Turned Out Nice Again

The Bbc Propaganda Thread

985 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, CunningPlan said:

Yet again the feminists make this a 100% women's issue which it isn't. A huge number of women of that age will have husbands that are about 5 years older. That was certainly true for the majority of my parent's friends.

This change will affect those men that were hoping to have their wives retire at the same time as them, rather than waiting until the male is 70. The cause would be much stronger if they brought these men into the campaign.

Still disagree though. Equality must mean equality, even when it transpires that it may disadvantage some people that didn't expect it.

Women live longer than men, by some margin (circa 7 years). True equality would therefore see women retiring  7 years later than men. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things change and no one should take a decision based on how things are now. Especially retiring at 55. The change in retirement age has been on the cards for years.

Your argument is the same that the section 24 campaigners are using about the change should only affect new entrants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Things change and no one should take a decision based on how things are now. Especially retiring at 55. The change in retirement age has been on the cards for years.

Your argument is the same that the section 24 campaigners are using about the change should only affect new entrants.

 

I don't know what the Section 24 reference is.

You are, I take it, financially informed. You know your tax reliefs, likely investment yields, the effect of inflation, the amount you can draw annually from a pension pot without reducing it in real terms etc.

Most people are not like that. They work, pay their taxes, set a little aside for emergencies, spend most of the rest on a mortgage, and spend the remainder on holidays and purchases.  They will do this until they retire and their pension replaces their wages.

This behaviour is good for the economy and the government should encourage it by making sure that people who do this are OK by not changing the goalposts without telling them.

It is very easy to be sitting there with all the options that having a pile of investments and financial knowledge give you and say that everyone should be in the same position when the reality is that very few are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I don't know what the Section 24 reference is.

You are, I take it, financially informed. You know your tax reliefs, likely investment yields, the effect of inflation, the amount you can draw annually from a pension pot without reducing it in real terms etc.

Most people are not like that. They work, pay their taxes, set a little aside for emergencies, spend most of the rest on a mortgage, and spend the remainder on holidays and purchases.  They will do this until they retire and their pension replaces their wages.

This behaviour is good for the economy and the government should encourage it by making sure that people who do this are OK by not changing the goalposts without telling them.

It is very easy to be sitting there with all the options that having a pile of investments and financial knowledge give you and say that everyone should be in the same position when the reality is that very few are.

Whoever you describe is definitely not me.

I will be working in one way or another until I drop dead. I certainly won't take any irreversible decision based upon what the government may or may not give me in five years time.

And there are lots of jobs for 55 year old women that would pay as much as the state pension. Just ask pret a migrant.

The issue is that they were looking forward to putting their feet up at 55. The country can't afford that any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Whoever you describe is definitely not me.

I will be working in one way or another until I drop dead. I certainly won't take any irreversible decision based upon what the government may or may not give me in five years time.

And there are lots of jobs for 55 year old women that would pay as much as the state pension. Just ask pret a migrant.

The issue is that they were looking forward to putting their feet up at 55. The country can't afford that any more.

Okay, we will agree to differ. I think the government is at fault here and should recompense as a consequence.

I see a parallel in the current issue of "full" NI years contributing to a pension. When "full" may either mean 100% or 75% of the contribution and there is no way of finding out until you retire at which point it is too late to do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Okay, we will agree to differ. I think the government is at fault here and should recompense as a consequence.

I see a parallel in the current issue of "full" NI years contributing to a pension. When "full" may either mean 100% or 75% of the contribution and there is no way of finding out until you retire at which point it is too late to do anything about it.

Agreed. Not going to fall out over it. 

I do think, however, that by making it a feminist issue they lose a lot of support. After all, I too have to wait another 5 years before I can start spending my wife's pension!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Agreed. Not going to fall out over it. 

I do think, however, that by making it a feminist issue they lose a lot of support. After all, I too have to wait another 5 years before I can start spending my wife's pension!

You should start a husband's division of the movement!

"Give me my wife's pension money now!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a summary of SPA increases/Acts/WASPI complaints for anyone who's interested.

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/women-given-just-2-years-notice-of.html

Men are affected too. Those who have had a year increase of their SPA without 10 years notification and men who are older than their wives/partner who feel their retirement has been ruined. Plenty of men support WASPI! Also sisters, brothers, aunts, daughters, sons and friends!

SPA increases do not affect well off people only those who have been low paid, single people and those who have ill health IMO.

