.

It is expected the cost of free licences to the over-75s will total
£745m - a fifth of the BBC's current budget by 2021/22.

The consultation period is running for 12 weeks from 20 November until
12 February.

In a speech to the BBC, Director General Tony Hall said there were
"important issues to get right".

Lord Hall added: "While the costs of the schemes are rising, so is the
need for our programmes and content. We are looking at options for
reform, what's fair, what's feasible," he said.

Free TV licence recipients 'richer'

It was also outlined that the cost of taking on the scheme would be the
equivalent of what is spent today on all of BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC
Four, the BBC News Channel, CBBC and CBeebies.

The public can read and respond to the consultation ..."

Perhaps those over 75 will agree to pay their licences if the BBC will
agree to paragraph their reports properly !-)

[Indy Jess John]

On 20/11/2018 13:56, Java Jive wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46274054
>
> "BBC launches consultation on TV licence fee for over-75s
>
> The BBC is launching a consultation period to decide how licence fees
> for over-75s should be paid for.
>
> They are currently financed by a government-funded scheme, which is due
> to end in 2020.
>
> It is expected the cost of free licences to the over-75s will total
> £745m - a fifth of the BBC's current budget by 2021/22.

This is very skewed thinking.

Currently the Government funds a "free licence".
Effectively the Over 75s can watch if they like, and this has no impact
on the BBC.

The BBC is pricing the over-75s licence as though they remain under 75.
But they don't get money for the over-75s at the moment, they just
issue a licence at no cost to the elderly viewer.

What the Government has done is dump the problem of handling the
licences to the Over-75s to the BBC, in order to put a spin on the
reality that they are cutting the money they give to the BBC. It is
that, rather than the issue of free licences, that is the real issue. If
the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
there would be enough of a public outcry to force the Government to
think again.

Jim

[Bill Wright]

On 20/11/2018 13:56, Java Jive wrote:

> Perhaps those over 75 will agree to pay their licences if the BBC will
> agree to paragraph their reports properly !-)

And make an effort to provide programming more suited for that age group.

Bill

[Brian Gaff]

And perhaps all those with no internet access could be given a way to fill
it in over the telephone. I've not looked but ever since this shit hit the
fan about 5 months ago, most disability organisations and those with low
income family support have been saying that the Government could easily
still fund this, why are they pushing the bbc to be bad guy?


I think I commented here when somebody mentioned black and white licenses
that this was on the cards and marvelled how they can charge so low for a
b/w licence but still charge only a small discount for blind users.
Its cock eyed, literally, we get no picture.

Here is what I think. Blind. I think a household should only get a discount
if all members fall into the criteria, ie, if one is blind and the rest
sighted, why not charge full whack.
also if both people are over 75 then charge a quarter licence.

However maybe the main aim at the moment is to make bbc have a subscription
service. What that would mean is that channels like the free to air ones
will only be able to show things after they have been shown to death on the
sub channels. The problem is that now there are so many subscription
services out there, it could end up that nobody pays for anything at all and
just ignores them.
What then?
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:pt13qv$m9f$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Brian Gaff]

Yes I agree. I do also feel though that unless you are going to means test,
you are never going to make it fair as those older folk with good funds will
still claim their freebe.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Indy Jess John" <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g%VID.698131$134.3...@fx03.am4...

[Brian Gaff]

Again, I also think from what people tell me they should also teach
cameramen and women that a shot can last several tens of seconds, not just a
few milliseconds and that audio production standards are there to help you
hear what people say not the jet going over or somebody digging the road up
around the corner.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:pt1c12$161l$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Brian Gaff]

It said on the radio it was the whole of the radio budget.
Seems to change whether you hear it on the tv or the radio.

Do you have a link to the ways to fill out this consultation for non net
savy folk?

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:pt13qv$m9f$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Java Jive]

On 20/11/2018 20:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
> Do you have a link to the ways to fill out this consultation for non net
> savy folk?

I don't know about non-net savvy and I don't know about those with
visual impairment such as your own, but here's the link from the
original BBC report; as you will find out, it seems to be a generic URL
for airing your views rather than one about that particular topic:
https://www.bbc.com/yoursay

[Robin]

The online questionnaire is at https://bbcconsultation.traverse.org.uk/

By way of background, the BBC seem to have ignored all the lessons
learnt by central government on how to consult the public. As far as I
can see:

a. the consultation document is a separate document. The link to that is

https://www.bbc.com/yoursay/consultation.pdf

b. it is only when you get to page 48 of that document you find you can
phone 0800 232 1382 to get Braille and audio versions

c. the questionnaire is on pages 51 to 54. But they ask people to
respond online. They give a link for that which oddly is to their
general page for the consultation exercise. Part way down that tells
you "click the button below and you’ll be taken to our online
questionnaire". But there are 2 things below: first a link to the PDF
and second a link to the questionnaire. I got it wrong the first time.

The whole thing reeks of the BBC's amateurism - or arrogance - when it
comes to engagement with the public.

On 20/11/2018 20:08, Brian Gaff wrote:

> It said on the radio it was the whole of the radio budget.
> Seems to change whether you hear it on the tv or the radio.
>
> Do you have a link to the ways to fill out this consultation for non net
> savy folk?
> Brian
>


--

Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Brian Gaff]

This is the opposite of nudge as they call it in the advertising industry.
For example if we make the yes button bigger than the no, more people vote
yes. In this case being a generic link, many will not bother to find the
page and then even if there is a non net savvy way to do it they will point
at the low take up as meaning most people will be happy to pay the extra.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:pt1tgi$7su$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Brian Gaff]

Yes indeed, I think its quite deliberate see my earlier comment. Its nudge
marketing, ie the hidden agenda is that the harder it is the worse it is so
fewer people bother.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:1886e3d5-1aeb-bfb6...@outlook.com...

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:02:02 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>The problem is that now there are so many subscription
>services out there, it could end up that nobody pays for anything at all and
>just ignores them.
> What then?

On the basis that the value of something is whatever people are
willing to pay for it, everything would find its own level, as it does
for every other form of entertainment. If it did turn out that nobody
wanted to pay for the BBC, then how could it be justifiable to extract
the money to pay for it, by means of criminal law, for something that
was widely perceived as of no value?

The BBC is uniquely priveleged to have an income that is guaranteed by
law effectively regardless of what it does. There might be some
justification for this if it gave us something uniquely valued in
return, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to point to anything
it does that isn't also provided in some form by at least one of the
many other sources of television entertainment we now have.

Rod.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Brian Gaff]

OK that number is a jobsworth working from a script just there to send out
packs.
However after a look at the form, it seems there is a cap char on it. That
is not going to be accessible for blind people. I have no idea what sort it
is, but most are inaccessible these days.

I thus pointed out that not only is the survey badly designed for people who
have internet access who are blind but also that if nobody has the internet
they cannot fill it out. there was a pause and they took my name and phone
and said they would get a manager to ring. It is quite plain that this
company has been engaged but is blissfully ignorant of the need for their
work to be equally accessible by all parts of the population. there does,
sadly these days seem to be a very annoying assumption that every single
person is glued to the internet by some kind of umbilical.
They are sadly mistaken at least in my sphere of contacts, I could name at
least 20 people who are not.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:1886e3d5-1aeb-bfb6...@outlook.com...

