You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Cougar, I was joking.
Ah, apologies. It can be hard to tell in text.
(Frankly, it can be hard to tell face-to-face)
Edit. Tbh, Ali G is the only one I found funny and watched. The rest I’m not familiar with so not qualified to comment.”
But you did anyhow
Que? On the others man! I’m not qualified to comment on the others because I’m not familiar with them. I commented on Ali G because I’m familiar with that. Though I did assume that if your very first example was so daft then there wouldn’t be much hope for the others…
"Were you using Stoic Epictetus’s maxim?
I also missed the hilarity."
No. I was thinking of his cousin, Bigus Dickus.
Meanwhile, from elsewhere on the Internet:
***
I see you, Gary Lineker.
Well… kind of. I see the void where you used to be; a gaping hole in the BBC’s sports coverage, stretched to the point of total prolapse by the display of solidarity from your peers. All that fuss over Qatar and it turns out all we ever needed to do to get a Walkers-out over human rights abuses was suspend you for a bit for gobbing off at the Tories. Who knew?
Putting aside that rather massive ethical inconsistency for now, this really is a spectacular own goal by the BBC. You’ve made it very clear for ages now that you wouldn’t be censoring your political opinions on your own Twitter account, and that commitment clearly made your bosses nervous. Knowing full well that their political links expose them to accusations of rampant hypocrisy, the Tory higher-ups like Davie and Gibb have spent the last few years limping around the threat of outright censorship by mumbling vague threats about your duty to ‘impartiality.’
You’re even a ‘special case,’ apparently, due to your popularity. They said that out loud, the last time you pissed the Tories off. Good to know, isn’t it? Our state broadcaster has stricter rules for those who are famous enough for their criticisms of the government to gain actual traction. Turns out it’s not just refugees in the Channel who are desperate to not rock the boat.
It all feels a bit inevitable, Gary Lineker, given that you’ve always stood up for refugees and the government have clearly decided they’d rather fight them at the next election over Keir Starmer. Surely Richard Sharp, at least, could have seen this coming? He should have known full well that the government he supports would be doing something else to disgust you as they got progressively more desperate. What a shame Boris didn’t impartially give him a polite heads up over the Huit Cent Mille en Papillote at their last dinner date.
The inevitably hasn’t stopped the Conservatives feigning their moral outrage, of course. The party of free speech, usually so ardently committed to goose-stamping out cancel culture wherever they imagine it, now performing the most absurd of theatrical hysterics in the mirror you’ve held up to their burgeoning fascism. The hypocrisy is more predictable than Arsenal finishing fourth.
In any argument about impartiality, the most unimpeachable defence of any commentator’s words should always be their factual accuracy. There’s not a word in your supposedly offensive tweet that rings hollow, and methinks those Tories now clutching their pearl-inlaid lightning bolts at the thought of being labelled Nazis doth protest too much. Ironic, given they’ve spent the last four years desperately trying to ban protests of any sort. Best not point out the times in history that sort of thing has happened before though, Gary Lineker. That probably won’t help your case.
To anyone sane or not frothing with partisan outrage, it’s clear that you couched your language very carefully, focusing on the wording of the government’s recent propaganda and pointing out a perfectly accurate historical parallel. You’re not Peter Beardsley, after all - you’re more than capable of avoiding the direct use of an N word when you need to.
It’s farcical that we’re even debating your use of language in the first place, rather than the vile and deliberately false nonsense our Home Secretary spouts on a regular basis. If we all need to temper our rhetoric, maybe we could start with her outright lies and the succour she offers to far-right agitators burning police vans outside the hotels her utter incompetence has seen stuffed with those waiting years to have their claims processed.
Most importantly of all, though, before we start policing anyone’s choice of language, we have to be able to tell the ****ing truth. Particularly when that truth involves pointing out that our government are gleefully walking the early steps of the very clearly defined path towards the most unthinkable of historical atrocities. The rhetoric, the lies, the deliberate attempts to shift the blame for their own failures onto a minority group - all of it is disgustingly authoritarian, and the words Braverman chooses are as deliberate as the ones you picked to criticise her with.
