ECCOnoob

No I don't care. The rules are very simple and have been since TV licensing was first introduced. Tell you what I do care about though, national newspapers creating completely misleading headlines and fabricating stories out of nothing but a load of uncorroborated social media opinion. Tell you another thing I care about even more is calling out posters like you peddling repeated blatant lies, selective editing and mistruths to desperately try and further an agenda.

Yawn. Nothing to see here folks. Just another load of Daily Mail manufactured outrage and desperate social media trawling to try and find a story that isnt there. "...Terrifies the elderly.." my backside. What do we have have? An article where the protagonist is some whinging hysteric in their 20s and a load of twitterati airheads spewing out their unwanted and irrelevant opinions. Jesus christ, if you gonna do something at least find some old codger to interview and pose for the obligatory sad face photograph. They are not even trying in their anti BBC campaign anymore. 1/10 poor effort. Report to me after class. Must do better.

Don't presume what you THINK I know and don't know about, you just set yourself up to look foolish. I have family members who are dependent on benefits for life and I've had to deal with the social services, support organisations and local government during both my past legal work and personal life. Also, you cannot seriously believe that I went from comprehensive school to comfortable salary overnight. I have had plenty of periods on low or no income myself in my career. None of any of the above changes my perfectly valid point. Public money is not infinite and some people's definitions of "poverty" and "hardship" in this country really needs a reality check

........in your uncorroborated opinion. Personally, I heard it all before. For some people no matter what figure gets put forward they will scream it never will be enough. Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. How many times over decades do we keep hearing the same....... the NHS is always allegedly destitute and on the brink of collapse, despite vast amounts being thrown at it each year...... Benefits are allegedly always too little for people get by, despite the fact that successive governments have made numerous tweaks and changes to not only the policies for the type of benefits available...The minimum wage is always allegedy too low and people struggling to survive, despite the fact that it is been subject to increases almost every single year since it's Inception.... Now suddenly the whines are starting that emergency Covid support is "not enough" for people to survive on despite the fact that it didn't even exist until the few weeks ago Taxpayer money is finite. Some people need to realise that and stop making ridiculous predictions just to do a bit of point scoring against the government.

Without having the full details I would hazard a guess that the money negotiated comes with very specific purposes and very specific criteria. It is not supposed to be a top-up for the local authorities purses to do what they wish.

That is not the same thing. You said "not allowed" which translates to being physically or otherwise it blocked from winning. Media manipulation, dirty tricks, political games and failure to win over the people who are actually going to vote for you is a whole different thing. Any failures arising from that scenario is solely on the candidate themselves nobody else. Ultimately, if a candidate is not appealing to the wider electorate and has some media against them they need to change their publicity and attack back. If their policies are not getting enough attention then they need to change them so they can be more sellable to the publishers and more eye catching to the masses who will be consuming it. If their personality is toxic and they give bad interviews in the papers and on television then you need to coach themselves to do better...... the list goes on. Whether we like to admit it or not an election boils down to just one giant popularity contest. Its Miss World for the men in suits. Are reality TV voting contest for those who read the broadsheet. Much as I would like it to be so, to reality is it really does not get much more cerebral than that.

What are we defining as fair? What is the criteria that's applied? What sort of numbers are we talking about? How did those numbers compare with others? What formulas? I'm not blinkered in my views at all. I just reflect the practical realities instead of getting caught up in media hysteria, biased politicians stroking their egos nor make sweeping statements without facts. How could you possibly declare that 41 million is "a cop-out" The only people who will know such things will be those subject to negotiation and the person who eventually makes the final decision. On the face of it, when looking at the population numbers and applying comparisons with the monetary levels of support given to other regions it seems pretty much in the ball park to me. I have said before, as have other people on this thread, the money is not intended to be distributed to every single person in the region as a little windfall. It is there for those people and businesses who are in genuine financial distress and need assistance. People need to read the rules and get a grip. Of course some industries will feel a heavy impact from this whilst others will barely notice. A vast majority of people working white-collar positions will probably be carrying on as normal or at the very worst simply having to work from home. South Yorkshire is not particularly known as a hotbed for tourists and so may in fact feel the impact less than other cities or areas which depend heavily on visitor attractions and hospitality. It's all the balancing exercise which goes far beyond some moronic simplistic headline grabbing formula of breaking the figure down to a per person amount. One thing I will concede has pleasantly surprised me is that our regional mayor has reached his deal and agreement with far more dignity and professionalism than that across the Pennines.

