|
Post by petersmyth1 on Apr 6, 2019 23:49:24 GMT
It's a comma after 'mainlanders',and a colon after 'up ' if we're going to be really picky. However,the rules may have changed since 1963 GCE 'O'levels. On second thoughts,this could get nasty/personal,so forget that I posted. Ratarse and I don't get nasty, he just has an an aggressive tendency which I ignore owing to it being almost entirely due to him supporting an almost relegated rugby team which until quite recently used to win major trophies By the way I see we sat the same GCE "O" Level exams.
|
|
|
Post by pierre on Apr 7, 2019 13:39:44 GMT
It is just common or garden banter,Steven.Spices up this website though !
Peter(junior)
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Apr 7, 2019 18:04:25 GMT
Smudger really knows how to hurt an old pal.
|
|
|
Post by pierre on May 5, 2019 13:32:27 GMT
Forgot about this yesterday !!
|
|
|
Post by petersmyth1 on May 5, 2019 20:03:30 GMT
Forgot about this yesterday !! Pierre should that be MAY THE FAITH BE WITH YOU? George says it was a typing error.
|
|
|
Post by nob on May 13, 2019 13:38:25 GMT
Starr now Day, whos next they come in threes.
|
|
|
Post by pierre on May 13, 2019 14:46:08 GMT
Queen Anne,Starr and Day.That is 3 Nob.Don't tempt fate ! I used to get feelings,as a boy,for Doris Day..She could have been "my secret love" ! And later on I saved up my pocket money to buy her records.RIP
|
|
|
Post by nob on May 13, 2019 16:34:45 GMT
She was a fair old age Pierre. RIP all of them.
|
|
|
Post by pierre on Jun 10, 2019 14:26:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nob on Jun 10, 2019 15:35:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duyuthinkysaurus on Jun 10, 2019 16:37:06 GMT
Not got to that age yet BUT, I wonder WHY WE HAVE TO PAY FOR A BIASED TV CHANNEL masquerading as a national broadcaster in the licence fee. I am talking about the BRUSSELS broadcasting corp, aka the BBC.
I am sick to the death of their pro-EUssr bias!
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjohn on Jun 10, 2019 19:42:17 GMT
What gets me,is that a middle income family,who have granny living with them,will get a free licence,whereas a retired couple who are just over the pension credit threshold have to pay. We're not 75 yet,but with the little amount of tv we now watch,we're seriously thinking of not renewing our licence. This could seriously backfire on the beeb,as I for one am fed up of paying for the exorbitant wages of certain presenters.
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jun 10, 2019 21:40:55 GMT
We haven't had a telly since the big storm in the south east, October 15th 1987 (or 1988 was it? I think the former.) We are subject to continuous biannual harassment from TVRLO. They'll be on your case too Dave.
Right now I am awaiting an inspection visit from the turds, and do you know why? it's because I refuse to communicate with them. My belligerent view is that if they want something from me that is unjustified, I would like to exact some charge for my time spent, and we know that's never going to happen. The threatening letters all state that I need to make a declaration every couple of years that I don't use any TV or DVD or other device like a "smart" 'phone or PC that I possess to watch TV live as it is broadcast. They accept that these days folks use DVDs, play games or whatever on TVs. Well I don't have a TV, and so far as internet viewing is concerned- not guilty m'lud. There is no record of such and thus no chance of proof. I keep all the invasive threatening letters. We keep our snouts squeaky clean.
When they bent the definition of "downloads" to incorporate iPlayer into the license a couple of years ago, we ceased plaintively trying to find anything whatsoever of value hidden amongst the garbage on that platform. There is absolutely no record of any internet based violation here since they made that change.
I understand that they may apply for a warrant and be accompanied by a couple of staffing stretched Police officers? If they do turn up suitably tooled up, then I intend to record a copy of that warrant and persue whichever overworked custodian of the law authorised it without any of the proof that does not exist.
I am sick to the back teeth of these scumbag intimidating bullies. I don't give a flying ph**ck if their software is designed to flag up unlicenced premises every two years. My only concern is that bouyed up with their jack booted authorisation, they don't break in if we're not here. It could happen because the electricity company broke into my sister's garage to secure an overdue meter reading <where they KNEW the meter was> and denied it was them, but sent her an up to date bill anyway. The B-I-L nailed the up 'n' over garage door to the frame after that.
Feel marginally better now.
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by golfer on Jun 11, 2019 8:06:45 GMT
Not got to that age yet BUT, I wonder WHY WE HAVE TO PAY FOR A BIASED TV CHANNEL masquerading as a national broadcaster in the licence fee. I am talking about the BRUSSELS broadcasting corp, aka the BBC. I am sick to the death of their pro-EUssr bias! +1 for that!
The BBC is no longer fit for purpose, in my opinion. The output is turgid to say the least, with endless repeats of the same content being shown. The idea that one must be licenced in order to receive broadcasts is archaic and is really just another tax on income - the original premise of the licence fee to 'keep the BBC independent' is, and always was, bull***t. It means that the BBC is always in thrall to the Establishment where the threat of income removal keeps them toeing the line. Scrap the licence fee and let the BBC operate in the market place as do all the other broadcasters, then it would stand or fall on it's quality of content. Let advertising pay the bill - at least with modern recording systems and 'smart' tv's, it's easy to fast-forward through the ads if you don't want to watch them........
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjohn on Jun 11, 2019 9:31:16 GMT
We haven't had a telly since the big storm in the south east, October 15th 1987 (or 1988 was it? I think the former.) We are subject to continuous biannual harassment from TVRLO. They'll be on your case too Dave. Right now I am awaiting an inspection visit from the turds, and do you know why? it's because I refuse to communicate with them. My belligerent view is that if they want something from me that is unjustified, I would like to exact some charge for my time spent, and we know that's never going to happen. The threatening letters all state that I need to make a declaration every couple of years that I don't use any TV or DVD or other device like a "smart" 'phone or PC that I possess to watch TV live as it is broadcast. They accept that these days folks use DVDs, play games or whatever on TVs. Well I don't have a TV, and so far as internet viewing is concerned- not guilty m'lud. There is no record of such and thus no chance of proof. I keep all the invasive threatening letters. We keep our snouts squeaky clean. When they bent the definition of "downloads" to incorporate iPlayer into the license a couple of years ago, we ceased plaintively trying to find anything whatsoever of value hidden amongst the garbage on that platform. There is absolutely no record of any internet based violation here since they made that change. I understand that they may apply for a warrant and be accompanied by a couple of staffing stretched Police officers? If they do turn up suitably tooled up, then I intend to record a copy of that warrant and persue whichever overworked custodian of the law authorised it without any of the proof that does not exist. I am sick to the back teeth of these scumbag intimidating bullies. I don't give a flying ph**ck if their software is designed to flag up unlicenced premises every two years. My only concern is that bouyed up with their jack booted authorisation, they don't break in if we're not here. It could happen because the electricity company broke into my sister's garage to secure an overdue meter reading <where they KNEW the meter was> and denied it was them, but sent her an up to date bill anyway. The B-I-L nailed the up 'n' over garage door to the frame after that. Feel marginally better now. e&oe...Didn't know that you were one of the no tv group,Steve. I've thought about it a lot,but I think that the missus would pay the £12odd a month,rather than have the hassle. I also think that a lot of people think about it,but don't go through with it for the same reason. I applaud your stand,and Hope that you manage to repel the gestapo. Why they can't take you r word that you dont watch tv,for the sake of £12 a month, when they are quite happy for you to say you're fit to drive (for instance) without having to prove it in triplicate,is beyond me!
|
|