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 09:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
> This is the opposite of nudge as they call it in the advertising industry.
> For example if we make the yes button bigger than the no, more people vote
> yes. In this case being a generic link, many will not bother to find the
> page and then even if there is a non net savvy way to do it they will point
> at the low take up as meaning most people will be happy to pay the extra.

You may be right, Brian, but I tend to the view that this is just more
rank incompetence of the sort that permeates all their websites.

[Another John]

In article <8q9avdpkohj8uj0ua...@4ax.com>,

Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:02:02 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
> <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that now there are so many subscription
> >services out there, it could end up that nobody pays for anything at all and
> >just ignores them.
>

> On the basis that the value of something is whatever people are
> willing to pay for it, everything would find its own level, as it does
> for every other form of entertainment.

Ah yes: knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.


> The BBC is uniquely privileged to have an income that is guaranteed by

> law effectively regardless of what it does.

...blah blah: have you ever worked out what the licence income is? And
compared it to what the BBC produces? The BBC is a galaxy of media, and
specifically, constitutionally in fact, is *not* just about
"entertainment".

> There might be some
> justification for this if it gave us something uniquely valued in
> return, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to point to anything
> it does that isn't also provided in some form by at least one of the
> many other sources of television entertainment we now have.

You're talking about BBC TV. And BBC1/some-of-2/3, moreover. Harder to
compare BBC4 to anything else in the commercial media (all of which are
aimed at a different audience to that of BBC4, and of much of BBC2
(where else would you find stunning programmes like "Arena"?).

> it's becoming increasingly difficult to point to anything
> it does that isn't also provided in some form by at least one of the
> many other sources of television entertainment we now have.

How about Radio 4 just off the top of my head. Yes, I know you said
'television'. I'm making a a point. Do you ever listen to Radio 4? No.
Thought not.

Time for my tablets.

John

[Robin]

I hope you and others will make your views known not just to the BBC
management but to the media. When the people directly affected are the
over-75s it is beyond a joke that the BBC starts with a "style over
substance" web page which does not doesn't cater for disabilities and
goes downhill from there.

On 21/11/2018 10:11, Brian Gaff wrote:
> OK that number is a jobsworth working from a script just there to send out
> packs.
> However after a look at the form, it seems there is a cap char on it. That
> is not going to be accessible for blind people. I have no idea what sort it
> is, but most are inaccessible these days.
>
> I thus pointed out that not only is the survey badly designed for people who
> have internet access who are blind but also that if nobody has the internet
> they cannot fill it out. there was a pause and they took my name and phone
> and said they would get a manager to ring. It is quite plain that this
> company has been engaged but is blissfully ignorant of the need for their
> work to be equally accessible by all parts of the population. there does,
> sadly these days seem to be a very annoying assumption that every single
> person is glued to the internet by some kind of umbilical.
> They are sadly mistaken at least in my sphere of contacts, I could name at
> least 20 people who are not.
> Brian
>


--

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 09:51, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> The BBC is uniquely privileged to have an income that is guaranteed by

> law effectively regardless of what it does. There might be some
> justification for this if it gave us something uniquely valued in
> return, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to point to anything
> it does that isn't also provided in some form by at least one of the
> many other sources of television entertainment we now have.

When I look at the list or programmes we have recorded the BBC doesn't
show up nearly as well as it used to. The BBC's aching political
correctness and left-liberal agenda puts us off a lot of their stuff.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 10:30, Another John wrote:

> How about Radio 4 just off the top of my head. Yes, I know you said
> 'television'. I'm making a a point. Do you ever listen to Radio 4? No.
> Thought not.

At one time I listened to R4 a lot; all day and every day in fact, as
far as was possible. But in recent years my listening has declined. I
use iPlayer and go through the schedule trying to find something worth
hearing. Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail. Many (but not all) of
the 6.30pm comedy programmes are spoilt by leftist virtue signalling.
The R4 output seems to be heavily biased towards women's interests,
transgenderism, the problems faced by immigrants, and so forth. In other
words, things that don't interest me greatly. There are some decent
unbiased intelligent programmes left, but they seem to be diminishing. I
think I listen to LBC more than R4 nowadays.

Bill

[Indy Jess John]

On 21/11/2018 10:11, Brian Gaff wrote:

> OK that number is a jobsworth working from a script just there to send out
> packs.
> However after a look at the form, it seems there is a cap char on it. That
> is not going to be accessible for blind people. I have no idea what sort it
> is, but most are inaccessible these days.

You wouldn't stand a chance of guessing this one, Brian. You have to
click on only the pictures that contain traffic lights.

Give them hell!

Jim

[Andrew]

On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,

The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation, a trebling
of the NHS budget, the triple lock, final salary pensions, free
prescriptions, £6-digit cancer treatments and winter heating bungs.

This is one group that doesn't need a free TV license, effectively
paid for by a generation that doesn't really watch or listen to BBC
output.

[Andrew]

Aren't there enough cooking, quiz and antique shows already ?.

[Robin]

I find it rather sad that such issues seem increasingly to be discussed
in terms of stereotypes such as yours above. As one of the over 65s who
does not fit it, I can't help but wonder whether you choose to ignore or
are just ignorant of facts such as there are 1.2 million over-65
households who do *not* own their own home. Home ownership is also less
common among those who worked in manual occupations, and also among
ethnic minorities if that matters to you.


Source for data:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey

[Brian Gaff]

In fact the company mentioned in the consultation are wholly responsible for
that content, and the BBC it appears are doing this that way to stop
internal bias. the companies words not mine and of course nobody has rung
me, but then I'd have been surprised if they had. Its called hiding behind
the web site excuse.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message

news:c6441b1e-1fed-a82d...@outlook.com...

[Mark Carver]

On 21/11/2018 15:11, Andrew wrote:
> On 20/11/2018 16:16, Bill Wright wrote:
>> On 20/11/2018 13:56, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps those over 75 will agree to pay their licences if the BBC
>>> will agree to paragraph their reports properly !-)
>>
>> And make an effort to provide programming more suited for that age group.

> Aren't there enough cooking, quiz and antique shows already ?.

Ha ! FFS. My 87 year old mum would ram her copy of Radio Times right up
your arse until it disappears, if you were to suggest to her she watches
any of those genre of programme.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Brian Gaff]

I personally feel all cap chars should be at the start of a form, as then if
you are unable to do them you have not wasted your time doing a survey you
cannot send. Any company who is unable to filter robots out should be shot.
Cap chars are the lazy way out and then they have the nerve to put at the
bottom, if you have trouble ring this number!
I just did bah humbug.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Indy Jess John" <jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:GdbJD.216759$g31....@fx17.am4...

[Java Jive]

I should point out that I'm not yet 75 or over, but ...

On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:
>>
>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
>>
>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation

Irrelevant. When you move house usually you sell your old one for more
than you paid for it, but proportionately will have to pay more for the
new one, and thus make no profit. In the early 1970s, my brother bought
a house in Greenwich for, I think, about £12,000, and sold it some years
later for about £80,000, but all of that went on purchasing his next
home. I bought a house in the south for about £125,000 in 1997 and sold
it for about £215,000 in 2012, but none of that sum remains in my bank
account today, more's the pity.

>> a trebling
>> of the NHS budget

Everyone who becomes sick or has an accident benefits from that, and
younger people are more likely to indulge in dangerous driving,
dangerous sports, or become drug addicts.

>> the triple lock

Put in place because over many years of inflation the purchasing value
of the state pension had been falling in real terms.

