State Broadcaster goes after Elderly poor

[Jon Gout]

They don't NEED to.

Why should the rest of the licence fee payers have to cover the bill for almost 2 million old people who can't/won't fill out a form?

[Zambo]

They don't NEED to.

Why should the rest of the licence fee payers have to cover the bill for almost 2 million old people who can't/won't fill out a form?

Yep, they do. They have realised they need more money, four years after they were told about a subsidy withdrawal, and they have decided to achieve that by taking away a benefit from their customers. If a supermarket chain had done that, they would have lost customers to elsewhere.

Companies that shaft customers, rather than look at savings in house, usually shaft themselves in the end. And this bag of shite certainly deserve that. Rotten to the core.

Shocking.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ement.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ences.html

[Jon Gout]

Do you read literally any other online publication than the Daily Mail?

[Ralph]

If you view or listen to BBC content and choose not to pay the license fee you’re a scrounger, plain & simple.

[Zambo]

Do you read literally any other online publication than the Daily Mail?

Another irrelevance.

Which parts of those articles are incorrect?

[Jon Gout]

I don't know, I can't view them since links to unreliable sources are blocked on my browsers at home and work (I think I told you this last time you wanted me to look at something). I could view those pages on my phone, but it's a bit of a pain to browse this forum on mobile. Just also curious because I've never ever seen you link to anywhere else before.

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

Jojo Brands has been punching out pensioners?

[Zambo]

I don't know, I can't view them since links to unreliable sources are blocked on my browsers at home and work (I think I told you this last time you wanted me to look at something). I could view those pages on my phone, but it's a bit of a pain to browse this forum on mobile. Just also curious because I've never ever seen you link to anywhere else before.

Yeah, I sometimes link to the BBC, Telegraph, Express, Mirror, and even the Guardian when I want a good laugh. All have their own agendas including the Mail, but I only try to quote when there is a message in there which I agree with, and underpins my own opinion on a subject.

[Jon Gout]

Maybe it's just the amount that makes it seem that way then since you link to there significantly more than the other places you mentioned. It looks like 22 times this month so far, compared to nearly four months ago since the last Telegraph link.

Most of their website is "Here's someone who was on Love Island that we spotted through a telephoto lens with her tits out", "Kate SHOCKS the public as she RECYCLES a coat she wore once in 2014", "Will THIS new superfood make you look ten years YOUNGER?" and articles absolutely riddled with typos where some 21 year old intern has just gone on Twitter, taken screenshots of a few tweets from nobodies and compiled them under a headline containing the words "OUTRAGED" and "FURIOUS". It seems strange to want to wade through absolute shite like that to find the odd thing that you just happen to already agree with. It is possible for a person to have right-wing views while also not filling their brain with the utter nonsense found on that website. There are alternatives for the more discerning right winger.

[VeritasVincit]

If this has been suggested already, apologies, I haven't read everything.
Free TV licences for over 75s is a benefit, the control of which has been handed over to the BBC.
Surely the next logical step for the government is to hand over the control of bus pass eligibility to the bus companies, the winter heating payment to the power companies and free prescription administration to the pharmacies.

[Zambo]

Maybe it's just the amount that makes it seem that way then since you link to there significantly more than the other places you mentioned. It looks like 22 times this month so far, compared to nearly four months ago since the last Telegraph link.

Most of their website is "Here's someone who was on Love Island that we spotted through a telephoto lens with her tits out", "Kate SHOCKS the public as she RECYCLES a coat she wore once in 2014", "Will THIS new superfood make you look ten years YOUNGER?" and articles absolutely riddled with typos where some 21 year old intern has just gone on Twitter, taken screenshots of a few tweets from nobodies and compiled them under a headline containing the words "OUTRAGED" and "FURIOUS". It seems strange to want to wade through absolute shite like that to find the odd thing that you just happen to already agree with. It is possible for a person to have right-wing views while also not filling their brain with the utter nonsense found on that website. There are alternatives for the more discerning right winger.

I'm impressed, and feel honoured, although I find it a little creepy, that you have taken the time to count those up. I tend to log on to the Mail on line and go through the whole publication. I do that regularly, but there are many days when I don't link anything.

Anyway, here's another.


'They're D-Day veterans protesting about free TV licences being scrapped'

[subsub]

Don't you think Lineker's salary is obscene for what he does? There are a lot of people out there that could and would do his job, for a fraction of £1.7m.