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Unless, of course, you’re a freelance football pundit who happens to be vaguely leftwing. If you present the Apprentice, you can photoshop whoever you like next to Hitler and nobody in the boardroom bats an eyelid.
What a shame for Richard Sharp, then, that the current Prime Minister is rich enough to afford his own gold wallpaper. He’s going to find it much harder to bung his way out of the next round of job cuts at the BBC.
I see you, Gary Lineker. I ****ing see you.
Fair play for going in two-footed for once.
(Enjoying the page? Don't forget to check out the I See News podcast! Just follow the link below for the latest episode.)
https://www.buzzsprout.com/634036/12419474
Were you using Stoic Epictetus’s maxim?
I also missed the hilarity.
No. I was thinking of his cousin, Bigus Dickus.
Well that explains why it fell flat. Biggus Dickus also didn't understand why they tittered so.
You are using all the wrong comedy role models, I'm afraid.
Ali G
Which wasn't blackface but nice try.
Never watched the rest.
I find funny comedians funny.
It's lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny.
"Hislop speaking truth to power is very healthy, even if you don’t agree with him"
What I find unhealthy is that a comedy programme has a better take on the truth than the news.
You can choose to infer from that what you want and I see that you have but following your logic, because I am dissatisfied with the integrity of news programming I find it unhealthy that Hislop talks truth to power and that I might disagree with him?
Is that what you took from my comment?
"I find funny comedians funny."
"It’s lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny."
Ransos, you are confusing what other people find funny with them instructing you what to find funny.
Which is quite funny in itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/11/race.janinegibson
Here you go cougar, jambo, ransos etc.
A Guardian article from 2000 when the weekly New Nation newspaper asked seven of the biggest stars on the black comedy circuit about the character, after he delivered the alternative Queen's speech on Channel 4 on Christmas Day.
The TLDR version?....
6 out of the 7 cats asked thought the Ali G character was peddling racist stereotypes. They aren't trying to tell you what to find funny ransos but they are telling you that they found the Ali G character deeply troubling.
You've all been quite quick to tear me down a peg or two for mentioning similar, I wonder if any of you would have the "brass balls" to say the same to any of those black comedians in the unlikely event you would ever get to meet them?
I’m almost 40 years old and have no memory of ever seeing blackface.
Yep last Black and white minstrels show was ‘78 so you were lucky to miss out on that gem.
And there was me thinking that I was being a bit mean to Jim Davidson.
I’m really not sure what he’s transformed into as some sort of bitter and twisted OAP , seems a sad end to career.
It’s lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny
It's more like some people need telling who not to laugh at.
Not saying that's anyone here, but historically this has been the case.
And there was me thinking that I was being a bit mean to Jim Davidson.
Performing at a working mens club near you soon!
https://www.ents24.com/uk/tour-dates/jim-davidson
Is the character racist or the way people interacted with him?
Take that up a notch, was Borat more shocking or the people he interacted with? Would they have been comfortable acting the way they did around someone more PC?
You still haven't really explained where you've been watching blackface on TV though or was that just ridiculous hyperbole? (tell a lie, just remembered I watched Tropic Thunder, what grade of racist does that make me now?)
"what grade of racist does that make me now?"
Dunno, I'll show my partner your posts later on and she'll mark you out of 10.
I volunteered for sanger duty rather than be made to watch ol Jimbo in Afghanistan. Staring into the desert was far more entertaining.
“I find funny comedians funny.”
“It’s lucky we have you to tell us who we should find funny.”
Ransos, you are confusing what other people find funny with them instructing you what to find funny.
Which is quite funny in itself.
I'm not confused in the slightest. You however seem unable to distinguish between your opinion and fact. I do find your arrogance a touch amusing.
Staring into the desert was far more entertaining.
I'd imagine shitting in your hands and clapping would still be ahead.
I’d imagine shitting in your hands and clapping would still be ahead.