>> final salary pensions

I wish. My private and state pensions combined bring in an income below
the income tax threshold.

>> free
>> prescriptions

That is true, but in the past others have qualified for them as well,
currently You can get free NHS prescriptions if, at the time the
prescription is dispensed, you:

are 60 or over
are under 16
are 16 to 18 and in full-time education
are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have
a valid maternity exemption certificate (MatEx)
have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical
exemption certificate (MedEx)
have a continuing physical disability that prevents you going out
without help from another person and have a valid MedEx
hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription
is for your accepted disability
are an NHS inpatient

https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/get-help-with-prescription-costs/

>> £6-digit cancer treatments

There are teenage cancer sufferers too.

>> and winter heating bungs. >> This is one group that doesn't need a free TV license, effectively
>> paid for by a generation that doesn't really watch or listen to BBC
>> output.

Because people are living longer, the average age of the population is
increasing, and therefore, you might have thought, the BBC and other
public broadcasters should target their output increasingly to older
people, but in reality this is not so, as can be seen from the ageist
policies of the BBC in sacking older, particularly older female,
presenters because they want to have younger presenters to attract a
younger audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies

"2007–2011: Accusations of ageism and sexism

The BBC was accused of ageism and sexism when news presenter Moira
Stuart (55) – the first black female television newsreader – was sacked
in April 2007 after more than two decades of presenting, despite many
male presenters in similar situations being allowed to continue in their
jobs.[124] In November 2008, four female Countryfile presenters
(Michaela Strachan, Charlotte Smith, Miriam O'Reilly and Juliet Morris),
all in their 40s and 50s, were dismissed from the show.[125]

The issue returned in July 2009, when former theatre choreographer
Arlene Phillips (66) was replaced on the Strictly Come Dancing panel by
Alesha Dixon, a pop-star half her age.[126] The males on the show were
Len Goodman (65), Bruno Tonioli (53), Craig Revel Horwood (44), and
Bruce Forsyth (81).[126]

Former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly claimed she was "warned
about wrinkles",[127] and won an employment tribunal against the
corporation on the grounds of ageism and victimisation – but not
sexism.[128] With other older women also dropped by the BBC, Joan
Bakewell claimed the BBC's policy was "damaging the position of older
women in society", whilst former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies
Campbell said that the BBC was obsessed with youth culture and was
shallow thinking.[129]"

> I find it rather sad that such issues seem increasingly to be discussed
> in terms of stereotypes such as yours above.  As one of the over 65s who
> does not fit it, I can't help but wonder whether you choose to ignore or
> are just ignorant of facts such as there are 1.2 million over-65
> households who do *not* own their own home.  Home ownership is also less
> common among those who worked in manual occupations, and also among
> ethnic minorities if that matters to you.
>
> Source for data:
> https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey

Quite.

[Norman Wells]

On 21/11/2018 17:11, Java Jive wrote:

>>> free prescriptions
>
> That is true, but in the past others have qualified for them as well,
> currently You can get free NHS prescriptions if, at the time the
> prescription is dispensed, you:
>
>     are 60 or over
>     are under 16
>     are 16 to 18 and in full-time education
>     are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have
> a valid maternity exemption certificate (MatEx)
>     have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical
> exemption certificate (MedEx)
>     have a continuing physical disability that prevents you going out
> without help from another person and have a valid MedEx
>     hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription
> is for your accepted disability
>     are an NHS inpatient
>
> https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/get-help-with-prescription-costs/

It surprises a lot of people, but the fact is that over 90% of
prescriptions issued in the UK are actually dispensed free of charge.

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 16:34, Mark Carver wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2018 15:11, Andrew wrote:
>>
>> Aren't there enough cooking, quiz and antique shows already ?.
>
> Ha ! FFS.  My 87 year old mum would ram her copy of Radio Times right up
> your arse until it disappears, if you were to suggest to her she watches
> any of those genre of programme.

I would pay her licence fee for her to watch that !-)

[Max Demian]

Apparently those are to teach computers to recognise objects in the
environment - in this case for self driving cars. Other sets are for
road signs. There are also ones for boats - not sure which of our
(future) robot masters need to be able to recognise boats, and for what.
Maybe only they know.

--
Max Demian

[charles]

In article <pt3sgh$1ctr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Andrew <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
> > If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,

> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,

Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Andrew]

On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:

And how many of those 1.2 million who are renting are living
comfortably in social housing, with all bills paid ?, and with the
door to all those other juicy benefits wide open ?.

Meanwhile, the generation that are funding the BBC and the NHS with
their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
rented accomodation because the over 55's have all the property nicely
bagged.

[Andrew]

On 21/11/2018 17:11, Java Jive wrote:

> I should point out that I'm not yet 75 or over, but ...
>
> On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
>>>
>>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
>>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation
>
> Irrelevant.  When you move house usually you sell your old one for more
> than you paid for it, but proportionately will have to pay more for the
> new one, and thus make no profit.  In the early 1970s, my brother bought
> a house in Greenwich for, I think, about £12,000, and sold it some years
> later for about £80,000, but all of that went on purchasing his next
> home.  I bought a house in the south for about £125,000 in 1997 and sold
> it for about £215,000 in 2012, but none of that sum remains in my bank
> account today, more's the pity.
>

Very relevant when you are saddled with £50,000 of student debt and
house prices are anything up to 8 times earnings.

If you sold a house without buying another then you are in a privileged
position. More fool you for not putting it all in a suitable investment
trust, like the Alliance Trust, Dundee, or anything from Baillie Gifford.

But their parents are often taxpayers. 12 million moaning minnie
pensioners are freeloading for up to 30 years - and like it or not are
the NHS's bread and butter, being far and away the most expensive
group to treat, and most have never paid anywhere near enough NI or tax
to cover their state pension, never mind NHS costs as well.

[Andrew]

On 21/11/2018 17:45, charles wrote:
> In article <pt3sgh$1ctr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Andrew <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
>
>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,
>
> Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket
>

If Corbyn amd McDonnell get into power, then it most certainly will
be money OUT of your pocket. LOTS.

[Andrew]

On 21/11/2018 15:51, Martin wrote:

> What makes you think this is what OAPs want watch?
>

They make programs that their audience research indicates what
is desired.

Hence daytime wall-to-wall property spivving, cooking, quizzing and
the occasional soap. Plus plenty of repeats.

[Bill Findlay]

On 21 Nov 2018, Roderick Stewart wrote
(in article<8q9avdpkohj8uj0ua...@4ax.com>):
> ...

> The BBC is uniquely priveleged to have an income that is guaranteed by
> law effectively regardless of what it does. There might be some
> justification for this if it gave us something uniquely valued in
> return, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to point to anything
> it does that isn't also provided in some form by at least one of the
> many other sources of television entertainment we now have.

BritNat propaganda is the BBC's forte.

--
Bill Findlay

[Robin]

On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
>> On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
>>>
>>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
>>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation, a trebling
>>> of the NHS budget, the triple lock, final salary pensions, free
>>> prescriptions, £6-digit cancer treatments and winter heating bungs.
>>
>>> This is one group that doesn't need a free TV license, effectively
>>> paid for by a generation that doesn't really watch or listen to BBC
>>> output.
>>
>> I find it rather sad that such issues seem increasingly to be
>> discussed in terms of stereotypes such as yours above.  As one of the
>> over 65s who does not fit it, I can't help but wonder whether you
>> choose to ignore or are just ignorant of facts such as there are 1.2
>> million over-65 households who do *not* own their own home.  Home
>> ownership is also less common among those who worked in manual
>> occupations, and also among ethnic minorities if that matters to you.
>>
>>
>> Source for data:
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey
>>
>>
>>
>
> And how many of those 1.2 million who are renting are living
> comfortably in social housing, with all bills paid ?, and with the
> door to all those other juicy benefits wide open ?.

