Pound falls. Inflation rises. 80 billion then becomes all too possible. Let us see forecast in terms of euros, dollars, baskets of currencies. And in what time period?
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
they are not comparing likes with likes.
When the Pound falls, if you have a lot of fixed assets (like my stock of bikes), you have an instant win, your asset price goes up although their value stays the same compared to the day before. If your assets are liquid like bank deposit, your asset price does not go up, you are a loser like when I have to pay my suppliers in USD, I will have to give them more Pounds.
Remainers see the PSBR and GDP in international basket of currencies as the yardstick, when we leave under WTO, PSBR goes up because all department spending will go up faster than tax receipts. UK's GDP in international basket of currencies goes down because of the smaller value of the Pound.
Brexiters see the GDP in Pounds as the only yardstick. If the Pound is worth 10% less, then GDP in Pound is 10% more. The claim is not litterally wrong, the value of GDP is the same as the day before, it's simply a lie by not mentioning the unit of measure.
Or, they are all just guessing and the leavers guess is different to the remainers guess, (I'm guessing)
BBC rewrites its own rules to let Lineker rant on Twitter
Gary Lineker, the BBC's highest paid star on £1.75million a year, regularly uses social media to rail against the 'irreparable damage' caused by Britain's decision to leave the EU.
BBC impartiality takes a further nose dive, so jug ears, our expert on everything, can spout prejudice to his millions of twatter followers.
Our license fees pay this fool £1.75 million a year so he can litter twitter with the type of bile we get on here.
BTW Danidl. The salient points in DM articles are rarely in the article itself. I mentioned, and reiterate the point, look at the comments. Gives an impression of how public see things. Dont come back saying "its only DM readers" because it isnt. Anybody can comnent, there are remainers, leavers, labour and conservstive posting. Surprised so few on here post there.(OG would reach his claimed million readership instead of 5 if he did so)
In a few minutes after publishing 1000s of folk have commented. Sort of vice versa of here. In here its more after 1000s of postings 5 have read them.
Last edited:
That may well be so on the DM, but it more likely that they also are preaching to the choir.. In that the majority of like minded people are likely to pick it up and a minority of those will be sufficiently incensed or motivated to actually go through the process of logging in getting credentials and posting. I see the same mechanism at play with the Irish Mirror, which has decided to have a go at our taoiseach.BBC rewrites its own rules to let Lineker rant on Twitter
Gary Lineker, the BBC's highest paid star on £1.75million a year, regularly uses social media to rail against the 'irreparable damage' caused by Britain's decision to leave the EU.mol.im
BBC impartiality takes a further nose dive, so jug ears, our expert on everything, can spout prejudice to his millions of twatter followers.
Our license fees pay this fool £1.75 million a year.
BTW Danidl. The salient points in DM articles are rarely in the article itself. I mentioned, and reiterate the point, look at the comments. Gives an impression of how public see things. Dont come back saying "its only DM readers" because it isnt. Anybody can comnent, there are remainers, leavers, labour and conservstive posting. Surprised so few on here post there.(OG would reach his claimed million readership instead of 5 if he did so)
In a few minutes after publishing 1000s of folk have commented. Sort of vice versa of here. In here its more after 1000s of postings 5 have read them.
Fair point and generally posters will at least be well versed in DM narrative but that certainly doesnt stop the comments being an indicator of the mood. For example
This was lifted from comments about Linekar. Think I might do exactly same.An excellent post, not moaning about GL, well written and proactive. (from an enlightened region)
Netflix and the like are the future. If BBC doesnt change its doomed. Most of my viewing is now Netflix. (Breaking Bad simply stunning, Narcos and Narcos Mexico superb)
Or perhaps you view yourself as part of the liberal elite. Quite a few on here like to think they are. Most audiences are partisan Danidl, you know that only too well. Here is certainly no exception.
Writing off DM articles and their comments on grounds of prejudice and not seeing that same fault within this thread is yet another example of dual standards. Again.
Last edited:
both sides lie by omission but in WTO brexit, the winners are disproportionately fewer than losers.
I do take the point about double standards,, and seeing the mote in others while ignoring the beam ones own eye.
But going off topic,onto the one indicated here. Virtually every state run TV service has the requirement that a licence fee is payable by the simple expedient of having equipment capable of reception of live transmission and displaying images. The British position is bizzarre and impossible to police. In fact the poster has directly indicated that he is breaking the law ,when he admits his viewing is REDUCED. Not eliminated, but reduced.
That and some other British court decisions are bizzare..such as the illegality of ripping ones one CDs to an MP3 player.
