Free TV licenses for the over 75's is to be axed.

First topic message reminder :

Has the BBC made a good decision here? They say they need the revenue, but if that's the case why take it out on pensioners when the fee's  paid to some TV stars (the majority male) is so astronomical?

"The BBC faced a ferocious backlash as Britain demanded: “Axe the tax.”
Angry pensioners blasted the move and urged the Beeb to save cash by instead cutting the salaries of big-name presenters.
Protesters from the National Pensioners Convention in Blackpool marched with a banner saying: “Save Our Free TV Licence.”
Tory leadership hopeful Matt Hancock said the BBC should reverse the decision and cut costs elsewhere.
Rivals Michael Gove and Esther McVey promised to decriminalise non-payment of the £154.50 licence fee.
Thousands are convicted every year, with a few offenders even sent to jail for failing to pay the £1,000 fines."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9273865/bbc-backlash-tv-licences-petition-tories/

This all stems from the Panorama screw up. They were attempting to dish up a whole load of dirt and lies on Tommy Robinson. The girl they got involved with (Lucy Brown) was well known for having worked with Tommy Robinson in the past and had a major bust up with him.
They were hoping she would dish them up a whole load of dirt for them but, unfortunately for them, she informed TR of this hit piece on him on him and had a secret camera going filming John Sweeney colluding with Hope Not Hate in all this. They got stung big time and it was all over social media. 24 hours later TR got banned but the news was out and it spread and every day more and more people were cancelling their BBC subscription.

Moreover, what with people having instant access to so many alternative online news sources, many with accompanying videos etc, folk can see quite clearly the constant bias with the BBC

They lost huge amounts of revenue recently due to their own shennanigans and so now, rather than cut their own costs, they want to hit the over 75s.

This is quite scandalous.

I'm with syl on this. having worked as a carer in peoples homes i can vouch that many of them are not very mobile. yes they read and yes they write letters and listen to the radio but many of them had scarce if any visits (not all) and had no idea about the internet and so to have the TV burbling away was like having company almost.

i said fuck it to TV years ago anyway, there's more than enough stuff to watch online. no one needs the TV but for oldies who don't know how to do 'online' is very limiting for them

the BBC sucks big time

I think the entire idea of a TV license is an utter scam and I can't believe anybody in the UK would support it.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think the entire idea of a TV license is an utter scam and I can't believe anybody in the UK would support it.

I can’t believe people ever paid it in the first place. It’s not like they could come and catch you. Do people think that they have enough time, people and resources to sit outside everyone’s house?

Plus, and I’ll say it again, the BBC is a shite channel.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I think the entire idea of a TV license is an utter scam and I can't believe anybody in the UK would support it.

I can’t believe people ever paid it in the first place. It’s not like they could come and catch you. Do people think that they have enough time, people and resources to sit outside everyone’s house?

Plus, and I’ll say it again, the BBC is a shite channel.

apparently all that guff about them being able to detect if you;ve got BBC going is all hogwash anyway. Also they do not have the right to gain access into your property to check anything. Folks have a perfect right to tell them to jog on.


just saying

nature documentaries is the only thing BBC did well but them you can get all over youtube anyway

Gels, the TV licence was always something I was against paying - my ex used to pay it - as soon as we split up I simply stopped.

Nothing happened.

eddie wrote:I haven’t paid my TV licence for about four years despite getting red letters. They have never come after me.
I won’t pay it because I don’t watch much TV apart from Netflix and I can’t remember the last time I watched anything at all on any BBC channel.
They’re shite.

although if they catch you they can send you to prison as the householder.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think the entire idea of a TV license is an utter scam and I can't believe anybody in the UK would support it.

few do but they have no choice but to pay as you can be sent to prison for not doing so.

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:

I can’t believe people ever paid it in the first place. It’s not like they could come and catch you. Do people think that they have enough time, people and resources to sit outside everyone’s house?

Plus, and I’ll say it again, the BBC is a shite channel.

apparently all that guff about them being able to detect if you;ve got BBC going is all hogwash anyway.  Also they do not have the right to gain access into your property to check anything.  Folks have a perfect right to tell them to jog on.


just saying

nature documentaries is the only thing BBC did well but them you can get all over youtube anyway

actually I think the tv licence people are one of those rare people who do have a right to demand entry.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

eddie wrote:I haven’t paid my TV licence for about four years despite getting red letters. They have never come after me.
I won’t pay it because I don’t watch much TV apart from Netflix and I can’t remember the last time I watched anything at all on any BBC channel.
They’re shite.

although if they catch you they can send you to prison as the householder.