It's up there for sure.
The whole point of the Ali G character was to lampoon and ridicule people who believed that stereotype, it was intended to illicit a response. The butt of the joke was always the people interviewing him.
See also, Borat. SBC isn't racist, he was trolling racists.
I don't think that article says what you think it says. And even if it does then, well done, you found an opinion piece from 23 years ago.
They aren’t trying to tell you what to find funny ransos but they are telling you that they found the Ali G character deeply troubling.
I haven't offered an opinion on Ali G, so it's not at all clear why you're telling me about this recent opinion piece.
Honestly, I think lumping you, me and Jambo in the same sentence is likely to offend all three of us. 😁
I decided to have a quick look at your link Inkster, I get the impression that my quick glance might be a bit more than what you managed to do.
Your link includes this observation:
Michael Eboda, editor of New Nation, conducted a poll of readers to accompany the comedians' comments. The paper found that more than 80% were fans of Ali G and concluded that his critics were "taking themselves too seriously".
So the editor of a newspaper published in the UK for the Black British community concludes that the critics were taking themselves too seriously, and points out that more than 80% of his readers are Ali G fans.
That isn't exactly damning, is it?
Sandwich called me out saying 100% of boat people were legally looking for asylum.
False. I called you for classifying desperate people as illegal, they are as illegal as you or I. No doubt a proportion of those arriving are not entitled to asylum nor immigration but without a properly funded system we won't know.
I also asked that we (as a forum) no longer refer to those crossing The Channel on rubber boats as illegal but my use of language was pulled by the mods as derogatory (as I used some words that we regarded as normal for the disabled many moons ago and the point could not be properly made without using those words). It's Mark's playground and his rules so no worries on my part.
Cougar,
It wasn't an opinion piece it was a piece canvassing opinions, there's a difference.
Furthermore, the opinions canvassed were from black comedians, who by race and profession are surely more qualified to comment than you or I.
The article clearly states that 6 out of 7 comedians spoken to had a negative view of the character, that's what it said in the article and that's what I understood it to be saying. If it doesn't say what I think it says [and what it actually says] then what is it saying that I'm not getting?
And what did it matter that it was 23 years ago? All those comedians never got the opportunities their talent deserved and are still pissed off about it [as are Lenny Henry and Mo Gilligan] to this day. Thats why the last two made recent documentaries about it, rather than dismiss it as being old news and irrelevant, as you have done.
Intentions and outcomes are different things. Does it matter what "the point os the character" is if it ends up causing an opposite effect to that which is intended?
Still.....I'll ask you again, would you have the brass balls to explain to all those comedians how wrong they are?
then what it is saying that I’m not getting?
That over 80% of the readers were Ali G fans and that the editor thought the critics were taking themselves too seriously?
Bo Selecta FFS we all saw that (Lee Francis on inkster's list)
Can I get a reeeewind!
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Still…..I’ll ask you again, would you have the brass balls to explain to all those comedians how wrong they are?</span>
How big are these grumpy comedians?
Honestly, I think lumping you, me and Jambo in the same sentence is likely to offend all three of us. 😁
Yeah, I don't think it's terribly difficult to tell us apart!
Ernie, just because over 80& of their readers enjoyed the show doesn't necessarily equate to them all not seeing issues in the character.
I was citing the opinions of the comedians, not the editor. I never commented on the editorial stance. Has it occurred to you that when 80& of the readers enjoy Ali G then the editor might be quite keen to keep them happy so might take a more sympathetic stance, softening the evidence provided by those canvassed in order to keep readers onside?
Yeah, I don’t think it’s terribly difficult to tell us apart!
We need pictures to be sure!
just because over 80& of their readers enjoyed the show doesn’t necessarily equate to them all not seeing issues in the character.show
You are not reading your own link inkster, the article doesn't claim that over 80% of readers enjoyed the show.
It very clearly states that over 80% of the readers were Ali G fans. And yes, it very much suggests that they don't have a problem with the character.
Why would they have a problem with a character that they are fans of?