Why would I need to? I don't believe for one second that going into tier 3 automatically equals that every single person in a region is going to be out of a job and unable to earn a living. I don't believe that every single business is suddenly going to be on a knife edge and on the brink of of closing the doors forever. Rising above all the hysteria and anti-government rhetoric, a simple reading of the rules shows that shops, offices, schools, universities, public services, transport all remain open. Even in the the obviously more precarious world of hospitality, certain venues, particularly those serving food will still be able to do at least some business. Add on the fact that many people are already or will be able to work from home and carry on with their jobs as normal - it is blindingly obvious that not everybody is going to necessarily be financially impacted. For those who are genuinely suffering hardship that is what the financial support is there for. They are quite rightly the ones entitled to it - but it's not some windfall for the masses. Its support for those people and businesses who actually need it. Instead of people and certain politicians making meaningless per person comparisons to portray a negative image and manipulate the press why don't they spend some of that time properly assessing how many and for how long .

This is not rocket science. They gave him a hard deadline. He rejected it. The default position is and always was 22 million. He knew that was the outcome but now he's bellyaching blaming all and everyone but himself. Who actually cares if he THINKS the lockdown is going to be 3 months or 9 months or 12-months or whether he alleges they need 90 million or 200 million or 100 billion.... That was not the reality of the topic under negotiation. Pretending that one is mystic meg is not much of a bargaining tactic It has been repeated by the government in the House and in several Media reports that that 60 million is still on the table ready for acceptance. All he has to do is make that phone call instead of whining in front of the cameras doing his ego filled power trip. On latest reports the discussions are "ongoing" so let's hope he sees sense. To be frank if there is any failure to be applied to the government it's the fact that there was a negotiation on this at all. If I had my way there would be a basic formula applied to the regions based on numbers of population and a fixed amount set which one could like it or lump it. Just what exactly does the Greater Manchester region think they are that gives them a right to apply demands and conditions over any other region. Certainly didn't see their neighbours down along the M62 creating such a fuss. They might have not liked the implementation but they didn't start threatening the government with a load of demands. Can't wait to see how our own unwanted unnecessary city region mayor responds. Will it be a Steve Rotheram scenario or Andy Burnham... place your bets now folks This is not rocket science. They gave him a hard deadline. He rejected it. The default position is and always was 22 million. He knew that was the outcome but now he's bellyaching blaming all and everyone but himself. Who actually cares if he THINKS the lockdown is going to be 3 months or 9 months or 12-months or whether he alleges they need 90 million or 200 million or 100 billion.... That was not the reality of the topic under negotiation. Pretending that one is mystic meg is not much of a bargaining tactic It has been repeated by the government in the House and in several Media reports that the 60 million is still on the table ready for acceptance. All he has to do is make that phone call instead of whining in front of the cameras doing his ego filled power trip. On latest reports the discussions are "ongoing" so let's hope he sees sense. To be frank if there is any failure to be applied to the government it's the fact that there was a negotiation on this at all. If I had my way there would be a basic formula applied to the regions based on numbers of population and a fixed amount set which one could like it or lump it. Just what exactly does the Greater Manchester region think they are that gives them a right to apply demands and conditions over any other region. Certainly didn't see their neighbours down along the M62 creating such a fuss. They might have not liked the implementation but they didn't start threatening the government with a load of demands. Can't wait to see how our own unwanted unnecessary city region mayor responds. Will it be a Steve Rotheram scenario or Andy Burnham... place your bets now folks