As you started by stating they are part of "one group that doesn't need
a free TV license" I am surprised you don't just tell me.

> Meanwhile, the generation that are funding the BBC and the NHS with
> their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
> rented accomodation because the over 55's have all the property nicely
> bagged.

Care to give us some facts rather than just parroting cliches?

Eg how do you justify "the generation that are funding the BBC and the

NHS with their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private

rented accommodation" when the bottom half of taxpayers (by income) pay
less than 10 per cent of total income tax? It's estimated that this
year the top 10 per cent alone will pay very nearly 60 per cent of the
total.

I don't deny there are problems - especially with housing supply. But
what's your solution to that? Eg how do you feel about immigration?

[Andrew]

Those are the facts !!!. Your're in denial if you can't see it.

> Eg how do you justify "the generation that are funding the BBC and the
> NHS with their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
> rented accommodation" when the bottom half of taxpayers (by income) pay
> less than 10 per cent of total income tax?  It's estimated that this
> year the top 10 per cent alone will pay very nearly 60 per cent of the
> total.
>
> I don't deny there are problems - especially with housing supply.  But
> what's your solution to that?  Eg how do you feel about immigration?
>

The subject is free TV licenses for the over 75's, not immigration.

[Robin]

Did they (or should that be do they?) not teach you the difference
between a fact and an assertion?

>> Eg how do you justify "the generation that are funding the BBC and the
>> NHS with their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
>> rented accommodation" when the bottom half of taxpayers (by income)
>> pay less than 10 per cent of total income tax?  It's estimated that
>> this year the top 10 per cent alone will pay very nearly 60 per cent
>> of the total.

So you reckon a large part of the top 10 per cent of taxpayers "live at
home or in expensive private rented accommodation because the over 55's
have all the property nicely bagged"? Sheesh!

>> I don't deny there are problems - especially with housing supply.  But
>> what's your solution to that?  Eg how do you feel about immigration?
>>
>
> The subject is free TV licenses for the over 75's, not immigration.

You introduced housing into the argument.

[Roderick Stewart]

It is however a group that *does* need the option of deciding whether
it wants to watch BBC television at all, and not to be forced to pay
for it if it wants to watch something else instead.

Actually any group you could think of should be entitled to that.

I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for my Amazon subscription, but I
can choose whether I want it or not, and don't have to pay it to watch
anything provided by anyone else.

I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for my Netflix subscription, but again
I can choose whether I want it or not, and don't have to pay it to
watch anything provided by anyone else.

I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for my internet service, and so
on, and so on...

Then there's the BBC. Apparently it's special for some reason, or some
people seem to think it is, but nobody can explain what the reason is,
and as far as I'm concerned somebody else's nostalgia doesn't count.
Once upon a time it was special by virtue of being the only
broadcasting service in existence, but not any more. It's time to be
realistic about this.

Rod.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:
>

Having being accused justly of stereotypical bigotry, you compound the
felony by puking out more. Where are your facts and figures supporting
this outrageous claim?! As ever, the actual truth is far, far more
complicated. Traditionally we in the UK have been conditioned to think
that the only housing worth having is to purchase your own home, but
actually that has usually been truer in other countries, not the UK.
Over the last 25 years or so, the percentage of home ownership in the UK
has fluctuated between the low 60%s to 70%, and currently at 63.5% we
are number 42 in the following table while by comparison some other
countries such as Romania have consistently been in the high 90%s and
yet others like Switzerland in the low 40%s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

The BBC published a statistical guide 'Homes In The UK' a while ago now,
so while its data is not absolutely up to date, it remains still a good
overall guide to the complexity of the issues involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456991/html/default.stm

The idea that one age group is somehow causing others to be homeless is
ridiculous. There are a number of factors which affect housing -
percentage of adults in the population, percentage of those with
children, average wage levels, number of houses fit for occupation,
price of land, etc - but in general, like anything else housing is
subject to the laws of supply and demand, so in times of high demand,
prices will go up, and the biggest cause of high demand is increasing
population. I cannot claim any expertise on the subject of housing, but
I suspect that no crisis in British housing was so acute as that after
WW2, because so many homes had been destroyed by bombing, hence the
widespread use of prefabs, etc, in the post-war years. In the 70s it
was common to see whole new office blocks in London standing empty,
because some tax loophole meant that it was still cost-effective to
build them, even though for some years afterwards they brought in no
rent - Centre Point was one such. Even as late as the 80s, I remember
seeing bombed out homes in Bristol which had not then been developed,
because they had been bought by speculators, who wanted to get the
surrounding buildings so that they could demolish the entire block and
put up office blocks, etc. And what happened to not just the docks, but
all the terraced houses in the surrounding area that were demolished to
make way for Docklands? If you want to finger-point, such development
would be a more appropriate and worthwhile target than picking on
blameless old people.

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 15:11, Andrew wrote:

I meant decent drama and comedy unsullied by PC agenda. People who were
adult before all this bollocks started are aware of it. Younger people
have been immersed in it as long as they've been able to think so they
don't notice it.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 16:34, Mark Carver wrote:

>> Aren't there enough cooking, quiz and antique shows already ?.
>
> Ha ! FFS.  My 87 year old mum would ram her copy of Radio Times right up
> your arse until it disappears

Last week's edition, presumably.

Bill

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 18:16, Andrew wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2018 17:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I should point out that I'm not yet 75 or over, but ...
>>
>> On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
>>>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation
>>
>> Irrelevant.  When you move house usually you sell your old one for
>> more than you paid for it, but proportionately will have to pay more
>> for the new one, and thus make no profit.  In the early 1970s, my
>> brother bought a house in Greenwich for, I think, about £12,000, and
>> sold it some years later for about £80,000, but all of that went on
>> purchasing his next home.  I bought a house in the south for about
>> £125,000 in 1997 and sold it for about £215,000 in 2012, but none of
>> that sum remains in my bank account today, more's the pity.
>
> Very relevant when you are saddled with £50,000 of student debt and
> house prices are anything up to 8 times earnings.

The cost of housing in relation to current average earnings is very
relevant, but blaming increasing prices on those who already own a home
and saying they've done well out of them is a complete non-sequitor,
because when you sell a house, you nearly always have to buy another.

> If you sold a house without buying another then you are in a privileged
> position. More fool you for not putting it all in a suitable investment
> trust, like the Alliance Trust, Dundee, or anything from Baillie Gifford.

Jeez! What a jerk! The fact that you immediately jump to the *wrong*
conclusion shows that you are being bigoted irrational. *Of course* I
bought another house, that's why I haven't got that big fat 'profit' in
my bank account any more.

>>>> £6-digit cancer treatments
>>
>> There are teenage cancer sufferers too.
>
> But their parents are often taxpayers. 12 million

> pensioners

Are often taxpayers as well.

> moaning minnie

You're the one doing the moaning here.

