Home Secretary Sajid Javid speek about the borders.
Maybe he has forgotten the Britons...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUt0dZXPFoU
Hey so my name is called Disturbance
I'll shout and scream
I'll kill the king, I'll rail at all his servants
Won't Get Fooled Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg

Well, they gotta start saving money somewhere. :-)

Bye bye free licenses?

Well, they gotta start saving money somewhere. :-)

Bye bye free licenses?

Yet another case where a former governmental policy has been outsourced to the private sector, so that somebody else gets the blame when it's cut.

Well, they gotta start saving money somewhere. :-)
Bye bye free licenses?

We have television licensing here as well.
A strange concept that I think was adopted from the BBC in the 50's.
What it means is that a household pay a fee regardless how many in that household actually watch the state broadcasting.
That also means in the UK, a 76 year old man with a wife perhaps 10 years younger doesn't have to pay the fee.
Anyway.
The total income from licence fees was £3.8302 billion in 2017–18[2] of which £655.3 million or 17.1% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75.
So in the UK 17.1% of all households in the UK doesn't pay a fee.
Isn't that a lot of householders in the UK being older than 75?

In the United Kingdom, free TV Licences are available to those aged over 75. The concession covers the whole household, so that even if just one member of the household is over 75, then a free TV Licence may be applied for to cover all the residents.

From 2016, the BBC began to absorb the cost of this subsidy which had previously been covered by the UK government. By 2020 the BBC will have full responsibility for the scheme, estimated at £745m of its 2020/21 budget.

In November 2018 the BBC launched a consultation on whether the concession to the over 75s will continue from 2020, and if so, in what form.

In January 2006, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) changed the classification of the licence fee from a service charge to a tax. Explaining the change the ONS said: "in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable". A briefing paper from the House of Commons Library described the licence fee as a hypothecated tax (i.e. one raised for a particular defined purpose).

So, we now have taxation (by the BBC) without representation.

Simple answer.
Cut the "bloated" pay of those at the top.
Cut the "bloated" pay of overpaid presenters.

Or an even better answer that would have the BBC bosses p their pants - Cable/Satellite disable all BBC channels.
All those on Freeview TV license required.

License not required for any channel that advertises. :-)

The BBC has two well known mottos:

"nation shall speak peace unto nation." - since 1927, and carved over the door of Broadcasting House.
to inform, educate and entertain.

Your proposal is that information and education (I'll forget the entertainment for the time being) becomes a paid-for service: while capitalist propaganda becomes free at the point of delivery, funded by advertising - which is itself a form of sales tax.

And remember that presenter fees are often higher in the advertising-supported sector: you don't see them released under freedom of information, but you don't see many presenters signing in the opposite direction either.

That fly's in the face of this. :-)

I can hardly wait for Brussels to pull one of its fast ones. All those treaties your lot signed get declared null and void because they were negotiated with the expectation your lot would be joining the EU. Now that it is obvious you aren't abrogate the treaties!

Oh, isn't it moves just like this why you want out?

;)

I wrote that last post while playing back the third and final episode of "American History’s Biggest Fibs" - presented by Lucy Worsley, and produced and broadcast by the BBC.

If that series ever becomes available in the USA, I'd be fascinated to hear what American viewers make of it. The episode I watched today (broadcast free-to-air last Thursday) covers the period since 1945, so much of it will be within the living memory of many readers here. And can you suggest who might make and broadcast, in America, a similar programme about British history?

"American History’s Biggest Fibs" Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WugWyvn77s4
A review.
http://tellybinge.co.uk/reviews/american-historys-biggest-fibs-review/

Seems to me very entertaining:)

I wrote that last post while playing back the third and final episode of "American History’s Biggest Fibs" - presented by Lucy Worsley, and produced and broadcast by the BBC.

If that series ever becomes available in the USA, I'd be fascinated to hear what American viewers make of it. The episode I watched today (broadcast free-to-air last Thursday) covers the period since 1945, so much of it will be within the living memory of many readers here. And can you suggest who might make and broadcast, in America, a similar programme about British history?

I watched it live and couldn't help thinking, that if the US public knows all this, it is no wonder central government isn't trusted.

If the series comes your way, it is a must watch.

I strongly believe that a common solution is possible and I will do everything in my power to find it.

Simple - Do what Paul McCartney suggested (it got banned from the BBC).
Give Ireland back to the Irish
Backstop problem ceases to exist.

Donald Tusk: Special place in hell for Brexiteers without a plan

European Council President Donald Tusk has spoken of a "special place in hell" for "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely".

Note that his complaint is about the lack of planning in advance, not about the concept of Brexit in principle.

Donald Tusk: Special place in hell for Brexiteers without a plan

European Council President Donald Tusk has spoken of a "special place in hell" for "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely".

Note that his complaint is about the lack of planning in advance, not about the concept of Brexit in principle.

I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think the Brexiteers even thought about the problems that would have to be worked through and overcome, which would have been needed before making an initial plan.

One side cannot be solely held to blame for this fiasco. All sides should have looked further into it before the referendum was put to the public.

One side cannot be solely held to blame for this fiasco. All sides should have looked further into it before the referendum was put to the public.

You're right of course. And it is probably the reason Cameron jumped so quickly, he knew nobody had even glanced at the problems of Brexit because he assumed a Brexit win was unimaginable.

One side cannot be solely held to blame for this fiasco. All sides should have looked further into it before the referendum was put to the public.

You're right of course. And it is probably the reason Cameron jumped so quickly, he knew nobody had even glanced at the problems of Brexit because he assumed a Brexit win was unimaginable.

Whatever happened to the antique dealer's maxim:

If you break it, you own both halves.

One side cannot be solely held to blame for this fiasco. All sides should have looked further into it before the referendum was put to the public.

You're right of course. And it is probably the reason Cameron jumped so quickly, he knew nobody had even glanced at the problems of Brexit because he assumed a Brexit win was unimaginable.

Whatever happened to the antique dealer's maxim:

If you break it, you own both halves.

Isn't that all thousand pieces or in this case factions?

I was being slightly mischievous titling the link the way I did, However, I did it for a valid reason, and for that one can blame Donald Tusk himself.

"Without rights and freedoms, there is no Polish independence [that is necessary] to protect these rights — let's defend freedom and defend Polish independence," he said.
"A powerful Poland in a united Europe means the rule of law, free courts and the media,"

You really couldn't make it up.

Ostend 'not ready for Brexit ferry'
Decision on Ramsgate Brexit port funding on hold
Brexit: Seaborne Freight no-deal ferry contract scrapped

So, our emergency supplies of food and medicine were going to be transported by a ferry company with no ships, departing from a port that wasn't ready, arriving in a port which wasn't open, and which couldn't be re-opened because of austerity financial cuts.

'Running round like headless chickens' doesn't come close to describing it.