And I don't know why you want to dismiss the opinions of the readers of a newspaper published in the UK for the Black British community.
Especially as it was you who brought the New Nation newspaper onto this thread.
Aaand yet another thread disappears down a rabbit hole.
Another question for you:
Do you think the Ali G show would be commissioned today and if the answer is no, then explain why it was ok 20 years ago?
I understand that some think that because this was so long ago it doesn't matter but I contend that what happened then has a bearing on the media landscape we find ourselves in today.
More than half the UK population lives in cities or large towns with diverse populations, yet until very recently they [we] never saw that population represented on television. My original point was that virtually the only non white faces we saw on TV back then were white people mimicking black people and it creates a false notion of reality.
DM readers go apoplectic when they see a mixed heritage family on a John Lewis advert, saying diversity is being thrust upon them when what they are actually seeing on screen these days is a world that matches up to the reality that most of us see when we step out of our front doors.
Had TV been more representative over the last 20 or more years then we might be in a better place today.
Frank,
Would you agree that the asylum situation we find ourselves in is at least in part due do a racism that's been allowed to fester over the last couple of decades?
I don't think discussing the role that television may have played over that period and how it might have contributed to the current situation is disappearing down a rabbit hole.
Do you think the Ali G show would be commissioned today and if the answer is no, then explain why it was ok 20 years ago?
So to sum up......you dig up some 20 year old article to make the point that Ali G was unacceptable in the context of 20 years ago, when that fails because you haven't read the article properly and it is pointed out that the readers of the black British newspaper were overwhelmingly fans of Ali G you decide to ask whether Ali G would be acceptable in today's context.
And this is after complaining that the BBC has only leftie comedians who you criticise for not basing their material on what some geezer, who might or might not have been a comedian, said a couple of thousands years ago.
Is that a fair summing up?
Back to brass balls himself, looks like the BBC is going to have to fight for it's life as the governmrnt and their shills will be looking to cancel the licence fee. It's the only revenge they can get, to try and create the narrative that Gary Lineker destroyed the BBC.
I also expect that there's going to be a serious drop in revenue as people don't renew their licences.
the governmrnt and their shills will be looking to cancel the licence fee.
Good. Payback for decades of bullying old people and students with hired goons.
I also expect that there’s going to be a serious drop in revenue as people don’t renew their licences
Sound, they can start by binning out Eastenders. If people don't want to pay for the Beeb, lop off the light entertainment and soaps, before they pare off the Reithian content.
It wasn’t an opinion piece it was a piece canvassing opinions, there’s a difference.
They're the same words in a different order.
The article clearly states that 6 out of 7 comedians spoken to had a negative view of the character,
You should talk to L'Oreal with those statistics, they'd totally run with "86% of black people agree..."
All those comedians never got the opportunities their talent deserved and are still pissed off about it [as are Lenny Henry and Mo Gilligan] to this day.
The same Lenny Henry who created Trevor McDonut? The Lenny Henry who's forged a career out of satirising black people? That Lenny Henry?
Oooooo....kaaaayyyyyy...
Intentions and outcomes are different things. Does it matter what “the point os the character” is if it ends up causing an opposite effect to that which is intended?
So your actual argument is that the caracature was misguided? That's fair.
But it's not exactly an example of blackface now, is it.
I’ll ask you again, would you have the brass balls to explain to all those comedians how wrong they are?
I'd have the brass balls to ask them what they thought of SBC's character a quarter of a century on, for sure. And I wouldn't presume to disagree with them if they didn't like it today.
I'm torn when it comes to BBC funding, I love the radio and BBC4 etc but feel that the time for high paid presenters and actors maybe coming to a close. Let ITV take over the Premier League, I know MOTD is an institution and all that but ITV hosted it during the 90's for a few years didn't they?
The radio output changed from chasing mainstream audiences and it got much better for it.
live in a country without a BBC equivalent, and see what you think of the license fee then
I also expect that there’s going to be a serious drop in revenue as people don’t renew their licences.
