BBC scrapping free licences for over 75s

[yorkyclaret]

Looks like a huge shot in the foot to me. Just checked and as far as I can see every pensioner in the country is eligible for pension credit. Seems 1.3 million who are eligible don't claim it, my dad is one, I don't suppose he will be the only one signing up sharpish. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savin ... on-credit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

A fine.

What do I win?

Nothing. Unless there giving out medals for inability to read.

Another who doesn't understand the word "process".

[TheFamilyCat]

I asked.

What's the ultimate sanction that somebody can face in the criminal process should they not be able to pay the TV licence?

And i’ve answered in every post, the punishment for non-payment of the fine can be prison.

Let me use a metaphor involving football, which may make it easier for you to understand.

A player is a given a yellow card for a handball offence. The later receives a second yellow card for a foul and is sent off.

Did the player get sent off for committing the handball?

[TheFamilyCat]

Nothing. Unless there giving out medals for inability to read.

Another who doesn't understand the word "process".

Interesting that you’re putting such an emphasis on the word process when you only used it yourself for the first time after five or so hours of repeating yourself. It’s almost as if you’re trying to move the goalposts.

[JarrowClaret]

Not read the whole thread and I would guess I’m in the minority, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea. The issue for me is about affordability if you can afford it why shouldn’t you pay? My only concern is where they draw the line between paying and not paying the pension credit line mentioned I think maybe a bit low but we will no doubt see.

[evensteadiereddie]

I love the hypocrisy of some of the Tories on here, tut-tutting because the evil BBC are introducing this measure even though they are doing this because the government and other opponents of the BBC insist they have to cut costs. (See Ringsting, Damo and Co. ad nauseam.)
If the government had had the balls to introduce this scrapping, instead of crapping themselves over the perceived potential loss of - even more - votes, they would no doubt have supported it as a brave, dynamic move.

[Greenmile]

Thats only part of the process.

You didn't spot the clue Gordon Brown have you! Take the blinkers off !!

I asked.

What's the ultimate sanction that somebody can face in the criminal process should they not be able to pay the TV licence?

Same thing applies to dropping litter. If you get caught and don’t or can’t pay the fine, you could end up in prison (see also, “saying you’re English, these days”)

You wouldn’t be in prison for dropping litter, though. You’d be there for non-payment of the fine.

I’m pretty sure we’ve had this conversation before, but you’ve never really been one for learning, have you?

[Greenmile]

And i’ve answered in every post, the punishment for non-payment of the fine can be prison.

Let me use a metaphor involving football, which may make it easier for you to understand.

A player is a given a yellow card for a handball offence. The later receives a second yellow card for a foul and is sent off.

Did the player get sent off for committing the handball?

Good metaphor. This is more like getting a second yellow for arguing with the ref about the first, though. The sending off would be for dissent, not handball.

[evensteadiereddie]

The post I replied to was



I replied - And you can find a lot that fit that description, at the BBC....

You popped up



I provided figures that "prove that" there are a lot of people who are either "elderly or well off" at the BBC. Which is what I said.

Some of the people on that list are past State retirement age. The lowest paid on that list is paid approximately 7 times the average wage in the UK. Consequently, all are either "elderly or well off", some are both.

You asked for proof. I provided it.

You provided a list of say, forty of your bogeymen and women.
As at 2015/6, the BBC employed 20, 916 people. That leaves 20,876. You're claiming that a lot of these will be elderly or well off ?
Or 40 out of 20,961 is "a lot"? Really ?
The only things your pathetic list of names - many of those presenters heard or seen by millions on a daily or weekly basis - confirm are your basic stupidity and your blind hatred of anything not in sync with your tiny, frightened view of the world.
Give my regards to Lizzie !
Cheers !

[TheFamilyCat]

Good metaphor. This is more like getting a second yellow for arguing with the ref about the first, though. The sending off would be for dissent, not handball.

Yes, that would be a better analogy and as it involved arguing, one that Ringo could probably relate to.

[taio]

Many many years. You may have to miss out and pay out on much much more then. Good luck on that.

As I said I'm happy not to receive such benefits if I can afford to pay myself. And I also said I'd much rather prioritise some of the existing funding into social care because I think that's a much bigger priority.

[Greenmile]

Yes, that would be a better analogy and as it involved arguing, one that Ringo could probably relate to.

Particularly as the “argument” would essentially involve one angry party yelling the same thing over and over and totally ignoring the other party who is trying to calmly explain the facts of the situation.

[randomclaret2]

Its interesting to see how those who ordinarily love to flaunt their egalitarian principles supporting a flat rate tax which takes no account of financial circumstances and which in large part is transferred directly to extremely wealthy individuals. A straightforward case of the poor funding the rich.

[Grumps]

Its interesting to see how those who ordinarily love to flaunt their egalitarian principles supporting a flat rate tax which takes no account of financial circumstances and which in large part is transferred directly to extremely wealthy individuals. A straightforward case of the poor funding the rich.

?

