The end of free TV license for over 75s

[DJack]

Speaking of propaganda... you never replied when I asked (twice) " why did they(Russia), falsely claim that the Swiss lab had found a combination of other agents and not Novichok"

I assume you are referring to the Russian claims about BZ. The Russians claimed that the Spiez Laboratory had identified BZ in the sample and BZ was not produced in Russia. This claim was correct. According to this article OPCW added the BZ "to verify the laboratory's findings. If Spiez had not found the BZ, as well as the Novichok, then the OPCW would know the laboratory could not be trusted."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7752389/How-Russia-WON-disinformation-war-waged-Salisbury-Novichok-attack.html

What do you think about this list of inconsistencies in the Government’s story ?

https://www.theblogmire.com/the-salisbury-poisonings-two-years-on-a-riddle-wrapped-in-a-cover-up-inside-a-hoax/

ABSOLUTE BOLLUX

The Spiez lab is one of their documented trusted labs. BZ was a control sample.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/opcw-rejects-russian-claims-of-second-salisbury-nerve-agent :

"But at a meeting of the OPCW executive in The Hague, the Russian claim was refuted by OPCW officials, who said explained that BZ had been used in the control sample, not the sample itself. It is also a breach of OPCW procedures to identify a laboratory involved in a test....The Swiss delegation described Lavrov’s behaviour as incomprehensible and totally unacceptable. Sabine Nölke, the Canadian envoy to the OPCW, accused Russia of either “a craven attempt to mislead the international community”, or a breach of the OPCW’s confidentiality procedures. The EU described the Russian behaviour as malign...Referring to Lavrov’s claims about the discovery of BZ, Marc-Michael Blum, the head of the OPCW laboratory, told the meeting: “The labs were able to confirm the identity of the chemical by applying existing, well-established procedures. There was no other chemical that was identified by the labs. The precursor of BZ that is referred to in the public statements, commonly known as 3Q, was contained in the control sample prepared by the OPCW lab in accordance with the existing quality control procedures. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the samples collected by the OPCW team in Salisbury.”"


https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e___1_.pdf :

10.The results of analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury and severely injured three people.

11.The TAV team notes that the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities.

 

[Arthur_From_OTB]

I don’t know why you are shouting at me DJack. My post simply stated that when the Russians said a sample contained BZ they were telling the truth. I then added the OPCW explanation for why that chemical was added to the samples.

In your Guardian link they state that the Russians shouldn’t have named the laboratory because it was a breach of "OPCW’s confidentiality procedures". If you believe governments should follow the rules then do you condemn our government for ignoring The Chemical Weapons Convention when it told the world about the attack before giving Russia any information about what it was accused of doing? Governments pick and choose which International Laws and Conventions to follow.

Read the article in my above link and then tell me our government is not telling us porkies.

When you state that "Spiez lab is one of their documented trusted labs" you do realise that can be read as undermining your position especially as we now know that OPCW is not an impartial organisation. Whistleblowers have exposed their lies about Syria.

https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

 

[Professor]

Christ you now nothing buddy. The BBC is a globally respected organisation. Look at BBC4 most nights and there are brilliant histotical or science documentaries. Their impartiality needs to be maintained rigorously I admit, but nearly every media outlet in the world has some sort of bias.Right wingers liike you will having me watching Info Wars before I know it.

The BBC output is propaganda intermixed with third rate entertainment.

I challenge you to read this link about the fake Syria documentary and then say the BBC is independent.

https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/

Watch this video.

The bbc are a disgrace

https://youtu.be/8tSBz3ic2bg

So Russia Today is a reliable source? Several videos removed from Twitter as clearly demonstrated to have been untrue or faked. How easily we are being duped by a dictator with his union pulling the stings in the UK

 

[Arthur_From_OTB]

So Russia Today is a reliable source? Several videos removed from Twitter as clearly demonstrated to have been untrue or faked. How easily we are being duped by a dictator with his union pulling the stings in the UK

Which bits in the video are you saying are faked?

The obviously faked section from 2:44 to 3:10 was part of a BBC Panorama programme that was shown to millions as part of black propaganda attempt to get us to invade Syria. Are you saying it is not fake? Perhaps you are saying the BBC didn’t broadcast it and it was invented by RT?