Never gonna happen. As I said, I don’t watch TV anyway and they simply don’t have the resources to “catch” anyone.
It’s an outdated licence and they need to grow up.

gelico wrote:


This all stems from the Panorama screw up.  They were attempting to dish up a whole load of dirt and lies on Tommy Robinson.  The girl they got involved with (Lucy Brown) was well known for having worked with Tommy Robinson in the past and had a major bust up with him.
They were hoping she would dish them up a whole load of dirt for them but, unfortunately for them, she informed TR of this hit piece on him on him and had a secret camera going filming John Sweeney colluding with Hope Not Hate in all this.  They got stung big time and it was all over social media.  24 hours later TR got banned but the news was out and it spread and every day more and more people were cancelling their BBC subscription.

Moreover, what with people having instant access to so many alternative online news sources, many with accompanying videos etc, folk can see quite clearly the constant bias with the BBC

They lost huge amounts of revenue recently due to their own shennanigans and so now, rather than cut their own costs, they want to hit the over 75s.

This is quite scandalous.

I'm with syl on this.  having worked as a carer in peoples homes i can vouch that many of them are not very mobile.  yes they read and yes they write letters and listen to the radio but many of them had scarce if any visits (not all) and had no idea about the internet and so to have the TV burbling away was like having company almost.

i said fuck it to TV years ago anyway, there's more than enough stuff to watch online.  no one needs the TV but for oldies who don't know how to do 'online' is very limiting for them

the BBC sucks big time

TR is not a decent person tho. I don't know why anyone would need to bother to tell LIES about him, cos the truth about him is quite bad enough as it is. 

His very first spell in jail was nowt whatsoever to do with politics, it was for beating an innocent off duty police officer to a pulp outside a nightclub. TR deliberately puts himself in positions where he gets himself arrested in order to look like the victim, cos the sight of this on TV brings in financial online support from far right wealthy people from all 4 corners of the earth. I reckon his political motives come a distant second place behind his financial motives tbh. 


Re the TV licence as we've never bothered with TV for years, I am looking to see if we can get a refund too. 

Jules, did you ever watch the huge stitch-up they did about him?
I won’t say I like him particularly but there are a lot of lies told about him by the media. Panorama fucked up big time and ended up looking very, very bad.

Jules wrote:

gelico wrote:


This all stems from the Panorama screw up.  They were attempting to dish up a whole load of dirt and lies on Tommy Robinson.  The girl they got involved with (Lucy Brown) was well known for having worked with Tommy Robinson in the past and had a major bust up with him.
They were hoping she would dish them up a whole load of dirt for them but, unfortunately for them, she informed TR of this hit piece on him on him and had a secret camera going filming John Sweeney colluding with Hope Not Hate in all this.  They got stung big time and it was all over social media.  24 hours later TR got banned but the news was out and it spread and every day more and more people were cancelling their BBC subscription.

Moreover, what with people having instant access to so many alternative online news sources, many with accompanying videos etc, folk can see quite clearly the constant bias with the BBC

They lost huge amounts of revenue recently due to their own shennanigans and so now, rather than cut their own costs, they want to hit the over 75s.

This is quite scandalous.

I'm with syl on this.  having worked as a carer in peoples homes i can vouch that many of them are not very mobile.  yes they read and yes they write letters and listen to the radio but many of them had scarce if any visits (not all) and had no idea about the internet and so to have the TV burbling away was like having company almost.

i said fuck it to TV years ago anyway, there's more than enough stuff to watch online.  no one needs the TV but for oldies who don't know how to do 'online' is very limiting for them

the BBC sucks big time

TR is not a decent person tho. I don't know why anyone would need to bother to tell LIES about him, cos the truth about him is quite bad enough as it is. 

His very first spell in jail was nowt whatsoever to do with politics, it was for beating an innocent off duty police officer to a pulp outside a nightclub. TR deliberately puts himself in positions where he gets himself arrested in order to look like the victim, cos the sight of this on TV brings in financial online support from far right wealthy people from all 4 corners of the earth. I reckon his political motives come a distant second place behind his financial motives tbh. 