[dsr]

Looks like a huge shot in the foot to me. Just checked and as far as I can see every pensioner in the country is eligible for pension credit. Seems 1.3 million who are eligible don't claim it, my dad is one, I don't suppose he will be the only one signing up sharpish. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savin ... on-credit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All pensioners who are on the basic state pension will be eligible. But if they have SERPS, or private pension, or other sources of income, they may well be over the limit and not eligible.

[dsr]

[quote="Stayingup"][/quote]
The plans were first announced in 1995, and were made law in 2007. The Labour government introduced the law in 2007, the coalition government of 2010 tweaked it, and both planned to phase in the women's rate equalising with the men's in 2020. Unfortunately this breached EU law, which wouldn't allow discrimination, meant they had to speed it up.

But it doesn't mean they didn't know it was coming - just that they didn't know the exact timescale. And by the time we get out of the EU, it will be too late!

Incidentally, women do get a benefit from the EU equality laws as well as a loss. If a man and a woman retire at the same age, the woman has a life expectancy about 5 years greater; but their savings in a private pension are not allowed to take this into account. So if a man saves £100,000 expecting it to last 10 years, and a woman saves £100,000 expecting it to last 15 years, they get the same annual pension - the man has to take less per year to subsidise the woman's extra years. Which must make it more attractive for a man to take his cash early.

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/sta ... istory.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Stayingup]

Mark my words,Next it will an all out attack on bus passes for us hard up pensioners ..

Yes no veneration of age in this country now and on here it seems. Just sympathy for the poor little snowflake millenials who cant face life. And one clown on here wants to GIVE them money. Did anyone give you money?

[Stayingup]

Its interesting to see how those who ordinarily love to flaunt their egalitarian principles supporting a flat rate tax which takes no account of financial circumstances and which in large part is transferred directly to extremely wealthy individuals. A straightforward case of the poor funding the rich.

Who on here is supporting a flat rate tax? Its the middle cincome earners who pay the highest %age of their income in taxes.

[nil_desperandum]

And one clown on here wants to GIVE them money. Did anyone give you money?

It wasn't me that proposed giving them money, but yes, many of my generation who post on here were given money.
We got free higher education tuition and maintenance grants - for 4 years in my case.
At that time people from my background would simply not have been able to go to University without this support.
(Without wanting to appear boastful I was the first member of our family to not have to go straight out to work when I left school. It wasn't lack of talent that held the others back, it was austerity after the war and stuff like that, but grants made it possible)
The snowflake millennials you refer to have to pay for everything and nowadays come out of Uni with massive debts, and in most cases find it v difficult to get on the housing ladder and start a family for many years.

[RingoMcCartney]

Interesting that you’re putting such an emphasis on the word process when you only used it yourself for the first time after five or so hours of repeating yourself. It’s almost as if you’re trying to move the goalposts.

This was about 15 posts back.

Literally my very first reply to you. And the very first paragraph.


[quote="RingoMcCartney"]Like I said, you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside.[/quote]

As confirmed by, the Belfast Telegraph, The Guardian, Tom Watson today and Gordon Brown only yesterday.

No moving goal posts. Consistent from the start to the end.

Which this now is.

[RingoMcCartney]

You provided a list of say, forty of your bogeymen and women.
As at 2015/6, the BBC employed 20, 916 people. That leaves 20,876. You're claiming that a lot of these will be elderly or well off ?
Or 40 out of 20,961 is "a lot"? Really ?
The only things your pathetic list of names - many of those presenters heard or seen by millions on a daily or weekly basis - confirm are your basic stupidity and your blind hatred of anything not in sync with your tiny, frightened view of the world.
Give my regards to Lizzie !
Cheers !

One "Pathetic list", is just another man's proof that there are, indeed, lot of people either "elderly or well off" at the BBC. And looking at your reply it's clearly unpalatable proof.

Go easy on the sour grapes bugger lugs!

[Damo]

I love the hypocrisy of some of the Tories on here, tut-tutting because the evil BBC are introducing this measure even though they are doing this because the government and other opponents of the BBC insist they have to cut costs. (See Ringsting, Damo and Co. ad nauseam.)
If the government had had the balls to introduce this scrapping, instead of crapping themselves over the perceived potential loss of - even more - votes, they would no doubt have supported it as a brave, dynamic move.

I'm an opponent of the BBC now because I think it's rather bloated?
Maybe you are just a bit too precious when it comes to this subject.
(And most others)

[evensteadiereddie]

Maybe you're just an idiot who can't think for himself on this subject.
(And most others).

[evensteadiereddie]

One "Pathetic list", is just another man's proof that there are, indeed, lot of people either "elderly or well off" at the BBC. And looking at your reply it's clearly unpalatable proof.

Go easy on the sour grapes bugger lugs!

Again, you think forty out of over 20,000 is a lot, do you ?
"Unpalatable proof". Neither unpalatable nor proof.
Sour grapes about whom or what ? If these guys draw in huge audiences, they deserve what the market pays. That's how it works.
You're on a shocking run, Ringsting.
Roll on Friday, eh ? At least you'll have an excuse then.

[TheFamilyCat]

This was about 15 posts back.