The evidence (3:24 -3:58) from the daughter of the Kuwait Ambassador to the USA who pretended to be a nurse who witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them on the cold floor to die was broadcast around the world. Do you think she was telling the truth or do you accept it was black propaganda? Lies like that got a lot of people killed. Liars and black propaganda are usually the cause of most wars.

Do believe in the concept of truth? Perhaps you one of those cynics who believes that lies are justified because our supposed enemies are also liars? Listen to this guy boasting about the CIA approach to truth :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RmEsPE7iq0

Putin is not a dictator. Don’t talk nonsense. He was elected by a massive majority in a free election. What strings is he pulling in the UK? Why do you think Twitter should be the ultimate arbiter of truth?

 

[Professor]

Read what I said. I said it is an unreliable source. It is. Putin is a dictator. You think that’s a free vote? Laws changed to allow him additional terms. I will give you he is popular in Russia, but that suits the Russian psyche. He is successfully destabilising Europe, with us at the lead. Funnily enough seem to think I was being called a lefty recently which would suggest I am anti-American (I am not) so why would I support the right wing CIA view?

The BBC output is propaganda intermixed with third rate entertainment.

I challenge you to read this link about the fake Syria documentary and then say the BBC is independent.

https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/

Watch this video.

The bbc are a disgrace

https://youtu.be/8tSBz3ic2bg

So Russia Today is a reliable source? Several videos removed from Twitter as clearly demonstrated to have been untrue or faked. How easily we are being duped by a dictator with his union pulling the stings in the UK

 

[swan65split]

For most over 75s I should imagine the drivel being put on the box these days,they have no real interest in watching, and in my opinion they shouldnt have too pay for it.

i"ll soon be 68, and during lockdown, watched very little tv, mostly you tube stuff.

 

[waynekerr55]

The "foreign" stuff on BBC 4 is also good. Love a bit of Scandinavian drama Bryn. Pay-per-view for people abroad who can't get live programming via satellite and a subscription service for I-player. The global demand, not only from expats, would be enormous. Maybe Warwick knows why they don't but I reckon the extra revenue could pay for free licences for the over 75'ies in the UK. That and a cut in Gary Linecker's salary.

I don't know about expats but no foreigner is ever going to pay to watch BBC rubbish. They can get it for free. It is only mugs in the UK who pay to be brainwashed.

Non stop lefties. Like Andrew Neill and Dom's PA Kuenssberg?

 

[DJack]

I don’t know why you are shouting at me DJack. My post simply stated that when the Russians said a sample contained BZ they were telling the truth. I then added the OPCW explanation for why that chemical was added to the samples.

In your Guardian link they state that the Russians shouldn’t have named the laboratory because it was a breach of "OPCW’s confidentiality procedures". If you believe governments should follow the rules then do you condemn our government for ignoring The Chemical Weapons Convention when it told the world about the attack before giving Russia any information about what it was accused of doing? Governments pick and choose which International Laws and Conventions to follow.

Read the article in my above link and then tell me our government is not telling us porkies.

When you state that "Spiez lab is one of their documented trusted labs" you do realise that can be read as undermining your position especially as we now know that OPCW is not an impartial organisation. Whistleblowers have exposed their lies about Syria.

https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

I'm not shouting... it's called emphasis Anyway back on track...

The sophistry in both yours and Lavrovs post is obvious. At one time I thought you were just a "useful idiot" but it is apparent that you are either an apologist or a shill. The apologists and shills use FUD, sophistry, outright lies, misdirection, half truths, tautologies, "just asking questions", " "listen to this and research for yourself" as a basic function. This is then amplified by poisoned sources of information and paid for articles backing their points up.

Fact - the sample did not contain BZ, the separate control sample may have.

Fact - As a "reminder" to youThe OPCW stated that "11.The TAV team notes that the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities."

Then you blather about whistleblowers, OPCW and Syria (more FUD for the gullible). The OPCW is an arm of the United Nations. It can only publicise reports that are approved by ALL of the the 5 permanent members of the security council. Can you guess which member repeatedly forces relevent information to be cut from these reports and/or changes the wording so that the report is basically very watered down...yes, RUSSIA


Yes, you will fool a few on here but many can see through your agenda.