From what I have read that's only because Burnham stubbornly refused the government's top line figure of 60 million. Perhaps if he he dropped the ego and realises that Manchester city region is perhaps not so important he thinks it is, the offer will still be on the table to him. It's not as if he is the only region already in tier 3 Does that region really have a mayor looking out in their best interests?? or is it a bit of a power trip by a failed Labour leader candidate desperately trying to push the boundaries of his limited devolved powers and influence. I do note said mayor seems be more than happy to put the entire country in a national lockdown but seemingly unwilling to respond to the obvious dramatic increases in infection in his is own responsible region unless of course he received a nice big fat payment...... hmmm.

That's sort of what 'trials' are for. Developing and analysing whether something might work. Testing and checking to see if something does work. Then following up and checking again to see if it is still working and works for all. Covid is a previously unknown disease. There is going to be lots more of these trials and failures until any sufficient treatment is found. The USA might have bigged up this treatment has some miracle cure to make themselves look good and stroke their ego but that was far from the truth. It was still in clinical trial stage even after being rolled out to numbers of patients.

Good. Glad you understand the simple concept. You choose to watch live broadcast television and therefore you choose to be liable for payment of the mandatory licence fee as according to the relevant law. The licence fee is required for any broadcast television. The fact that the government chooses to fund the BBC with it is irrelevant. The BBC could be disbanded tomorrow and you will still be liable for payment of a licence because that's what the law says. Are you really so naive to think that if the BBC disappeared the government would not find some other purpose from those revenues generated from licences to watch television signals.

It's quite simple. They have contingencies for these sorts of things. They would find an alternative route to get where they need to go, they would swap over one emergency vehicle for another or if necessary they would simply shift it temporarily out of the way to allow access and replace it... the list goes on. You might be astounded to learn that these emergency responders are well trained in such circumstances - it's exactly why when there is a major incident or horrendous accident which requires dozens and dozens of responders it's all coordinated and they know exactly how and where they need to go. Just stop worrying your pretty little head about it. You are clearly so filled with irrational and unreasonable outrage for being slightly inconvenienced that you are the one whose lost all common sense.

Well let's just hope lots of other people have the same sentiment next time you or one of your relatives or one of your friends is in desperate need of an ambulance you selfish moron. They are on an emergency call giving lifesaving treatment to someone. They quite rightly have absolute priority which goes well beyond inconvenience to a few motorists for an hour or so. Perhaps if you had a snip of the intelligence of those ambulance crew you would have done something along the lines of the very simple solution suggested by Dardendec above or at the very least contacted the hospital to explain the situation and attempt to rearrange your appointment. Your attitude is disgraceful.

What?

Yes i agree. Just like showbiz - politics is another one of those other sectors which seems to buck the trend. I am not particularly being ageist I'm just making a point that I don't know many average Joe's in average jobs who are still working full-time 5 days a week at the age of 70.

Not sure I fully agree. In my opinion current affairs programs by their very nature should be heavy, dry and dull in presentation. I think it can be a slippery slope editorially that by trying to make them 'lighter' and 'more accessible' it inevitably leads to them being dumbed down with less focus on the facts and more focus on the personality - That is something that GMB with Piers Moron repeatedly fails on a multiple occasions. Whilst I can appreciate a second presenter breaks up the monotony - I must admit one thing I do get really frustrated with is this TV habit of of the two presenters saying one paragraph each on a script consecutively. It's a very bizarre concept that most normal people will never do in real life. At the very least if doing a speech with multiple people you would close off one topic and pass over to someone else for another not literally swap over dialogue after a few sentences.

Oh I do hope so. In fact let's make them black AND gay that would really stick two fingers up to the knuckle dragers who still seem to take issue with someone's heritage and sexual preference.