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 17:33, Java Jive wrote:
>> My 87 year old mum would ram her copy of Radio Times right
>> up your arse until it disappears, if you were to suggest to her she
>> watches any of those genre of programme.
>
> I would pay her licence fee for her to watch that !-)

I would think it would be quite difficult anyway.

Bill

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:
>
> They make programs that their audience research indicates what
> is desired.

I think that's the point that many have already made here, they don't.
They make programs that they think will attract the audience they *want*
to attract!

> Hence daytime wall-to-wall property spivving, cooking, quizzing and
> the occasional soap. Plus plenty of repeats.

Well it's strange, I'm old, and quite a few of my family and neighbours
are, yet I know of no-one who wastes their time watching such crap.
Most of us have got better things to do.

It's time you stopped peddling Daily Mail style stereotypes and learned
to think based on factual information.

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:

> Meanwhile, the generation that are funding the BBC and the NHS with
> their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
> rented accomodation because the over 55's have all the property nicely
> bagged.

Like everything else the price of property is determined by supply and
demand. The supply side is diminished by a number of factors, including
builders who buy land and hold it in reserve, and the demand side is
increased by the rise in the population, 60% of which is caused by net
immigration.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:

> They make programs that their audience research indicates what
> is desired.

BBC commissioning is heavily influenced by political correctness and
left/liberal values. There are some programmes the BBC would never make
or buy.

Bill

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 20:33, Bill Wright wrote:
>
> the demand side is
> increased by the rise in the population, 60% of which is caused by net
> immigration.

You've peddled that stat before and were found wanting when asked to
justify it, linking to page that didn't say anything even remotely like
that.

[Bill Wright]

I got it from an ONS report in the Times. What figure do YOU put on the
percentage of population rise caused by net immigration? Hypothetically,
let's say it was only 20%. Even that would be enough to upset the
balance between housing supply and demand, education supply and demand;
healthcare supply and demand. Yes we can build schools and houses and
train people; but it takes time, and given current immigration levels we
can't keep up.

I've spent the afternoon in a primary school and the place is bursting
at the seams with kids. They had two new classrooms last year and now
they need two more.

Incidentally, I'm not against immigration. I just think it should be
controlled. We should only let in (a) genuine refugees and (b) people
who will be a credit to our country; people of quality and value. Better
than that that though would be to improve our own education and training
so we don't have to rob less wealthy countries of their best people. Why
don't we train more nurses and doctors? That question is never answered.

You think I'm a racist. After the experiences we've had with the NHS
since 2002 it would take supreme cognitive dissonance (or plain
pig-headed stupidity) to judge people by their colour of their skin. Do
you understand what I'm saying?

Bill

[Robin]

On 21/11/2018 20:49, Java Jive wrote:

You could have demolished Bill OT post much more effectively by citing
authoritative figures. There's power in numbers. Eg you could have
drawn on the ONS projections in October 2017[1]:

"Over the next 10 years, 46% of UK population growth is projected to
result from more births than deaths, with 54% resulting from net
international migration."

"As well as the direct impact, international migration has an indirect
impact on the population in terms of its effect on the numbers of births
and, to a lesser extent in the shorter term, deaths. For example, women
immigrating to the UK who subsequently have children will increase the
numbers of births. Conversely, women emigrating before they have
children will decrease the number of births.

Once the indirect effect is taken into account, international migration
accounts for 77% of the projected UK population growth between mid-2016
and mid-2041. Because migrants are concentrated at young adult ages, the
impact of migration on the projected number of women of childbearing age
is especially important over this period."



[1]
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2016basedstatisticalbulletin

[Max Demian]

On 21/11/2018 20:33, Bill Wright wrote:

You might as well say that the demand for housing is caused by divorce
and refusal to commit.

--
Max Demian

[Java Jive]

On 21/11/2018 22:03, Bill Wright wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 20:49, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/11/2018 20:33, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>
>>> the demand side is increased by the rise in the population, 60% of
>>> which is caused by net immigration.
>>
>> You've peddled that stat before and were found wanting when asked to
>> justify it, linking to page that didn't say anything even remotely
>> like that.
>
> I got it from an ONS report in the Times.

At the time I challenged it before, you linked to a page that didn't say
that, or anything like it. However, I think I've now found where that
was sourced from, but it's misleading because:

a) As you've (mis)quoted it above, it's ambiguous, because the 'which'
should really be taken to refer to the last thing mentioned, which is
'population', and it's clearly rubbish to imply that 60% of the current
UK population are immigrants.

b) As you've (mis)quoted it above, it doesn't say over what time period
the population increase is presumed to occur - to make the point by
making an obviously unintended interpretation of what you wrote, the
population of the UK in Napoleonic times was around 10.5m, so are we to
assume that 60% of the near 53m increase since to the current population
of 63m is due to immigrants and their descendants?

c) It's cherry-picked data from the last decade for which we have
stats, and ignores previous decades where the figures were very
different, including a number where there was net emigration, and others
where there was high excess of birthrate over deaths, and others vice
versa. Current life expectancy is as near as dammit 80, and thirty
years ago it was near as dammit 70, so we have at least to go back about
that far and integrate up the changes since to see what percentage of
the current population are made up of immigrants over that time and
their descendants, but that can't be done from the figures as given,
because immigrants one year are residents the next, and we don't know
what proportion of births and deaths in any one year are down to those
who immigrated within the period in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

> What figure do YOU put on the
> percentage of population rise caused by net immigration?

Although, as already explained above, it's too simplistic a calculation,
over approximately the last 8 decades for which that link gives stats
the average yearly immigration is about 8% of population increase.

> Hypothetically,
> let's say it was only 20%. Even that would be enough to upset the
> balance between housing supply and demand, education supply and demand;
> healthcare supply and demand. Yes we can build schools and houses and
> train people; but it takes time, and given current immigration levels we
> can't keep up.

Yes, but we've been struggling to keep up with the increasing
population, however caused, ever since WW2. That's nothing new, and not
specifically down to immigration, or even 60% down to immigration.

> I've spent the afternoon in a primary school and the place is bursting
> at the seams with kids. They had two new classrooms last year and now
> they need two more.

But that doesn't of itself imply that 60% of the population increase is
caused by immigration, in fact it suggests the exact opposite!

> Incidentally, I'm not against immigration. I just think it should be
> controlled.

But you can't control it unless you have, and *understand how to use*,
accurate figures - it's the latter where your problems lie.

> We should only let in (a) genuine refugees and (b) people
> who will be a credit to our country; people of quality and value. Better
> than that that though would be to improve our own education and training
> so we don't have to rob less wealthy countries of their best people. Why
> don't we train more nurses and doctors? That question is never answered.

There I can agree with you.

> You think I'm a racist.

Not necessarily a racist, but you definitely do have an unfortunate
tendency to think in terms of gross-oversimplifications and stereotypes,
in fact you have a long and inglorious history of doing it, and it
nearly always gets you into trouble.

[Bill Wright]

On 21/11/2018 23:35, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> You've peddled that stat before and were found wanting when asked to
>>> justify it, linking to page that didn't say anything even remotely
>>> like that.

Go to
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

"More than half (55%) of the increase of the UK population between 1991
and 2016 was due to the direct contribution of net migration."

>> You think I'm a racist.
>
> Not necessarily a racist, but you definitely do have an unfortunate
> tendency to think in terms of gross-oversimplifications and stereotypes,
> in fact you have a long and inglorious history of doing it, and it
> nearly always gets you into trouble.

