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
Then just let it fund itself. Its easy. No arguments at all then. Just stop forcing people to pay for it.
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.
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.
The two are entirely unrelated. Entirely. Though in fact I do not support any hairbrained scheme such as the one you mention.
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?
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.
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.
Not yet, got quoted 11 to 13 weeks. I've exchanged pm's with the guy so not worrying about the order.
Think he gets them in batches. Been about 11 weeks since mate ordred ours. You might get in time for Xmas hopefully.
Me and me mate gonna get some of the others after Xmas as we know sizing now. So many to choose from though
https://news.sky.com/story/gary-lin...or-israel-to-be-banned-from-football-13049378 Here we go again.