Re the TV licence as we've never bothered with TV for years, I am looking to see if I can get a refund too. 

well, whatever the ins and outs of TRs past or his motives, my point was that thousands simply cancelled their subscriptions on the back of Lucy Brown working undercover on it. They have to make that revenue back somehow hence the hit on the OAPs.

refund? good luck with that

gelico wrote:

Jules wrote:

TR is not a decent person tho. I don't know why anyone would need to bother to tell LIES about him, cos the truth about him is quite bad enough as it is. 

His very first spell in jail was nowt whatsoever to do with politics, it was for beating an innocent off duty police officer to a pulp outside a nightclub. TR deliberately puts himself in positions where he gets himself arrested in order to look like the victim, cos the sight of this on TV brings in financial online support from far right wealthy people from all 4 corners of the earth. I reckon his political motives come a distant second place behind his financial motives tbh. 


Re the TV licence as we've never bothered with TV for years, I am looking to see if I can get a refund too. 

well, whatever the ins and outs of TRs past or his motives, my point was that thousands simply cancelled their subscriptions on the back of Lucy Brown working undercover on it.  They have to make that revenue back somehow hence the hit on the OAPs.

refund?  good luck with that

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

Jules wrote:

gelico wrote:


well, whatever the ins and outs of TRs past or his motives, my point was that thousands simply cancelled their subscriptions on the back of Lucy Brown working undercover on it.  They have to make that revenue back somehow hence the hit on the OAPs.

refund?  good luck with that

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

anyone can cancel their licence at any time. You only need it now to watch BBC. however if they can prove you do watch it without a licence then they can send you to prison.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:

gelico wrote:


well, whatever the ins and outs of TRs past or his motives, my point was that thousands simply cancelled their subscriptions on the back of Lucy Brown working undercover on it.  They have to make that revenue back somehow hence the hit on the OAPs.

refund?  good luck with that

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

anyone can cancel their licence at any time. You only need it now to watch BBC. however if they can prove you do watch it without a licence then they can send you to prison.

Wouldn't they literally have to bust in on you watching it to prove that, though?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

anyone can cancel their licence at any time. You only need it now to watch BBC. however if they can prove you do watch it without a licence then they can send you to prison.

I see. Well I've heard prison food is rank so maybe I will reconsider my decision.

Jules wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

anyone can cancel their licence at any time. You only need it now to watch BBC. however if they can prove you do watch it without a licence then they can send you to prison.

I see. Well I've heard prison food is rank so maybe I will reconsider my decision.

I really wouldn’t worry. They won’t catch you and if you gave up watching the BBC you probably wouldn’t miss much.

Jules wrote:

gelico wrote:


well, whatever the ins and outs of TRs past or his motives, my point was that thousands simply cancelled their subscriptions on the back of Lucy Brown working undercover on it.  They have to make that revenue back somehow hence the hit on the OAPs.

refund?  good luck with that

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
.

well, they clearly didn't think so.

i guess they were more outraged over blatant lies than TR. It could have been anyone. Lies are lies and folks got sick of it.

i think showing repeats of shows that were shit first time round perhaps doesn't help

in any case going after pensioners is a poor reason to try to make up for losing revenue due to their own duplicitous behaviour.

eddie wrote:I haven’t paid my TV licence for about four years despite getting red letters. They have never come after me.
I won’t pay it because I don’t watch much TV apart from Netflix and I can’t remember the last time I watched anything at all on any BBC channel.
They’re shite.

I'm with you. It's a scam.

The BBC should reduce its spending... starting by cutting some of its radio stations ie radio1X and R5SX and Radio 4 extra and BBC. 6 music and BBC. Asian network etc...

Also they should cut the huge amount of wasteful spending on bureaucracy and guff...!

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

anyone can cancel their licence at any time. You only need it now to watch BBC. however if they can prove you do watch it without a licence then they can send you to prison.

Does Britain have a prison specifically for those caught watching the beeb without a licence ?

If so, they could punish those dastardly criminal types by having the prison TVs broadcasting only Fox News and Sky TV 24/7..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:

My own point is that outrage over TR's treatment is a poor reason to cancel the licence.
Not using a TV is the only legit reason to cancel it.

anyone can cancel their licence at any time. You only need it now to watch BBC. however if they can prove you do watch it without a licence then they can send you to prison.