Really? why? In protest at Lineker or at his treatment?
Let ITV take over the Premier League
There speaks someone who’s clearly never watched any ITV football coverage 😂
A license fee is very old fashioned approach. Just get rid of it, have adverts on BBC and have subscriptions to iPlayer if you want to see ad free. The BBC is not offering anything on TV that is not elsewhere and its quality is no better. It is no longer the 1950's.
They do make some high quality drama series but they sell those to Netflix/whoever and would continue to get money from that so therefore continue to make them. The other stuff would live or die based on popularity just as other channels. What they offer would not take my £14 a month given the choice.
1) I’m a bit confused with all of this Ali G discussion? The character was clearly a white guy wanting to be a black guy. White people were being lampooned by a white person. If there’s any racism involved in Ali G then I clearly don’t understand what racism is.
2) The license fee and the BBC. I can’t think of another British institution other than the NHS that I have more pride in. Its output and influence is staggering and everyone in Britain has been shaped by and benefitted from its radio and tv programming. I’m sure the right wing types will immediately start throwing mud about pedos in a way that they won’t about the wider entertainment industry or scouting or youth football- all just as complicit.
When JRM, the ERG and the Tufton Stret ghouls are howling for blood on an issue, we should know by now that it’s generally in no one’s best interest accept that of the super rich tax avoiders behind most of the bad decisions of the last decade or so.
Let ITV take over the Premier League
Dear christ no, never. Please. FTLOG. Won't you think of the children? Lee Dixon. That is all.
If the BBC goes private then it can be bought by anyone. It would need some protection otherwise it may go down the Fox/GB route and be controversial to get viewers.
It will also focus purely on revenue and getting viewer numbers up which would reduce the less profitable but often very useful content.
There probably is some sensible compromise to be struck with its funding. I don't trust this government to do that. Probably not any government. It would be good to see it somehow set up as a freestanding institution free of political interference. This is one thing that always scuppers state owned institutions. They become political footballs. You can see it now with the NHS, decisions being made with regards to how they will be received publicly rather than if they make sense to the organisation.
Good to see Lineker come out on top though. Shame there wasn't more criticism and discussion of the awful government policy.
the governmrnt and their shills will be looking to cancel the licence fee.
Good. Payback for decades of bullying old people and students with hired goons.
I receive monthly letters from TV Licensing with the latest stating that they are going to visit me on a specific date. If anyone else was to send such malicious communications through the postal service they'd be appearing in Court yet TV Licensing/Capita have special dispensation. My "crime" is failing to inform them every 2 years that I do not watch live telly. Is this a good use of license-payers money? How do you feel about that?
Just to be clear, I have not watched any live telly since I cancelled my license. It's a nice feeling having saved around £400 so far.
If anyone else was to send such malicious communications through the postal service they’d be appearing in Court yet TV Licensing/Capita have special dispensation.
Yeah its a private company, it isn't the BBC
https://www.capita.com/careers/your-career-at-capita-tv-licensing
A license fee is very old fashioned approach. Just get rid of it, have adverts on BBC and have subscriptions to iPlayer if you want to see ad free.
This. I've cancelled my direct debit in the wake of this nonsense. I barely watch BBC anyway and welcome the opportunity to miss out on crap like Question Time. They really need to move to a subscription model like everyone else. I want to be able to pay to watch specific stuff when I want rather than being forced to fork out £160 a year for the privelege of owning a television.
Agree with dazh, the time has long come for the licence fee to be dropped. It's weird it's got to be the only paid service I can think of where the onus is on you to prove you dont use their service.
If you buy all your media, we’ll all pay the price.
The license fee model delivers us a media landscape like no other… getting rid of it would be a big mistake… one Conservatives will be cheering for decades to come.
My “crime” is failing to inform them every 2 years that I do not watch live telly. Is this a good use of license-payers money? How do you feel about that?
Similar to SORN - it's no big deal to play by the rules, whether you like them or not. When those rules change, then go nuts! In the meantime, meh.