In trouble with who?

Bill

[Bill Wright]

That has to be a factor. There are more single person households. Of
course a thing like this will have a whole lot of contributory causes.

Bill

[Java Jive]

On 22/11/2018 05:01, Bill Wright wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 23:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>> You've peddled that stat before and were found wanting when asked to
>>>> justify it, linking to page that didn't say anything even remotely
>>>> like that.
>
>
> Go to
> https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/
>
> "More than half (55%) of the increase of the UK population between 1991
> and 2016 was due to the direct contribution of net migration."

Exactly, but as I've already explained, it's a misleading statistic to
begin with, which you then misquoted.

>>> You think I'm a racist.
>>
>> Not necessarily a racist, but you definitely do have an unfortunate
>> tendency to think in terms of gross-oversimplifications and
>> stereotypes, in fact you have a long and inglorious history of doing
>> it, and it nearly always gets you into trouble.
>
> In trouble with who?

In trouble with your own credibility here.

[Robin]

It is indeed all bloody complex. But there's much more accessible (not
to day reliable) material than that Wikipedia page.

For an overview of population growth I suggest ONS's "Overview of the UK
population: March 2017"[1]. It deals with changes since 1960. (In
passing, it also attributes 56% of population growth between 2004-2015
to the direct effect of net migration.)

As for housing, I paused over "we've been struggling to keep up with the
increasing population, however caused, ever since WW2". It seems to me
a misleading oversimplification. Dwellings increased faster than
population for a long time. Eg even by 2007 - when the problems with
house building were all too clear - the position was better than in 1971:

"During the period 1971 to 2007 there was a 38 per cent increase in the
number of dwellings from 18.8 million in 1971 to 25.9 million, which
exceeded the 31 per cent increase in the number of households from
18.6 million to 24.4 million (see Chapter 2: Households and
families, Table 2.1). The population of Great Britain increased by
9 per cent over this period, from 54.3 million to 59.2 million."[2]

The sustained price increases from the mid-1990s coincided not just with
reduced new building but the growth in net migration and population and
the private rental sector ("buy-to-let") taking around 2.5 million
properties out of the stock for other (often first time) buyers.
There's what I think is a nice overview of these factors in an ONS
article in 2015 "Housing and home ownership in the UK"[3]



[1]
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017

[2]
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160108204515/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/social-trends-rd/social-trends/social-trends-39/index.html

[3]
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/housingandhomeownershipintheuk/2015-01-22

[Java Jive]

On 22/11/2018 09:28, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2018 23:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/11/2018 22:03, Bill Wright wrote:
>>>
>>> Hypothetically, let's say it was only 20%. Even that would be enough
>>> to upset the balance between housing supply and demand, education
>>> supply and demand; healthcare supply and demand. Yes we can build
>>> schools and houses and train people; but it takes time, and given
>>> current immigration levels we can't keep up.
>>
>> Yes, but we've been struggling to keep up with the increasing
>> population, however caused, ever since WW2.  That's nothing new, and
>> not specifically down to immigration, or even 60% down to immigration.
>

> As for housing, I paused over "we've been struggling to keep up with the
> increasing population, however caused, ever since WW2".  It seems to me
> a misleading oversimplification. Dwellings increased faster than
> population for a long time. Eg even by 2007 - when the problems with
> house building were all too clear - the position was better than in 1971:

But you quoted me out of context. As the context restored above shows,
I was replying to comments by Bill that weren't just about housing.

> The sustained price increases from the mid-1990s coincided not just with
> reduced new building but the growth in net migration and population and
> the private rental sector ("buy-to-let") taking around 2.5 million
> properties out of the stock for other (often first time) buyers. There's
> what I think is a nice overview of these factors in an ONS article in
> 2015 "Housing and home ownership in the UK"[3]

I don't dispute that, in fact on the contrary I was one of the first to
mention in this thread that increasing population leads to increasing
demand for housing which leads to increasing house prices. But it's
important to remember also that there have been other periods of rapidly
increasing house prices, and I gave as an example of this my brother's
house in 1970s Greenwich, a time when there was net emigration.

[David Woolley]

On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:

> And how many of those 1.2 million who are renting are living
> comfortably in social housing, with all bills paid ?, and with the
> door to all those other juicy benefits wide open ?.

Maggie sold off most of the social housing to private landlords (well
actually to sitting tenants, who then sold to private landlords).

[Indy Jess John]

On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:

> They make programs that their audience research indicates what
> is desired.

There is no real evidence that they do. I remember the arguments about
whether it was sensible to make BBC3 on-line only, and the BBC insisted
that as the younger generation all watched TV on their smartphones and
that was their target audience for BBC3 programmes.

It went on-line only. Then a subsequent survey of youngsters with
smartphones revealed that only 8% of them had watched BBC3 at least
once. Not exactly what audience research indicated!

From my point of view, I know I can watch BBC3 on iplayer if I want to,
but the TV guide provided in my daily newspaper only shows *broadcast*
channels so I don't easily know what is available on BBC3 and my
experience of when BBC3 was a broadcast channel is that anything any
good on BBC3 turned up later on one of the other BBC channels as a
repeat. So I will have the opportunity to see such programmes
eventually without the hassle of actually finding out what is on BBC3.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 21/11/2018 17:40, Max Demian wrote:

> Apparently those are to teach computers to recognise objects in the
> environment - in this case for self driving cars. Other sets are for
> road signs. There are also ones for boats - not sure which of our
> (future) robot masters need to be able to recognise boats, and for what.
> Maybe only they know.
>
I have seen one where I that to identify pictures containing steps.
I would have said cars would not need to know that - except that some
months ago my local newspaper had an article about an Uber driver
following his satnav who ended up partway down a flight of steps on a
footpath.

Jim

[charles]

In article <pt5uf0$v2i$1...@dont-email.me>,

The money, however, stayed with the local authorities, but they weren't
allowed to spend it on new housing.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 09:56:35 +0000, Indy Jess John
<jimw...@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>From my point of view, I know I can watch BBC3 on iplayer if I want to,
>but the TV guide provided in my daily newspaper only shows *broadcast*

>channels so I don't easily know what is available on BBC3 [...]

Perhaps there is a market for a "catchup guide" that lists everything
available on all the catchup services and tells you where you can
catch up with it, and identifies which ones are time-limited.

You can find out all of this by rummaging through the catchup websites
themselves of course, but it would be useful to have all the
information available in one place.

I think it would be a bit bigger than a column in a newspaper though.
I wonder if it would be feasible in paper form at all?

[David Woolley]

On 22/11/2018 10:31, charles wrote:
> The money, however, stayed with the local authorities, but they weren't
> allowed to spend it on new housing.

The first round of money, did, but the windfall on selling to the
private landlords didn't.

The councils couldn't spend it on housing, because Maggie was opposed to
social housing, along with all government expenditure.

[Martyn Barclay]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:16:57 +0000, Andrew wrote:

What a prick.

<PLONK>

[Andrew]

On 21/11/2018 20:33, Bill Wright wrote:

except that the facts disprove that.

When NuLieBour came to power in 1997, the housing market was already
showing signs of getting out of control and far less immigration.

Gordon (for reasons unknown) decided to slash interest rates at the
very time he should have held steady or moderately increased them
(inflation + 1% is the usual rule of thumb). He also opened the door
to US companies offering zero-% credit cards, which from then until 2005
almost trebled house prices (8 times liar loans, deposits paid with
multiple 0% credit cards , 105% mortgages etc etc).