Does Britain have a prison specifically for those caught watching the beeb without a licence  ?

If so,  they could punish those dastardly criminal types by having the prison TVs broadcasting only Fox News and Sky TV  24/7..

Hahahahaha and also the BBC

If you don't want to pay for the BBC, don't watch it. Mind you, you have to pay for Netflix and all those cable channels.

I can't see that paying for a TV licence is going to mean the difference between life and death.

There's a lady in our street who is in her 90's, she has no family, she gets few visits from anyone, especially in the evening, she has a tv and its her lifeline to what is happening and company for her, Are you suggesting if she can't afford the license she shouldn't have it? You don't believe in the welfare state then or have any compassion for those who have so little? There are so many things that many people can't really afford in this modern world, most of us are happy to help those in need, otherwise we wouldn't have a health service and an education system which I'm pretty sure you have benefitted from is it such a leap to free licenses for the over 75. As a point of interest how long before you
are 75.

I understand that Raggs is a staunch Conservative. She may correct me if I am wrong.
The modern day Tory believes in low taxes for the wealthy, offset by high taxes for the poor. They believe in a privatized NHS, austerity and huge cuts in the welfare state..
Accordingly, slashing  tv license subsidies to the BBC was part of the Conservative ethos, which was always going to affect the over 75's, who are the weakest and most powerless in society.
Tread on them, and keep 'em down. That will  be Boris's philosophy.

Sorry Andy that's rubbish !

I'm not a Conservative - never voted for them. I do think that you  have to pay for what you want in this life, and that's just a fact. I'm not a high earner myself, but I pay tax and NI. I just don't see TV as a necessity. If an old person only has the TV for company, there's something wrong in society. In any case, the cost of a licence isn't that high - not over a whole year.

It'll be a while before I'm 75 - if I get that far.  

I'd quite like to retire or work part time ctually but I can't afford it just yet, and I'm not blaming anyone else for that - that's a leftie thing.

I am a mere 62. Retired 2 years ago , but due to 8 years of austerity, my pension as been virtually frozen to my salary of 2010..As a result, despite some on going health issues, I have had to start work again to keep the bills paid.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not a Conservative - never voted for them. I do think that you  have to pay for what you want in this life, and that's just a fact. I'm not a high earner myself, but I pay tax and NI. I just don't see TV as a necessity. If an old person only has the TV for company, there's something wrong in society. In any case, the cost of a licence isn't that high - not over a whole year.

It'll be a while before I'm 75 - if I get that far.  

I'd quite like to retire or work part time ctually but I can't afford it just yet, and I'm not blaming anyone else for that - that's a leftie thing.

I don't see you as  Labourite, Green or  LibDem, which means you are probably a Tory or Ukipper who has deserted and joined the ranks of the Brexshiteers.

Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not a Conservative - never voted for them. I do think that you  have to pay for what you want in this life, and that's just a fact. I'm not a high earner myself, but I pay tax and NI. I just don't see TV as a necessity. If an old person only has the TV for company, there's something wrong in society. In any case, the cost of a licence isn't that high - not over a whole year.

It'll be a while before I'm 75 - if I get that far.  

I'd quite like to retire or work part time ctually but I can't afford it just yet, and I'm not blaming anyone else for that - that's a leftie thing.

I don't see you as  Labourite, Green or  LibDem, which means you are probably a Tory or Ukipper who has deserted and joined the ranks of the Brexshiteers.

None of the above. Why must you pigeon-hole people politically or economically? I just think differently to you. I think that people should take responsibility for themselves, and they should save up for their old age rather than rely on the State pension - we all know how that keeps changing.

I'm quite frugal, and I think that things like TVs, cars, holidays, fancy mobile phones, etc are luxuries rather than necessities. Well maybe a car is if you have to travel a long way to work, but as a way to tootle about, it's a luxury. I expect to pay for most things really, and I don't get why some people expect to get things for free.

So you would rather do without a welfare state?
Everyone live in a particular pigeon hole. Dar left, left, left centre, centre, right centre, right, far right. It's a broad spectrum, wide enough for e everyody. Some just deny which bit they support as it would cast hem in  poor light.