 

[The.Taz]

I don’t pay for a licence. I’m not willing to fund an extreme left organisation that just spouts PC bollocks every time it can, make millionaires out of scumbags like Lineker and supports these BLM fcukwits. Remember it was the BBC that kept quiet about Jimmy Saville and his gang of nonces.

 

[JBT95]

OAPs have an easy ride. Free TV, free buses, reduced ticket prices. Many have lots of cash.

Younger people always shat on at an expensive time of life, trying to save money to buy a house etc, kids, buying cars/insurance, weddings, uni fees being reducted out of earnings. To quote Darren, f#ck em.

 

[swan65split]

OAPs have an easy ride. Free TV, free buses, reduced ticket prices. Many have lots of cash.

Younger people always shat on at an expensive time of life, trying to save money to buy a house etc, kids, buying cars/insurance, weddings, uni fees being reducted out of earnings. To quote Darren, f#ck em.

You must have had a sheltered life you wanna spend an hour with me and learn how easy pensioners had it :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[BrynCartwright]

I don’t pay for a licence. I’m not willing to fund an extreme left organisation that just spouts PC bollocks every time it can, make millionaires out of scumbags like Lineker and supports these BLM fcukwits. Remember it was the BBC that kept quiet about Jimmy Saville and his gang of nonces.

What an angry person you are.

You must be brilliant company at parties!

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Double the TV licence and it’d still be great value.

 

[K23]

OAPs have an easy ride. Free TV, free buses, reduced ticket prices. Many have lots of cash.

Younger people always shat on at an expensive time of life, trying to save money to buy a house etc, kids, buying cars/insurance, weddings, uni fees being reducted out of earnings. To quote Darren, f#ck em.

I'm a pensioner and fortunately for me, I was actually born a pensioner and never was a young person so to get to where I am now, I haven't had to save money to buy a house or to pay for bringing up kids, and I've never even had to buy a car or insurance or weddings. Lucky as fuck I am. Yes you're absolutely right! I've had it easy. Not quite sure where the car I have now came from or whose house I'm living in.

 

[Arthur_From_OTB]

I'm not shouting... it's called emphasis Anyway back on track...

The sophistry in both yours and Lavrovs post is obvious. At one time I thought you were just a "useful idiot" but it is apparent that you are either an apologist or a shill. The apologists and shills use FUD, sophistry, outright lies, misdirection, half truths, tautologies, "just asking questions", " "listen to this and research for yourself" as a basic function. This is then amplified by poisoned sources of information and paid for articles backing their points up.

Fact - the sample did not contain BZ, the separate control sample may have.

Fact - As a "reminder" to youThe OPCW stated that "11.The TAV team notes that the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities."

Then you blather about whistleblowers, OPCW and Syria (more FUD for the gullible). The OPCW is an arm of the United Nations. It can only publicise reports that are approved by ALL of the the 5 permanent members of the security council. Can you guess which member repeatedly forces relevent information to be cut from these reports and/or changes the wording so that the report is basically very watered down...yes, RUSSIA


Yes, you will fool a few on here but many can see through your agenda.

I am not a Sophist. I believe in truth and not in winning arguments. You are right that I have an agenda. My agenda is to tell the truth to those like you who have been brainwashed. I am not a supporter of any political group. I am just an old man who is weary and fed up with listening to liars and hypocrites all my life.

When I say you are brainwashed I mean that you have beliefs that contradict your common sense and your own experience. You have these beliefs because they have been planted in your brain by propaganda masquerading as news.

If you are free of the tricks of the Sophists that accuse me of using then you will be able to answer the following question honestly. In the video clip from 2:44 to 3:10 in Andy1300’s post above do you think these "victims of a chemical attack" are acting?

If your answer is yes then what does that tell you about the reliability of the BBC when it comes to telling the truth?

In the spirit of honesty, I also challenge you to read the list of inconsistencies in the following link about the Skripal story and then tell me that you believe we are being told the truth about what happened there. What is your rough percentage of belief in our Government’s story now compared to your percentage of belief after reading the article?

https://www.theblogmire.com/the-salisbu ... de-a-hoax/