Women currently retire earlier and live longer than men, the situation has to change, the sooner the better. Equality works both ways.
The services and equipment maintenance cost each household about £20 per year. All the rest of your licence fee goes towards million pound contracts for newsreaders, terrible, derivative light entertainment, bad dramas and putting 40 year old comedies in prime time weekend slots. That is what we get for £3.5 billion a year. There should be a skeleton service for £40 a year upgradable if you like watching poor quality programs and giving million pound contracts to undeserving 'celebrities' when there are thousands of people who would gladly do exactly the same job for 1/20th of the cost. Look emotionless, read news from autocue, take home £0.5-1m. Is this really good value for money? If the only thing you want from the BBC is independent news, why pay for the limitless crap they produce for entertainment?
P.S. It is illegal to record live tv to watch later on any device.
@Kai Childheart, you are breaking the law by using BBC iPlayer without a tv licence...shame on you thief!!! People like you should be locked up!!!
It is illegal because it provides a commercial company with public funds so that it may compete with an unfair advantage.
If I choose not to watch sky, I don't have to pay it's subscription fees.
If I choose not to watch the BBC I am forced to pay its fee anyway when there is no service being provided.
In this digital age it is perfectly straightforward to create a system where you are able to subscribe to the BBC if you wish to and opt out if you don't.
News and public information are essential services Kai, these are made illegal by the BBC monopoly unless you pay your licence fee, even if you choose to receive them from an unrelated third party.
The BBC CHOOSES to be funded this way as it means that they get paid extortionate amounts of cash without having to compete for it.
Over a third of the BBC funds are raised by commercial means, they use tax payers money to fund projects which are then not made available to the very people who fund it, numerous videos such as the top gear spin-offs are never shown on the BBC and must be purchased separately by the very people who fund their production.
If I were to set up a website and announce that anybody with access to the internet must pay me a fee or be fined (whether they use my service or not), I doubt you would think it was fair, legal or valid, yet this is the very same model that the BBC uses.
It is time to change this ridiculous and illegal practice.
You shouldn't have to pay a taxi company you don't use every time you use a rival company.Anonymous shared this idea ·
She is an evil war-criminal responsible for some of the most ridiculous and divisive policies in British history. There should be huge sstreet parties when she dies but no state funeral. Don't forget her bigoted stance on homosexuality, poll tax which required the unemployed to pay exactly the same taxes as millionaires, stopping milk being given to children at school and the ridiculous laws to prevent illegal raves ( making it an offence for more than 2 vehicles to travel to the same location in a convoy), the privatization of all our public assets which is the main reason why energy and public transport prices are so extortionate (tax payers subsidies of private train operators are vastly higher now than the taxes were when we owned the entire network).
There are countless further reasons why she is so hated by so many, she destroyed so much that made Britain great.
Whatabout theMonster Raving Looney Party and theBNP, should they have equal air time?
You can't put a blanket ban on horse meat, what about those who choose to eat it? It is commonly used throughout Europe as a perfectly acceptable food source. I am a vegetarian because I believe all life is worthy of respect, to say it is ok to eat cows but not horses is both hypocritical and a form of racism. You either eat animals or you don't, to classify eating one as morally sound and another as morally reprehensible is a nonsensical notion. Correct labelling is an issue for safety reasons but nothing more.
The BBC is not unbiased at all. A few years ago they reported about smokers costing the NHS and taxpayers £2.7bn a year completely neglecting to report that it raises £9.2bn per annum in tax. When I complained that to report one set of figures and not the other showed bias and was clearly designed to influence a particular political agenda, I was told that there isn't always time to show an unbiased view on all matters. A week later the BBC refused to air the humanitarian appeal to help the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression stating that impartiality was key to the BBC's existence. An impartial organization cannot pick and choose which issues it is impartial about, no matter how popular/unpopular a particular point of view may be. The BBC has a political agenda that it exercises every single day. It is distinctly biased towards a middle class, populist, pro-israeli viewpoint. It only appears unbiased if you happen to share the same ideology.
The exams have been getting easier to pass year on year, something needs to change as currently the level of virtually illiterate morons who are graduating with high grade G.C.S.E's is ridiculous. Teachers assist children too much and are far too lenient resulting in pupils receiving grades they simply don't deserve.
Ignorant kids are being given C grades in English when they can barely string a coherent sentence together, what good can come from that?
Very bizarre idea, I can't understand what you're trying to achieve by this meaningless action.
Whilst I sympathise with you completely (having suffered noisy neighbors for years), this is a democratic nation and not a communist state. Having government introduce laws regarding which home furnishings are allowed in which properties is never going to be acceptable to the majority of people. It's like dictating to people what and when they are allowed to eat. Have a polite word with your troublesome neighbor and if that does not work, inform your local authorities who will send somebody around to monitor the problem and deal with it through legal recourse.
I don't think he is as innocent as you proclaim, he may have been convicted many years ago but his terrible haircut, dress sense and patronising attitude are all criminal.
I have lived near a similar waste incinerator/power plant in Portsmouth for the last few years. I campaigned against it but have now completely changed my mind. It is very clean and provides two essential services in one. I understand your resistance but would suggest that if it's going to go ahead anyway you should be campaigning to make sure it is as efficient and safe as is possible like the one near me.
Maybe we should ban any future medical advancement too? After all pharmaceutical companies make vast profits, far greater than any GM crop growers.
There is no evidence whatsoever that GM crops are anything but completely safe, they have been grown in the States for many years with no detrimental affect and many benefits. The whole anti-GM campaign is based on mis-information, ignorance and knee-jerk reactions of ill-informed housewives.
Why don't you leave the country in her place? I am sure that most people would rather have a brave and resilient campaigner for an important cause reside in this country than an ignorant bigot such as yourself.
Wales is hardly a 'bi-lingual' nation as only a tiny percentage of people there speak Welsh. What about other minority languages such as Chinese Bangladeshi and Italian? Should these be on all Welsh signposts too?
Some of the most rampant racism I've ever witnessed comes from some anti-English fanatics associated with the Welsh language society.
Hechoseto associate himself with low-life murderous I.R.A scum and represented them in legal cases. Hewanted to keep self-righteous terrorists on the street so that they may murder more innocent men, women and children indiscriminately. I say good riddance!
Grow up and concern yourself with real issues rather than imaginary ones. I have researched this topic extensively in my youth, the vast majority of UFO sightings are easily explained, the rest are unidentified not extra terrestrial! Why do you think that most people live their entire lives without seeing a single UFO whilst some see them regularly? It's because most people see a shooting star as a shooting star, an aeroplane light as an aeroplane light and an unexplained event as just that (where not all the factors involved are known), whilst others see all these things as proof positive of extra terrestrial visitation and worldwide government conspiracy. Why would the one thing that the entire world authorities can agree on be the denial of extra terrestrial visitation? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Why should a wealthy person of any age have state subsidised anything? A millionaire of pensionable age does not need a free bus pass. If it is means tested money can be saved towards helping those who really need help.