Andy wrote:I am a mere 62. Retired 2 years ago , but due to 8 years of austerity, my pension as been virtually frozen to my salary of 2010..As a result, despite some on going health issues, I have had to start work again to keep the bills paid.

Yes. I think a lot of people do that. I feel a bit worn out re working myself.

It depends on what your salary was in 2010 of course - it might seem like a huge amount to me.

You only have another four years until you can get your State pension.

Andy wrote:So you would rather do without a welfare state?

No, not at all. I just don't think that things I think of as luxuries should be paid for out of public funds.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Andy wrote:I am a mere 62. Retired 2 years ago , but due to 8 years of austerity, my pension as been virtually frozen to my salary of 2010..As a result, despite some on going health issues, I have had to start work again to keep the bills paid.

Yes. I think a lot of people do that. I feel a bit worn out re working myself.

It depends on what your salary was in 2010 of course - it might seem like a huge amount to me.

You only have another four years until you can get your State pension.

I was a civil servant. Law enforcement. Absolutely crap money for the shit I put up with. Still have the scars from when I was stabbed on duty. The mediocre pension is half of what a policeman gets. And I put in 45 years to earn it.

Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I think a lot of people do that. I feel a bit worn out re working myself.

It depends on what your salary was in 2010 of course - it might seem like a huge amount to me.

You only have another four years until you can get your State pension.

I was a civil servant. Law enforcement. Absolutely crap money for the shit I put up with. Still have the scars from when I was stabbed on duty. The mediocre pension is half of what a policeman gets. And I put in 45 years to earn it.

That's probably more than I'll get.

I have a private pension, and I did stop paying in for a while - my own fault of course. I'm trying to put in what I can now. Then there's the issue of being contracted out re the State pension - I still have a few years to catch up to get the full pension.

No full state pension for me either. The govt shafted civil servants over it.

Andy wrote:No full state pension for me either. The govt shafted civil servants over it.

Because of being contracted out? I've been reading quite a lot about it recently - one does when one reaches a certain age.

I realise that being contracted out gives you a better pension from other sources, but a lot of people don't understand that, so they expect more than they actually get. Do you have a lot of years to catch up to get the full State pension?

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not a Conservative - never voted for them. I do think that you  have to pay for what you want in this life, and that's just a fact. I'm not a high earner myself, but I pay tax and NI. I just don't see TV as a necessity. If an old person only has the TV for company, there's something wrong in society. In any case, the cost of a licence isn't that high - not over a whole year.

It'll be a while before I'm 75 - if I get that far.  

I'd quite like to retire or work part time ctually but I can't afford it just yet, and I'm not blaming anyone else for that - that's a leftie thing.

I'm afraid that in Andy's book if you're not a fully paid up member of the Loony Left you must, by definition, be a Tory.

Andy wrote:I understand that Raggs is a staunch Conservative. She may correct me if I am wrong.
The modern day Tory believes in low taxes for the wealthy, offset by high taxes for the poor. They believe in a privatized NHS, austerity and huge cuts in the welfare state..
Accordingly, slashing  tv license subsidies to the BBC was part of the Conservative ethos, which was always going to affect the over 75's, who are the weakest and most powerless in society.
Tread on them, and keep 'em down. That will  be Boris's philosophy.

Come off it, Andy. That is complete and utter bullshit -and you know it.

I live in what could well be regarded as a "modern Tory" constituency: Very rural and very affluent, located just near enough the edge the London commuter belt to make it an attractive proposition for all those "somethings in the City" but far enough away from the capital to provide those "places in the country" and the agreeable lifestyle that goes with them. And you will find no greater support for the NHS than here, I can tell you.

When, some years ago, a public appeal was launched for a £2 million state-of-the-art cancer care unit at the local NHS hospital the full amount was raised extremely quickly and most of the most generous donations came from communities that you would condemn on sight as hotbeds of Tory extremism. I know, because I was one of the door-to-door advocates and collectors.

Yet soon after it was built, the centre was hit by a full VAT demand on a huge proportion of the funds that were deemed by the Treasury and its tax vultures to "come within the scope of VAT...", leaving the community with the prospect of re-launching the appeal simply to pay the unexpected tax.

And who was the official who fought tooth-and-nail to enforce the tax bill? Gordon bloody Brown, Labour Chancellor and, no doubt, one of your heroes.