Yeah its a private company, it isn’t the BBC
https://www.capita.com/careers/your-career-at-capita-tv-licensing/a >
Contracted, instructed and working on behalf of the BBC…
It’s probably only the Tory’s attacking them all the time which is keeping them in check. If not they’d likely be using drones to spy through your windows. Just to check you don’t need a TV license you understand… If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear…
There speaks someone who’s clearly never watched any ITV football coverage 😂
I know.....but on a serious note I think the argument for paying a licence fee to pay star presenters millions is hard to justify.
This presents an incredible opportunity for ITV well beyond the football. Their news coverage has got better over recent years to the point that I think it's better than the BBC. If they did get the footie then I'd expect them to make a better job of it this time.
Are you sitting comfortably Lee Dixon?
And what no politician wants to admit is that Western countries with ageing demographics need young workers
I thought SNP and Scottish Green govt have been openly saying exactly this for a number of years?
Advert from Scottish Government mixed in with my daily podcasts this morning actively encouraging people to move to Scotland.
I receive monthly letters from TV Licensing with the latest stating that they are going to visit me on a specific date. If anyone else was to send such malicious communications through the postal service they’d be appearing in Court yet TV Licensing/Capita have special dispensation. My “crime” is failing to inform them every 2 years that I do not watch live telly. Is this a good use of license-payers money? How do you feel about that?
The TV Licensing enforcement lot have always been shits. The current debacle aside, their attitude was the one thing that would convince me to sack off the licence.
They really need to move to a subscription model like everyone else. I want to be able to pay to watch specific stuff when I want rather than being forced to fork out £160 a year for the privelege of owning a television.
It already is a subscription model. You need a subscription to watch or record TV as broadcast, or watch iPlayer. It has nothing to do with owning a television.
It’s weird it’s got to be the only paid service I can think of where the onus is on you to prove you dont use their service.
You don't have to prove anything. The only legal powers Capita has is a healthy supply of red ink. If you don't need a licence, just ignore them.
I know…..but on a serious note I think the argument for paying a licence fee to pay star presenters millions is hard to justify.
You wouldn't be saying that after 90 minutes listening to Ally McCoist and Andy Townsend, I can assure you of that
Maybe, as with other jobs, people get paid a lot of money because, compared to their competition, they're actually very good at it?
I'm not sure how much Jamie Carrigher and Gary Neville get paid at Sky but I bet its a damn site more than Gary Lineker gets paid at the BBC, and those two gob off endlessly on Twitter with not a hint of censure from their employer. Having said that, they do have to work with Graeme Souness, so probably deserve their millions
TJagain
Really? why? In protest at Lineker or at his treatment?
effectively both.... certainly another reason on top of many
binners
There speaks someone who’s clearly never watched any ITV football coverage
I've never willingly watched ANY TV football coverage ... why am I paying for it?
The TV Licensing enforcement lot have always been shits. The current debacle aside, their attitude was the one thing that would convince me to sack off the licence.
Again certainly a factor for me... I haven't watched Live TV in years... (excepting some guidance stuff in lockdown and that shouldn't IMHO be charged for)
TBH I don't think the aerial even works .. pigeons seem to have wrecked it but as its not plugged in not easy to know...
It already is a subscription model. You need a subscription to watch or record TV as broadcast, or watch iPlayer. It has nothing to do with owning a television.
On top of that you have to pay IF you watch ANY TV channel that has for example been recorded and uploaded on YT...
I think I'm paying as insurance no-one in the house accidentally or otherwise watches one of those.
Similar to SORN – it’s no big deal to play by the rules, whether you like them or not. When those rules change, then go nuts! In the meantime, meh.
Its not that similar... if I get a car certified taken permanently off the road and destroyed that's it - I also need to have at least purchased a road car to have a requirement to declare it SORN.
You aren't being asked to prove you didn't buy another car and threatened.
The thread is was about Lineker.
His BBC contract pays £1.35 million - not 'millions'.
… why am I paying for it?