I do recall hearing about SPA increases in the mid to late 90's but at that time I had two under 5's, a house to run and part time work at nights to supplement the household income so didn't pay much attention.

When I was divorced about 2000 with an unsupportive ex who I had to pay out to keep the family home I had to appraise my financial position. I found out then that my SPA was 65. It was a blow but what can one do?

I do believe that many women did not know until they were near retirement. I got an official letter about 6 years ago when I was around 53 informing me that my SPA was now 66. There's lots of  supporting evidence from women made redundant from public sector who were told by employers their SPA was 60 also divorce settlements where lawyers based it the female SPA of 60 and even DWP letters to females stating an incorrect SPA of 60!

What really made me angry was the 2011 act which added another year to my SPA. I've never had a well paid job despite trying all my life to get one, even doing an OU degree in my 40's. It was helpful in that it let me know I was doomed financially!

Regarding equality, well the world was a very very different place in the 70's, 80's and 90's. My children were born in early 90's when there was no childcare provision for the hard up. As I forced single parent I was lucky that my family helped to look after mine to help me keep my head above water.

For the record I'm against raising SPA fir everyone. It's stupid. Where are all the jobs going to come from to keep people working from young adulthood to old age? How many people are going to be fit to work till 70?

I loved seeing those older women revolting and protesting. IMO younger people should follow their example and get organised and protest about how they're being shafted!

Sorry to derail the thread but the BBC, as usual, fail to report protests. I think more groups should protest so the BBC has no option to report the state of the country for many!

 

 

Edited by Economic Exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems it is not just us in this thread.

The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK's reputation with its "pessimistic and skewed" coverage, MPs have warned.

More than 70  MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/bbc-risks-undermining-brexit-damaging-uk-pessimistic-skewed/

Edited by DEATH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DEATH said:

Well it seems it is not just us in this thread.

The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK's reputation with its "pessimistic and skewed" coverage, MPs have warned.

More than 70  MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/bbc-risks-undermining-brexit-damaging-uk-pessimistic-skewed/

The so called 'unbiased' BBC is out of f**king control and needs shutting down asap! f*** s*** c*** s****** m****** f*****! Phew.

Quote

BBC letter | In full
Dear Lord Hall,

RE: BBC Coverage of Brexit

Brexit is the most important political challenge facing our country. Bearing in mind the new Royal Charter’s first ‘Public Purpose’ is to impartial news, as national broadcaster the BBC has a special obligation to ensure that it reflects available evidence and the balance of argument on the subject as fairly as possible.

We believe the BBC has fallen far short of this high standard. No doubt the BBC often nurtures first-class journalism but its position depends on trust. If politicians and the public don’t view it as an impartial broker, then the future of the BBC will be in doubt.

When Sir David Clementi, the incoming Chairman of the BBC, gave evidence to the Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee in January, he insisted that the Corporation’s treatment of Brexit after the referendum had walked “a good path down the middle” – despite acknowledging that fewer viewers than ever now trust its coverage. We know many Leave-voting constituents have felt their views have been unfairly represented. This phenomenon is weakening the BBC's bond with the 52 per cent who voted Leave and all who wish to make a success of the decision made.

In particular, the Corporation’s focus on ‘regretful’ Leave voters, despite there being no polling shift towards Remain since the referendum, has led some to believe it is putting its preconceptions before the facts. Meanwhile, the posturing and private opinions of EU figures are too often presented as facts, without the vital context that they are talking tough ahead of the exit negotiations.

It particularly pains us to see how so much of the economic good news we’ve had since June has been skewed by BBC coverage which seems unable to break out of pre-referendum pessimism and accept new facts. Some of the signatories of this letter shared many of the concerns about the economic impact of Brexit, but all are delighted to find forecasts of immediate economic harm were at best misplaced. So-called ‘despite Brexit’ reporting may be expected of a partisan press, but licence fee-payers have the right to expect better.

The BBC has a much larger market share than any newspaper – it runs the most-used news website in the country, on top of its television and radio coverage. This, as well as viewers’ belief in its neutrality, means that BBC bias can have a substantial effect on national debate. BBC coverage also shapes international perceptions of the UK: we fear that, by misrepresenting our country either as xenophobic or regretful of the Leave vote, the BBC will undermine our efforts to carve out a new, global role for this country.

We are therefore asking you to take steps to correct these flaws in the BBC’s coverage of our EU exit at the earliest moment.