He had to back down only after adverse publicity that had the Labour spin doctors wetting the Y-fronts and a determined campaign by the local MPs, two Tory and one Labour.

I'll not even mention the looming disaster of the Public Sector Initiative so enthusiastically exploited by the Blair and Brown administrations...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:I understand that Raggs is a staunch Conservative. She may correct me if I am wrong.
The modern day Tory believes in low taxes for the wealthy, offset by high taxes for the poor. They believe in a privatized NHS, austerity and huge cuts in the welfare state..
Accordingly, slashing  tv license subsidies to the BBC was part of the Conservative ethos, which was always going to affect the over 75's, who are the weakest and most powerless in society.
Tread on them, and keep 'em down. That will  be Boris's philosophy.

Come off it, Andy. That is complete and utter bullshit -and you know it.

I live in what could well be regarded as a "modern Tory" constituency: Very rural and very affluent, located just near enough the edge the London commuter belt to make it an attractive proposition for all those "somethings in the City" but far enough away from the capital to provide those "places in the country" and the agreeable lifestyle that goes with them. And you will find no greater support for the NHS than here, I can tell you.

When, some years ago, a public appeal was launched for a £2 million state-of-the-art cancer care unit at the local NHS hospital the full amount was raised extremely quickly and most of the most generous donations came from communities that you would condemn on sight as hotbeds of Tory extremism. I know, because I was one of the door-to-door advocates and collectors.

Yet soon after it was built, the centre was hit by a full VAT demand on a huge proportion of the funds that were deemed by the Treasury and its tax vultures to "come within the scope of VAT...", leaving the community with the prospect of re-launching the appeal simply to pay the unexpected tax.

And who was the official who fought tooth-and-nail to enforce the tax bill? Gordon bloody Brown, Labour Chancellor and, no doubt, one of your heroes.

He had to back down only after adverse publicity that had the Labour spin doctors wetting the Y-fronts and a determined campaign by the local MPs, two Tory and one Labour.

I'll not even mention the looming disaster of the Public Sector Initiative so enthusiastically exploited by the Blair and Brown administrations...

Phil, you know you can't generalize from a single incident. Andy was generalizing, not describing a case.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:


Come off it, Andy. That is complete and utter bullshit -and you know it.

I live in what could well be regarded as a "modern Tory" constituency: Very rural and very affluent, located just near enough the edge the London commuter belt to make it an attractive proposition for all those "somethings in the City" but far enough away from the capital to provide those "places in the country" and the agreeable lifestyle that goes with them. And you will find no greater support for the NHS than here, I can tell you.

When, some years ago, a public appeal was launched for a £2 million state-of-the-art cancer care unit at the local NHS hospital the full amount was raised extremely quickly and most of the most generous donations came from communities that you would condemn on sight as hotbeds of Tory extremism. I know, because I was one of the door-to-door advocates and collectors.

Yet soon after it was built, the centre was hit by a full VAT demand on a huge proportion of the funds that were deemed by the Treasury and its tax vultures to "come within the scope of VAT...", leaving the community with the prospect of re-launching the appeal simply to pay the unexpected tax.

And who was the official who fought tooth-and-nail to enforce the tax bill? Gordon bloody Brown, Labour Chancellor and, no doubt, one of your heroes.

He had to back down only after adverse publicity that had the Labour spin doctors wetting the Y-fronts and a determined campaign by the local MPs, two Tory and one Labour.

I'll not even mention the looming disaster of the Public Sector Initiative so enthusiastically exploited by the Blair and Brown administrations...

Phil, you know you can't generalize from a single incident.  Andy was generalizing, not describing a case.

A single incident offered as one example in refutation of Andy's generalized bullshit.....

I think in some places it might be referred to as evidence.

And it's Fred, old boy.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Phil, you know you can't generalize from a single incident.  Andy was generalizing, not describing a case.

A single incident offered as one example in refutation of Andy's generalized bullshit.....

I think in some places it might be referred to as evidence.

And it's Fred, old boy.

And an apt example it is.  However, Andy wasn't making an anecdotal point.  He was making a quantitative point.  The way to refute him, if at all, is to bring forth other quantitative evidence that contradicts him.

Sorry about the 'Phil'.  Mind cramp, I guess.