He also trashed private pensions and together with the infamous
mistake by ONS with longevity, made with-profits funds and annuities
dead in the water. People turned their attention to BTL instead. This
all threw petrol on an already blazing housing market.

This was well before the main of influx of east europeans and others
occured, so don't blame immigration, it was sheer greed by the
indigenous brits that caused this.

Meanwhile an army of already or soon to be retired people just watched
their house prices escalate beyond their wildest dreams (cue screams of
'unfair' from those poor souls who took out equity withdrawal or
rolled-up interest-only loans, whose gamble was based on 'normal' house
price inflation).

What Labour chancellors give with one hand, future governments of all
types will take back, one way or another. Removing freebies that were
handed out to buy pensioners votes is just one way they will do it.

The argument that house price inflation is 'zero sum' is the most
arrogant piece of crap I have ever heard. Those who tenaciously
try to hang on to their windfall, untaxed capital gains are in for
one hell of a shock if Corbyn and McDonnell get into power. If
it is 'zero sum' then liability to pay stamp duty should be moved
from the buyer to the seller 'at a stroke'. This means ftb's would
never ever pay any, people moving up would generally pay less and
those at the top who just did nothing to increase their 1956 £2000
house to a £500,000++ house will pay the most.

[Andrew]

Maggie did not sell a single council house.

She made it possible for the (mostly) Labour-voting tenants to buy,
which they did. They could have refused and remained aa tenants and
stuck to their socialist 'principles', but they didn't.

[critcher]

On 21/11/2018 18:08, Andrew wrote:

> On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
>> On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:

>>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,

>>>
>>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very

>>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation, a trebling
>>> of the NHS budget, the triple lock, final salary pensions, free
>>> prescriptions, £6-digit cancer treatments and winter heating bungs.
>>
>>> This is one group that doesn't need a free TV license, effectively
>>> paid for by a generation that doesn't really watch or listen to BBC
>>> output.
>>
>> I find it rather sad that such issues seem increasingly to be
>> discussed in terms of stereotypes such as yours above.  As one of the
>> over 65s who does not fit it, I can't help but wonder whether you
>> choose to ignore or are just ignorant of facts such as there are 1.2
>> million over-65 households who do *not* own their own home.  Home
>> ownership is also less common among those who worked in manual
>> occupations, and also among ethnic minorities if that matters to you.
>>
>>
>> Source for data:
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey

>>
>>
>>
>
> And how many of those 1.2 million who are renting are living
> comfortably in social housing, with all bills paid ?, and with the
> door to all those other juicy benefits wide open ?.
>

> Meanwhile, the generation that are funding the BBC and the NHS with
> their taxes, have to live at home or in expensive private
> rented accomodation because the over 55's have all the property nicely
> bagged.

what a prick.

[Andrew]

But the houses still exist don't they ?, and the money was
recycled back into the economy (apart from those that departed
for Spain etc).

And we had too many council houses back in the 1980's. If you
needed a council house back then you had a choice of several.
Londons population was falling. No-one predicted what it would
be like 15-20 years later.

The reason why she distrusted LA's is obvious. Some of them were
involved in the secondary banking crisis back in the 70's. Camden
was building council houses in the 70's that would end up costing
over a £million, much of it coming from central government anyway
(who still pay about half the domestic 'rates' bill via subsidies)
so actually a big chunk from the sale of council houses should have
gone back to the treasury anyway. Apart from Westminster and the
City of London, few LA's raise enough from council tax(es) to cover
their spending.

[critcher]

On 21/11/2018 18:18, Andrew wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 17:45, charles wrote:
>> In article <pt3sgh$1ctr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

>>     Andrew <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
>>
>>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
>>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation,
>>

>> Until I sell my house, it's not money in my pocket
>>
>
> If Corbyn amd McDonnell get into power, then it most certainly will
> be money OUT of your pocket. LOTS.


sooner the better.

[Andrew]

And there you go again.

Anyone who doesn't hold your point of view must be a 'daily mail'
reader.

Does this mean you are a guardian or inde reader ?.

[Andrew]

If you have more bedrooms than occupants then I hope you can
afford the transfer of the bedroom tax from social tenants to
owner occupiers, plus means-testing of the single person discount
(where applicable), plus the garden tax (about 3% of your properties
value every year, not just when you move), plus revaluation to keep
the welsh happy (already occurred there), plus a collapse of Sterling
(making everything more expensive), plus another 2008/9 recession.

[Java Jive]

On 22/11/2018 19:45, Andrew wrote:
> On 21/11/2018 20:31, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/11/2018 18:21, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> They make programs that their audience research indicates what
>>> is desired.
>>
>> I think that's the point that many have already made here, they don't.
>> They make programs that they think will attract the audience they
>> *want* to attract!
>>
>>> Hence daytime wall-to-wall property spivving, cooking, quizzing and
>>> the occasional soap. Plus plenty of repeats.
>>
>> Well it's strange, I'm old, and quite a few of my family and
>> neighbours are, yet I know of no-one who wastes their time watching
>> such crap. Most of us have got better things to do.
>>
>> It's time you stopped peddling Daily Mail style stereotypes and
>> learned to think based on factual information.
>
> And there you go again.

Take a look in the mirror! What a clockwork toy! Who is it that in the
last hour or so has made in this thread three posts full of political
diarrhea and vomit without a single fact supported by any provenance
whatsoever? You just puke it out until your clockwork runs down, and
then wind yourself up for the next one, nothing remotely resembling
thought is involved at all.

> Anyone who doesn't hold your point of view must be a 'daily mail'
> reader.

People who can't be arsed to think properly and instead spew out
right-wing gross simplifications and stereotypes usually turn out to be
Daily Mail readers.

> Does this mean you are a guardian or inde reader?

Being able to make up my own mind when given facts, I'm a reader of
factual content. Patently, you are not.

[critcher]

as Trump would say....false news.
as I would say........bullshit

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:26:44 +0000, Bill Wright <wrights...@f2s.com>
wrote:

>>> My 87 year old mum would ram her copy of Radio Times right
>>> up your arse until it disappears, if you were to suggest to her she
>>> watches any of those genre of programme.
>>
>> I would pay her licence fee for her to watch that !-)
>
> I would think it would be quite difficult anyway.

Isn't there a U-bend or something?

And why doesn't it stop the noxious emissions?

[Andrew]

On 23/11/2018 14:32, Martin wrote:

> Don't worry Raab has realised that leaving is worse than staying. The Dutch have
> started up about fishing rights. They should get rid of their giant factory
> ship/trawler that legally hoovers up 50% of the fish caught in the North Sea
> every year.
>

It's not the fish, it was specific species like sand eels that puffins
and other birds depended on until fishing for sand eeels was banned.

And anyone who doesn't believe my warnings should pay more attention,
notably to what the Fabians issue as their 'proposals' for 'fairer'
taxation. One of those is the removal of the 25% taxfree element of
a private pension (Note, no such mention of a parallel removal of a
public servants 3x first years pension as a tax-free element).

Labour governments have a track record of not just removing some
Conservative legislation that impacts 'their' core voters (the
parasite brigade) but also doing something in return out of pure spite.

QED The so-called bedroom tax will be scrapped and either directly or
indirectly it will be imposed on private owners via the much-publicised
garden tax.