I have to agree with the previous two posters. For all his dedicated service and whatever "legend" status people purport him to be - it really is time for a change. Let's face it, in any other industry he would have been long retired by now. Given the huge amount of critique and whining over the BBCs finances spouted by some people on this forum - I suspect they will be delighted that another dinosaur with decades of pay increments is being replaced by a younger cheaper model. There must be something about regional news which turns them into the the TV equivalent of being out to pasture. Mostly seems to have the same format of a much older male presenter with a much younger (presumably cheaper) female presenter. I find local tv good for spotting some old retro faces too. From my travelling around I've seen Fred Dinenage (of how2 fame) blabbing on about the news in Kent.... Nick Owen (of anne & nick fame) hosting Look Birmingham.... Andy Crane (of ed the duck fame) reporting for the northwest region.... and Anneka Rice (of lycra clad backside shot fame) doing it for the girls, presenting shows on BBC London. One can feel quite nostalgic.

What evidence for that? If they allegedly have such prominent skills and experience that employers want they have as much opportunity as anyone else. One could just as easily argue that younger workers have a hurdle to get jobs because they "lack experience". It can work both ways. As for UC why may elders be prevented from getting help?? If a person is jobless the same criteria applies whether they are 25 or 55. If the concern is that elders dont get benefit because they have savings or assets built up -well unfortunately that's just tough. I said on another thread that savings are there for spending on a rainy day. Losing one's job is such a day. Benefits should always be for those in genuine need not a couple with 20k in the Halifax account and a paid off £150k house.

Presumably you would fall within the definitions of legitimate access to the properties on the road. Leaving a car there whilst one pops into town for a couple of hours I suspect would be a trickier argument.

I would suspect its even quicker to see the latest headlines and weather by switching over to one of the 24/7 news channels that your TV licence fee already pays for. With respect, as someone with hearing loss, I would suggest that a smart phone would be extremely beneficial to you. It would give you the ability to operate a range of text based applictions, message services, video calling and of course, news + weather all at the touch of a button and without, as you say, the need to switch on the computer. I know of entirely deaf people who use them have full signed conversations on video calling. It all goes back to the embracing change I talk about. Regardless, IMO, it still does not justify an organisation spending money to keep providing obsolete technology when the actual users dip below any reasonable level.

We are all licence fee payers and I think its a perfectly reasonable argument that when budgets have to be managed and resources allocated - some us dont like to see money frittered away on an obsolete system just to pander to a handful of dinosaurs who wont embrance change such as using the internet or owning a smartphone. The internet of course, being a mainstream technology for most of us for nearly 25 years. Smartphones for near 10+ years. Its a a balance between unreasonably forcing people and people accepting to embrace change. You are not being told what to do. They offer a service which you can choose to subscribe to. They have full control to choose when they wish to end such service - even more so when hardly anyone still uses it. Its exactly the same reason why you no longer find a phone box on every corner or cheque books automatically issued by banks.... life moves on.

I feel like I am stating the obvious. But since when has paying into the system given anyone an automatic right to receive a payout. It simply doesn't work like that. There are some unfortunate people who have paid into the system all their life and never had a penny out. Other people have never paid in whatsoever but received benefits continually. Whatever the arguments, benefits should only ever be for those who genuinely NEED it. It's irrelevant how long or how much someone is paying into the system. Ultimately, if someone has savings, assets or other funds available it's only right that they should use those first before seeking any government handout. I'm sure it is upsetting for someone who suddenly loses their job or gets into poverty to see their hard earned savings or car or house fritter away on costs of living but such is life. That why people have savings and investments. Until such time as they have nothing else why should the get benefit? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise we would end up with benefit claimants sat with £200k savings, a villa in Marbella and a Merc in the drive.

If you want the view I would recommend Aqua at the Shard tower. If you want pomp and ceremony I would second The Savoy or maybe Fortnum & Masons 4th floor. AVOID the Ritz or harrods. Too much like a conveyor belt.