The great majority of viewers use Freeview or Freesat and don't pay for subscription services, and a licence is necessary to operate a broadcast TV receiver anyway. Since those services include the BBC channels, I can't see your grounds for saying the BBC is doomed.
Eventually everything seen on Netflix and the like arrives on Freeview and Freesat, so all that's needed is as little patience. And to add insult to injury, the paid for services include much that was previously free on the BBC and independent free TV.
So while there are so many of us happy to pay circa £150 for a large number of free channels that are being added to all the time, and while it remains illegal to not have a licence, I don't see the demise of the BBC. The alternative to illegally not paying that moderate licence fee is a number of monthly subscriptions with many paying more than that each quarter. Why bother when it's all free in the end?
.
Last edited:
Many years ago, as satellite services started, I was very disappointed to realise that paying a subscription does not relieve you of adverts. Somehow, I had expected either no ads, or only between programs, not all the way through. Silly me. Why charge once when you can charge twice?
Thoroughly put me off.
First of all the so called "public" that read the DM and comment are hardly a representative bunch are they.BBC rewrites its own rules to let Lineker rant on Twitter
Gary Lineker, the BBC's highest paid star on £1.75million a year, regularly uses social media to rail against the 'irreparable damage' caused by Britain's decision to leave the EU.
BBC impartiality takes a further nose dive, so jug ears, our expert on everything, can spout prejudice to his millions of twatter followers.
Our license fees pay this fool £1.75 million a year so he can litter twitter with the type of bile we get on here.
BTW Danidl. The salient points in DM articles are rarely in the article itself. I mentioned, and reiterate the point, look at the comments. Gives an impression of how public see things. Dont come back saying "its only DM readers" because it isnt. Anybody can comnent, there are remainers, leavers, labour and conservstive posting. Surprised so few on here post there.(OG would reach his claimed million readership instead of 5 if he did so)
In a few minutes after publishing 1000s of folk have commented. Sort of vice versa of here. In here its more after 1000s of postings 5 have read them.
Secondly you really need to stop posting lies that you know to be untrue in the hope that people haven't been following the thread and are unaware of the facts.
This practice is hypocritical coming from someone forever criticising others for double standards, while retaining the right to double standards himself.
This is the lie I refer to in this one of many instances
"Surprised so few on here post there.(OG would reach his claimed million readership instead of 5 if he did so) "
I never made such as claim, simply observed that the thread had recorded a million hits.
That assertion was made by Fingers out of his own peculiar imagination.
Yet here you are pushing it once again as a False truth.
Why do you operate such double standards ?
You really can't expect standards from others you fail utterly to operate yourself.
And just who is going to "Doom" the BBC? certainly not the viewers as it doesn't answer to them
"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is a British public service broadcaster. Its main responsibility is to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. BBC is a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.
The Government will decide it's fate, not you or I.
I wonder what the ERG are going to say about the future of the BBC.
IPO for the BBC?
spotted this on twitter:
FARAGE: We had a choice of one candidate how is that democracy?
LUKE: Who voted for you as the Brexit party leader?
How many votes were cast for you as leader?
AWKWARD SILENCE
FARAGE: We had a choice of one candidate how is that democracy?
LUKE: Who voted for you as the Brexit party leader?
How many votes were cast for you as leader?
AWKWARD SILENCE
NI Bill goes back to HoC tomorrow.
By 272 votes to 169, peers have approved the amendment attempting to prevent a future PM from suspending Parliament to push through a no-deal Brexit.
MPs will have to vote again. We'll see if they can block no deal brexit.
By 272 votes to 169, peers have approved the amendment attempting to prevent a future PM from suspending Parliament to push through a no-deal Brexit.
MPs will have to vote again. We'll see if they can block no deal brexit.
The BBC is unique in the world.
It makes me laugh that they don't go on the attack and show examples across the workd.
For instance. In Germany you pay double what the BBC costs and get just 2 TV channels. No radio. No internet no regional stuff.
We have the best public broadcaster in the world but if course because it's successful it's hated by the dumb and the ones that profit from it's demise.
Once it's gone it will be a cultural hole that will never be filled again.
It's not perfect but it's the best around.
I'm no Farage fan but what has he said there that is wrong?
Because of the way the BBC is funded, they can take risks with new and innovative programmes, and this sometimes yields timeless classics. Commercial stations need to keep one eye on the ratings, so tend to play it safe by regurgitating tried and tested formats, which soon become stale. The exception is Channel 4, which occasionally broadcast some great comedy.