The Bbc Propaganda Thread

[Oliver Sutton]

Nice summary here of the balance on BBC comedy panel shows.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b045c0j2#play#t=02m10s

 

 

[The XYY Man]

On 3/1/2017 at 10:53 AM, grasshopper said:

I have always thought that if you only have about 25% of your outgoings on accommodation then you would be able to both save and spend in the wider economy. This would surely be more beneficial in creating jobs and wealth.

I put that figure closer to 15% of your outgoings for the lower-paid majority  - but I agree with your thoughts on the matter 100%

 

 

XYY

                                                                                                               

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

[grasshopper]

10 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

I put that figure closer to 15% of your outgoings for the lower-paid majority  - but I agree with your thoughts on the matter 100%

 

 

XYY

 

                                                                                                               

 

The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb

 

Yes your probably right. I forget sometimes that there a lot of people out there living on next to nowt.

[One-percent]

Come on now, own up.  Which five of you were missing from the forum last night?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39161954

[spunko2010]

Whoopsie

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/04/fake-news-swedens-integration-minister-admits-lying-bbc-rape-stats/

[sleepwello'nights]

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 0:56 PM, spunko2010 said:

The worst offender for membling is Jeff Bridges. Cannot understand more than 1/3 of what he says.

Specsavers, Boots and most opticians have free of charge hearing tests. I think that's what my wife tries to tell me whenever I turn the volume up.

[Ash4781]

Lol I am not Facebook's biggest fan but they seem to be having a spat with the BBC - reported them to the police.

[ccc]

1 hour ago, Ash4781 said:

Lol I am not Facebook's biggest fan but they seem to be having a spat with the BBC - reported them to the police.

Read that and also had a chuckle.

The BBC report was extremely vague about some of the sites it reported to them as part of this investigation into "child" sites on FB. 

They didn't state what they were classing as "Children" for these cases.

They did mention teenagers a few times. 

I wonder how many of these sites were just blokes looking at 16+ year old birds ? 

[Hail the Tripod]

1 hour ago, ccc said:

Read that and also had a chuckle.

The BBC report was extremely vague about some of the sites it reported to them as part of this investigation into "child" sites on FB. 

They didn't state what they were classing as "Children" for these cases.

They did mention teenagers a few times. 

I wonder how many of these sites were just blokes looking at 16+ year old birds ? 

Well if the migrant crisis has taught us anything it is that even though someone looks at least 40, they could actually be a vulnerable child.

[LC1]

38 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Well if the migrant crisis has taught us anything it is that even though someone looks at least 40, they could actually be a vulnerable child.

[Economic Exile]

Huge protest on budget day by WASPI campaign re state pension age increases that disrupted BBC interviews. But no report on mainstream news about it. Complaints made about non reporting got the standard type response of other news being higher in the pecking order!

Criticise and sneer if you want but one day it might be you who gets your state pension age raised once then it gets accelerated and you have longer to wait. Last week WASPI were told that working on was good for them. Well, that's all good....if you are fit and actually have a job to go to! 

As the lady in this photo said. "Laugh if you want to but at least we're doing something about it and not just moaning"

 

[spyguy]

The WAPS thing is an equality thing.

It really goes both ways.

 

[CunningPlan]

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.

[Frank Hovis]

The WASPI campaign shot itself in the foot when its originators came up with that stupid name with Inequality in it when it is well known that there is now pension equality.

It gets a decent amount of coverage on my local radio, and that demo was featured, primarily owing to its very articulate and reasonable spokeswoman here.

And what she explains is that the campaign is not arguing against equal pension dates; it is that the government decided on moving women's state pension dates back five years in ?97 but didn't actually bother to tell them until ?2010.

So then you have women in their 50s / 60s with a financial plan that would have tided them over until when they thought their state pension would kick in finding they now have to support themselves for an additional ?five years which they cannot afford to do and there aren't vast numbers of job opportunities for already-retired sixty year olds; women or men.

There is a strong case IMHO for a time-limited interim support programme to plug this gap as the government is at fault here; these are not feckless benefits recipients demanding even more but are working women who have seen their retirement plans wrecked by the government's failure.

Though the campaign really needs to change that stupid name.

[CunningPlan]

I doubt many woman had any financial plan other than keep working until they retired. Apart from the ones that thought pushing out a child at 42 would keep them on the benefits gravy train until retirement 18 years later. Much harder to achieve at 47.

[Frank Hovis]

10 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

I doubt many woman had any financial plan other than keep working until they retired. Apart from the ones that thought pushing out a child at 42 would keep them on the benefits gravy train until retirement 18 years later. Much harder to achieve at 47.

I don't mean the ultra long term financial planning of the "plan" thread , more totting up ones savings, seeing that you have enough to live on for five years until your pension kicks in, and retiring.

Then getting a belated letter from the government informing you that they decided to push the pension date back a further five years but neglected to tell you.

So now you have retired and are living off your savings and suddenly find your comfortable five years have doubled into a very uncomfortable ten years.

It's wrong, the current government should admit the mistake of previous governments in not communicating the change and make amends.

Not reversing the change but some short term exceptional support, say 60% of the pension. And not means tested either.

[SpectrumFX]

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.

 

[CunningPlan]

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.

 

[Frank Hovis]

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.

[CunningPlan]

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.

[Frank Hovis]

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.

[CunningPlan]

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!

[Frank Hovis]

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!"

[Economic Exile]

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!

 

 

[Economic Exile]

 

triciaclough‏ @triciaclough2

Many thanks to everyone who has contacted the BBC re lack of coverage of @WASPI_Campaign Rally attended by 7000 supporters