No, I don't, because very few people can do what he does. This man-in-the-street stuff of 'he just sits in a chair and reads an autocue – I could do that' is bollocks. You need to find someone who is not only a competent presenter who viewers warm to, but also has a good knowledge of football. There are very few people who fit that bill.

And regarding his salary, the BBC clearly feels he's worth that. Given that the BBC sells its shows around the world for a lot of money, they want the best people for the job. And I'm sure Sky pay their presenters the same, if not more. If that's the going rate, that's the going rate. But you'd have some work-experience lad in who can't string a sentence together as long as if meant saving money. That's not how it works.

[subsub]

I don't know, I can't view them since links to unreliable sources are blocked on my browsers at home and work (I think I told you this last time you wanted me to look at something). I could view those pages on my phone, but it's a bit of a pain to browse this forum on mobile. Just also curious because I've never ever seen you link to anywhere else before.

Yeah, I sometimes link to the BBC, Telegraph, Express, Mirror, and even the Guardian when I want a good laugh. All have their own agendas including the Mail, but I only try to quote when there is a message in there which I agree with, and underpins my own opinion on a subject.

But the fact that you look at the Daily Mail at all does speak volumes, Zambo, especially when you quote their news/political stories.
The DM is highly effective at preying on the fears and insecurities of people - that is all it does, as well as titillating stories/photo galleries of celebrities.

I find The Guardian very cringey at times – it tries too hard to be cool, it bangs on about veganism and giving up booze all the bloody time, and it overdoes the whole outrage stuff about minorities etc. But despite all that, it's a very good newspaper with some incredibly talented writers.

But I'm with you in that all newspapers have agendas – of course they do.

[kancutlawns]

Don't you think Lineker's salary is obscene for what he does? There are a lot of people out there that could and would do his job, for a fraction of £1.7m.

No, I don't, because very few people can do what he does. This man-in-the-street stuff of 'he just sits in a chair and reads an autocue – I could do that' is bollocks. You need to find someone who is not only a competent presenter who viewers warm to, but also has a good knowledge of football. There are very few people who fit that bill.

And regarding his salary, the BBC clearly feels he's worth that. Given that the BBC sells its shows around the world for a lot of money, they want the best people for the job. And I'm sure Sky pay their presenters the same, if not more. If that's the going rate, that's the going rate. But you'd have some work-experience lad in who can't string a sentence together as long as if meant saving money. That's not how it works.

And also, he’s universally recognised, associated with an England side that came very close to an England side that was close to winning an international tournament, was joint highest scorer before Rooney, has respect within the game, is versatile as knows other sports to a sufficient level, is articulate and objective.

Perhaps those who have contempt for him could suggest who else would be a contender for his £1.7m salary? Carlton Palmer, Stuart Pearce, Tony Adams or Dean Windass perhaps.

Lineker’s a decent presenter and deserves his pay. Good on him.

[Zambo]

Don't you think Lineker's salary is obscene for what he does? There are a lot of people out there that could and would do his job, for a fraction of £1.7m.

No, I don't, because very few people can do what he does. This man-in-the-street stuff of 'he just sits in a chair and reads an autocue – I could do that' is bollocks. You need to find someone who is not only a competent presenter who viewers warm to, but also has a good knowledge of football. There are very few people who fit that bill.

There are loads of people with as much if not more football knowledge than Lineker who would fit the bill. As for warming to him, sorry but I had to laugh at that. I record MOD for one reason, and that is because I can skip the likes of him and Shearer talking horseshit. They have very little knowledge of the laws of the game the same as do most pundits

And regarding his salary, the BBC clearly feels he's worth that. Given that the BBC sells its shows around the world for a lot of money, they want the best people for the job. And I'm sure Sky pay their presenters the same, if not more. If that's the going rate, that's the going rate. But you'd have some work-experience lad in who can't string a sentence together as long as if meant saving money. That's not how it works.

No one is worth that sort of money for talking about football for an hour or two each week during the season, particularly when the BBC are so hard up apparently that they have to stitch up the oldies. I'll give Lineker one thing though, he's not such a big of a cunt as Lewis Hamilton, although it's a close call. I just wonder if you would be backing Lineker if he wasn't a leftie fanny