Why are you paying towards it? For others to watch. Just like others are paying towards things you use. I don't watch football either, or Eastenders... but I also don't travel on the M25, haven't yet had cancer treatment... etc, etc.
Keep up man. It’s gone from nazis, to humourless comedians who don’t like Ali G and back to fascist bullyboys employed by the BBC.
Sounds like a song 🎵
They really need to move to a subscription model like everyone else. I want to be able to pay to watch specific stuff when I want rather than being forced to fork out £160 a year for the privelege of owning a television.
The problem with this is a country where the BBC's Natural History output (which is eye wateringly expensive to produce as it takes hundreds of people years to make a series that's only 6 hours long) is only affordable to the middle classes and anyone below that can only afford Bargain Hunt (which costs peanuts as it's about 6 people churning out an episode a week). Would probably be doing even less about climate change.
There's no business case for that output, if there was ITV would do it. And it's so expensive C4 can't afford it even on their non commercial model where the profits have to be spent on something. Another prime example is compare BBC Ambulance at primetime to any one of the similar, but far cheaper to make, versions on other channels? Would people give half as much a damn about the state of the NHS if the BBC wasn't showing it to them at 8pm on a Thursday?
Just worth mentioning that the Licence fee contributes to all of the BBC radio programming too, it's not just about TV.
Personally I'd have no problem with paying the licence fee as a subscription for that alone.
Radios 1.2.3.4
Five Live
6 Music
Local Radio
World service
Just my opinion, but I cannot understand anyone having an issue with paying a few quid a week for that ?
@frankconway From a logical POV 1.35 million is greater than 1 and thus is entitled to the plural form millions.
The duffle coat with Fermat's theorem in the pocket please.
Just my opinion, but I cannot understand anyone having an issue with paying a few quid a week for that ?
So because YOU like it. Everyone needs to pay 💰
Righto.
Fair enough though, there’s some quality content there. Why not lump the fee into income tax instead of the current sinister method of collection?
I know MOTD is an institution and all that but ITV hosted it during the 90’s for a few years didn’t they?
And it was shit.
The highest salaries are ridiculous, as they are in most sectors. But sadly, while I absolutely support him, Lineker has given the nutters another stick to beat the BBC with.
Pat Nevin spoke well on 5 Live last night - have a review, tell us clearly what the rules are, and we can decide whether we want to work for you.
So because YOU like it. Everyone needs to pay 💰
Righto.
? Quite clearly didn't say that. Merely can't understand why anyone wouldn't be prepared to pay for it.
I'd be more than happy for it to come out of general taxation. It would seem like a much fairer way of financing it. Providing of course that everyone pays their fair share of tax, which clearly doesn't happen.
instead of the current sinister method of collection?
I think you probably need to reappraise your understanding of the word 'sinister'
Back to the dictionary for you Binners 😉
The TV Licensing enforcement lot have always been shits. The current debacle aside, their attitude was the one thing that would convince me to sack off the licence.
@Cougar I know. Their language is shocking, they've said I should expect a visit from an "Enforcement Officer" from the Guildford Enforcement Division. WTF? Enforce what?? Trying to make out they have some sort of quasi legal powers. Treating everyone as a criminal. What happens if you're not savvy, it doesn't bear thinking about. Silence will be my friend if/when they visit.
Similar to SORN – it’s no big deal to play by the rules, whether you like them or not. When those rules change, then go nuts! In the meantime, meh.
No, it isn't similar. I don't wish to buy a service, that should be the end of it.
CG, don’t open the door even an inch and tell them to **** off through the letterbox.
I once experienced them wedging a foot in the door and barging in when one of the girls I was living with at uni opened the door to them.
On top of that you have to pay IF you watch ANY TV channel that has for example been recorded and uploaded on YT…
I don't think that's the case. You'd need to pay if you watched live streaming of TV broadcasts on YouTube. Anything that's been recorded and uploaded probably breaks copyright anyway.
Sounds to me like you don't need the licence.
So because YOU like it. Everyone needs to pay 💰
Righto.
Do you use the fire brigade?