Taxi for Lineker

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Why let it fund itself, I'd prefer the bbc to be available at a fee for it's impartiality... gb news being the epitome of everything that is wrong in our society.

It should fund itself because it forces, at point of law, people who have little money, to pay a fee for something which they might never use. Which of course yes then use to pay Lineker £1.3m a year to talk about football, and Shearer around £400k a year to do the same.

It us coercion and is untenable in today's world. No one makes anyone pay to watch GB news, or ITV, or Sky, but if you want to watch them live, you have to pay for the BBC to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Repswick and vic9
It should fund itself because it forces, at point of law, people who have little money, to pay a fee for something which they might never use. Which of course yes then use to pay Lineker £1.3m a year to talk about football, and Shearer around £400k a year to do the same.

It us coercion and is untenable in today's world. No one makes anyone pay to watch GB news, or ITV, or Sky, but if you want to watch them live, you have to pay for the BBC to do it.
Tory boy earns 525k for acting on behalf of the political party he campaigns for
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/tim-davie
 
  • Like
Reactions: DH4
I don't pay. But I can stand up to them. Many vulnerable people with less money cannot, and are bullied into paying . That's the indefensible fact.
Mad that you’re defending the vulnerable but supporting the Rwanda scheme. Maybe it’s only ‘locals’ you worry about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sour Patch
Mad that you’re defending the vulnerable but supporting the Rwanda scheme. Maybe it’s only ‘locals’ you worry about.

Mass immigration doesn't affect the rich in the slightest. Lob a few thousand immigrants into a poor area and then call the locals racist when they complain about not being able to get a doctor or dentist appointment, job's a good'un.
 
Mad that you’re defending the vulnerable but supporting the Rwanda scheme. Maybe it’s only ‘locals’ you worry about.

The two are entirely unrelated. Entirely. Though in fact I do not support any hairbrained scheme such as the one you mention.
 
It's a question that's hard to answer though.

How many would you know who are not homeless by choice? I don't know a single homeless person? It's a more nuanced subject.

What we do know, is that homelessness has a thousand reasons. And one is its incentivisation. Look at San Francisco for evidence of that.

which question - How many would you know who are not homeless by choice?

depends what you mean by know. of the homeless people I know (know of) there are Multiple reasons (broken homes, addictions, abuse, refugee). But no lifestyle choices.

for the record, I wasn’t talking about the US
situation, specifically California, which has its own unique circumstances… and is in a total mess.

In the UK I do not think people are incentivised to be homeless. What about you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DH4
@rowley answered it way better than I ever could.
It's my opinion though that SOME people CHOOSE to live homeless. I don't have to enlighten you about anything so stop the patronising.

Patronise? What’s with the upper case letters, I can read fine and agree that it is a choice. Life boils down to the choices we make. Sometimes those choices suck. I wouldn’t call choosing to be homeless a lifestyle choice. I’d say it’s a hard choice of v limited options (if any).
 
Patronise? What’s with the upper case letters, I can read fine and agree that it is a choice. Life boils down to the choices we make. Sometimes those choices suck. I wouldn’t call choosing to be homeless a lifestyle choice. I’d say it’s a hard choice of v limited options (if any).
A person who CHOOSES to live on the streets obviously has mental health issues of one sort or another and therefore should be put in some kind of institution. No sane or rational person chooses to live on the streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mackem-Tiz
A person who CHOOSES to live on the streets obviously has mental health issues of one sort or another and therefore should be put in some kind of institution. No sane or rational person chooses to live on the streets.

100% totally agree with that tbh.
 
A person who CHOOSES to live on the streets obviously has mental health issues of one sort or another and therefore should be put in some kind of institution. No sane or rational person chooses to live on the streets.
Guy on bbc news at 1 lived on streets of Newcastle, jaw broken, urinated on, two tents set on fire, one when he was asleep in it. Now been housed for past two years. He became homeless at 17/18 because his mam kicked him out. God bless him
 
Guy on bbc news at 1 lived on streets of Newcastle, jaw broken, urinated on, two tents set on fire, one when he was asleep in it. Now been housed for past two years. He became homeless at 17/18 because his mam kicked him out. God bless him
Me mam did the same to me. Luckily for me was given a council flat immediately at the time, it happens. As an aside ,did you get your blue Hummel top yet mate? Me mate just dropped mine off and I am very impressed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blond Bombshell
As an aside ,did you get your blue Hummel top yet mate? Me mate just dropped mine off and I am very impressed.
Not yet, got quoted 11 to 13 weeks. I've exchanged pm's with the guy so not worrying about the order.