Yours etc.,

 

Edited by XswampyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the main BBC news and the Local One tonight and it was so tainted with bias it was almost laughable, still taking pops at trump followed by some other non-news. The local version even had a story about a German family who are packing up and going back to Germany because brits are apparently so insensitive after Brexit. Then again on the plus side I thought to myself thats another house for a local family to live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChewingGrass said:

Watched the main BBC news and the Local One tonight and it was so tainted with bias it was almost laughable, still taking pops at trump followed by some other non-news. The local version even had a story about a German family who are packing up and going back to Germany because brits are apparently so insensitive after Brexit. Then again on the plus side I thought to myself thats another house for a local family to live in.

Are they going back to Saxony? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DEATH said:

Well it seems it is not just us in this thread.

The BBC risks undermining Brexit and damaging the UK's reputation with its "pessimistic and skewed" coverage, MPs have warned.

More than 70  MPs from across the political spectrum have written to Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, accusing the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/bbc-risks-undermining-brexit-damaging-uk-pessimistic-skewed/

Anti-BBC sentiment is rife online, I see it daily. Funnily enough the only fawning seems to come from liberal Americans - who funnily enough don't realise we are forced to pay it or be put in prison. About as anti-American an idea as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headline : "Four people, including a police officer and the lone attacker, have died in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament in London."

Why is he described as a lone attacker?

Just attacker would suffice. Normally journalists go for brevity.

Answers on a postcard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XswampyX said:

Integrity? 

inbreeding? incest? indoctrination? 

 

I'm joking it's obviously integration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lone" attacker to me implies he was acting totally alone and in isolation and not as part of a group or an ideology.

If they wanted to emphasis that he was the only one involved here they should have said "single attacker".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oliver Sutton said:

Headline : "Four people, including a police officer and the lone attacker, have died in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament in London."

Why is he described as a lone attacker?

Just attacker would suffice. Normally journalists go for brevity.

Answers on a postcard.

loan attacker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

So Trump was bugged by US spooks. Note weasely caveats ("incidentally monitored") and the prominence given to this story (low).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363

 

 

 

 

Thus far FBI failing to respond.

Trump right again. A landmine was laid by Obama on his way out - releasing identifiable information on wiretaps and surveillance to such a wide audience leaks of that information were inevitable and difficult to track. 

Trump won't do it, but should have Obama/Clinton and their cronies up for sedition.

 

 

Edited by onlyme2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, onlyme2 said:

 

Trump right again......snip....

Trump won't do it, but should have Obama/Clinton and their cronies up for sedition.

 

 

No.

At least thats not what I read in the article. It's perhaps a reflection of the company he keeps - Trump team was "incidentally monitored"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363

As I said on another thread it's not surprising given his penchant for hanging out with Russians...

Hilary Clinton was probably incidentally monitored too.

 

Here's a quote from the article (my bold)

"Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate".

Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll."

Given that Nunes is a Republican and supporter of Trump you can take him at his word on this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, InlikeFlynn said:

No.

At least thats not what I read in the article. It's perhaps a reflection of the company he keeps - Trump team was "incidentally monitored"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363

As I said on another thread it's not surprising given his penchant for hanging out with Russians...

Hilary Clinton was probably incidentally monitored too.

 

Here's a quote from the article (my bold)

"Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate".

Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll."

Given that Nunes is a Republican and supporter of Trump you can take him at his word on this. 

 

 

So no problem with the fact that they were in fact spying on the trump administration but just arguing semantics that it was Obama who had ordered it. (That's ignoring that the claims that the Russians helped sway the election has been rubbished) 

Stasi state is still AOK, all political point scoring, tomorrow is going to be fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, InlikeFlynn said:

No.

At least thats not what I read in the article. It's perhaps a reflection of the company he keeps - Trump team was "incidentally monitored"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39358363

As I said on another thread it's not surprising given his penchant for hanging out with Russians...

Hilary Clinton was probably incidentally monitored too.

 

Here's a quote from the article (my bold)

"Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate".

Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll."

Given that Nunes is a Republican and supporter of Trump you can take him at his word on this. 

 

 

Still wiretapped, still enabled by the policies put in place by Obama, Bit of plausible deniability and obfuscation by opening up unlimited access to multiple agencies.

=

Concerted effort to put in place all the infrastructure to spy/leak on selected targets.

 

Obama pushed through these changes in rules, he is responsible, he is behind it, he put the rules in place to enable it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.