MOre recently MCdonnell has stated that he will grab 10% of all
dividends paid in the UK, supposedly for the benefit of the employees
of the targetted companies, but 90% of the grab would stay with the
treasury.

Why ?. Well I suspect Osbornes decision to remove compulsory annuities
has a lot to do with. Annuity sales have collapsed, which means the
pension funds are no longer forced buyers of UK gilts which severely
restricts a Labour govts mass borrowing intentions. All those
people removed from buying an annuity have gone into drawdown or
collect dividends in their SIPPS instead. McDonnell is going to steal
10% of those dividends (on top of Browns ACT tax grab).

What he doesn't realise is that by slamming up corporation tax, a
companies profit and its ability to pay those dividends is going to
take a hit anyway, so he will end up shooting himself, the private
pensioners and UK industry in the foot.

[Andrew]

Err, did you forget to take your daily lithium tablets ?.

The entire thread about the removal of the pensioners freebie IS
political.

Which party handed this out in the first place in order to BUY votes ?.
Free lunches are soooo difficult to give up aren't they ?.

Has the qualifying age ever been updated to take in account
longevity ?. NO

Like most public servants/trade unionists you just cannot bear the
thought of anyone else not sharing your left wing agenda. Take your
head out of Corbyns arse and smell the coffee.

And for your education I read plenty of factual information, including
all the available online papers, plus a range of other material like
the Economist, FT, New Scientist, Flight, when I visit the nearest
larger town library, so stick your utterly incorrect assertions where
the sun doesn't shine.

All you can deduce from my postings is that I don't vote Labour,
and never will.

[Yellow]

In article <pt47f2$2a5$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andrew97d-
ju...@mybtinternet.com says...
>
> On 21/11/2018 17:11, Java Jive wrote:
> > I should point out that I'm not yet 75 or over, but ...

> >
> > On 21/11/2018 16:00, Robin wrote:
> >>

> >> On 21/11/2018 15:09, Andrew wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 20/11/2018 15:47, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If the BBC actually used that fact rather than demonising the over-75s,
> >>>
> >>> The generation (starting when they were over 55) that have done very
> >>> nicely out of 20 years of massive house price inflation
> >

> > Irrelevant.  When you move house usually you sell your old one for more
> > than you paid for it, but proportionately will have to pay more for the
> > new one, and thus make no profit.  In the early 1970s, my brother bought
> > a house in Greenwich for, I think, about £12,000, and sold it some years
> > later for about £80,000, but all of that went on purchasing his next
> > home.  I bought a house in the south for about £125,000 in 1997 and sold
> > it for about £215,000 in 2012, but none of that sum remains in my bank
> > account today, more's the pity.
> >
>
> Very relevant when you are saddled with £50,000 of student debt

It makes no difference if you are "saddled" with £50,000 of student debt
or £50 million of student debt as, unless you get an extremely well paid
job (in which case "who cares?"), you will pay back exactly the same and
the tax payer will be "saddled" with the rest.

What students actually pay, given they earn over the minimum threshold
so pay at all, is a fixed percentage of their earnings.

So if you posted what you did because you believe what you said then
please - educate yourself on how student financing actually works
instead of just repeating spin.

I recommend the Martin Lewis website to start you off.

[Java Jive]

On 24/11/2018 15:12, Andrew wrote:

[snip more diarrhea]

Noone is going to believe a word you write until you start providing
provenance in the form of links to authorative statements of fact,
Labout Party policy, etc. As the political saying goes ...
Put up, or shut up.

[Java Jive]

On 24/11/2018 15:24, Andrew wrote:

[snip more diarrhea]

Again, noone is going to believe a word you write until you start

[Java Jive]

On 24/11/2018 15:36, Yellow wrote:
>
> So if you posted what you did because you believe what you said then
> please - educate yourself on how student financing actually works
> instead of just repeating spin.

His entire posting history in this thread shows that facts and he are
total strangers.

[Martyn Barclay]

He's living in his own bubble. I binned the fuckwit some time ago.

[Andrew]

ROFL,

"authoritive statements of fact" my arse, you mean a group of
like-minded people who, because they all agree with each other
have decided that they are "right" and anyone who disagrees is
"wrong" and automatically a [daily mail/grundian/telegraph,
delete as appropriate] reader. When I visit one of local
reference libraries I browse through all the available
papers and magazines.

In the days when I was working in East Croydon I would regularly
use my season ticket and spend the entire day in Croydon library
and work my way through as many papers, periodicals and magazines
as possible. Not just the papers, but all manner of pubs, like
the lancet, lloyds bank review, assorted architectural mags,
ETI electronics, various computer mags, New england journal of
medecine (not sure why they subscribed to this). This library
had almost every magazine going.

What's more I remember stuff. I *don't* need to trot any of it out
as some sort of 'proof'.

You can always tell a dyed-in the-wool socialist, because they
hide behind a wall of utterly pointless statistics, and links to
even more dross, rather than providing a proper, concise answer.

[Andrew]

On 24/11/2018 15:54, Martin wrote:

> Of course it's the fish, the Dutch catch fish, not sand eels. They catch them
> with this ship and its sister ships in enormous quantities. These ships have
> been banned all over the world including in Australia. One ship has acquired 50%
> of the EU North Sea quotas.
>

The Dutch did catch sand eels, using industrial trawlers. One of the
BBC programs did an item on it. Can't remember if it was 'Coast' or
Countryfile.

It wasn't too long ago that the French fishermen blockaded Calais
because they objected to the Dutch fishing technique which
involved using an electric current to make the fish lurking on
the seabed, jump up and into the nets.

[Java Jive]

On 26/11/2018 22:09, Andrew wrote:
>
> "authoritive statements of fact" my arse

Rod Speed, fuck off back to Aus.

[tim...]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:g5lir4...@mid.individual.net...

> On 21/11/2018 17:11, Java Jive wrote:
>

>>>> free prescriptions
>>
>> That is true, but in the past others have qualified for them as well,
>> currently You can get free NHS prescriptions if, at the time the
>> prescription is dispensed, you:
>>
>> are 60 or over
>> are under 16
>> are 16 to 18 and in full-time education
>> are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have a
>> valid maternity exemption certificate (MatEx)
>> have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical
>> exemption certificate (MedEx)
>> have a continuing physical disability that prevents you going out
>> without help from another person and have a valid MedEx
>> hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription
>> is for your accepted disability
>> are an NHS inpatient
>>
>> https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/get-help-with-prescription-costs/
>
> It surprises a lot of people, but the fact is that over 90% of
> prescriptions issued in the UK are actually dispensed free of charge.

that's because the people who are entitled to free scrips need a
disproportionately larger number of them

tim

[Peter Duncanson]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:45:07 -0000, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

There is also the point that statements about the total cost of
prescriptions include the cost of prescriptions in hospitals.

A report from a couple of years ago:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180328140538/http://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB22302

Prescribing Costs in Hospitals and the Community, England 2015/16

Key Facts The overall NHS expenditure on medicines in 2015/16 was
£16.8 billion, an increase of 8.0 per cent from £15.5 billion in
2014/15 and an increase of 29.1 per cent from £13.0 billion in
2010/11.

In 2015/16 hospital use accounted for 45.2 per cent (£7.6 billion)
of the total cost, up from 43.0 per cent (£6.7 billion) in 2014/15
and up from 32.1 per cent (£4.2 billion) in 2010/11.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)