Literally my very first reply to you. And the very first paragraph.




As confirmed by, the Belfast Telegraph, The Guardian, Tom Watson today and Gordon Brown only yesterday.

No moving goal posts. Consistent from the start to the end.

Which this now is.

You resurfaced on this thread as well then.

Thanks for quoting your first reply to me. As you will see (and you put it in large, bold font to make it easier for yourself) you did not mention the word process, which you have subsequently started to emphasise as being so important. You have been consistent though, consistently wrong.

Gordon Brown and the Belfast Telegraph both confirmed the same thing; you can be sent to prison for not paying a fine. If you want to spend your day finding more evidence to back that up, then knock yourself out. It will just provide more evidence that not having a license and not paying a fine are two different things with two different penalties.

If you pay the fine, you don’t go to prison.

[Lancasterclaret]

This is both funny, true and very brave in the Newstatesman

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... k-they-did" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TheFamilyCat]

This is both funny, true and very brave in the Newstatesman

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... k-they-did" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He makes some very good points and what he also fails to mention is that a high number of those remaining veterans are likely to live in care and therefore won’t even be responsible for purchasing a tv license.

[RingoMcCartney]

You resurfaced on this thread as well then.

Thanks for quoting your first reply to me. As you will see (and you put it in large, bold font to make it easier for yourself) you did not mention the word process, which you have subsequently started to emphasise as being so important. You have been consistent though, consistently wrong.

Gordon Brown and the Belfast Telegraph both confirmed the same thing; you can be sent to prison for not paying a fine. If you want to spend your day finding more evidence to back that up, then knock yourself out. It will just provide more evidence that not having a license and not paying a fine are two different things with two different penalties.

If you pay the fine, you don’t go to prison.

I didn't need to mention the process at that stage because I assumed that people like you would be aware that the process continues if somebody cannot afford to pay the initial licence fee.

It's almost as if , to save face , you simply want to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and scream "I can't see your post! I won't see your post! I will not accept that the very first thing you said to me actually mentioned "the subsequent increased fine". I won't! I won't I won't!!!"

Like I said , you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside.

How can anybody reasonable claim that if someone can't afford to pay the initial £154 then they will somehow be able to find an additional £1000?

You argue the technicalities all you like, in support of a regressive tax on those least able to afford it.

Tom Watson yesterday, Brown the day before, the Belfast Telegraph and the Guardian all confirm what I said ( IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ IT).

And this morning , LBC were discussing the licence fee. Saying "millions set to defy TV licence rule change as they say there willing to go to prison"

A caller came on. His dad was a Normandy veteran and he said he'd had a chat with his dad. He said his dad, semi joking, that at over 80, he'd refuse to pay for a TV license and given that he'd get 3 square meals, jump the queue for access to a doctor and access to a television without the need to pay for a bloody licence!

Why do you think Tom Watson, Gordon Brown, the Belfast Telegraph , the Guardian, LBC and many of its callers believe, that, you should you not pay your TV licence, the ultimate sanction you will receive is imprisonment?

I think this is the bit where you squirm and, as I predicted in my very first reply to you, "argue about technicalities"

[RingoMcCartney]

Again, you think forty out of over 20,000 is a lot, do you ?
"Unpalatable proof". Neither unpalatable nor proof.
Sour grapes about whom or what ? If these guys draw in huge audiences, they deserve what the market pays. That's how it works.
You're on a shocking run, Ringsting.
Roll on Friday, eh ? At least you'll have an excuse then.

Aah you can set your watch by it ! Argument lost. And the drone-like behaviour that has to resort to mindless , fictitious and groundless myths, kicks in......

[TheFamilyCat]

I didn't need to mention the process at that stage because I assumed that people like you would be aware that the process continues if somebody cannot afford to pay the initial licence fee.

It's almost as if , to save face , you simply want to put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and scream "I can't see your post! I won't see your post! I will not accept that the very first thing you said to me actually mentioned "the subsequent increased fine". I won't! I won't I won't!!!"



Tom Watson yesterday, Brown the day before, the Belfast Telegraph and the Guardian all confirm what I said ( IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ IT).

And this morning , LBC were discussing the licence fee. Saying "millions set to defy TV licence rule change as they say there willing to go to prison"

A caller came on. His dad was a Normandy veteran and he said he'd had a chat with his dad. He said his dad, semi joking, that at over 80, he'd refuse to pay for a TV license and given that he'd get 3 square meals, jump the queue for access to a doctor and access to a television without the need to pay for a bloody licence!

Why do you think Tom Watson, Gordon Brown, the Belfast Telegraph , the Guardian, LBC and many of its callers believe, that, you should you not pay your TV licence, the ultimate sanction you will receive is imprisonment?

I think this is the bit where you squirm and, as I predicted in my very first reply to you, "argue about technicalities"

Why do you so stubbornly refuse to accept this: not having a tv license and not paying the fine for not having a tv license are two different things.

I am staying a fact and not “arguing about technicalities”

Could be another fun afternoon.

[RingoMcCartney]

Why do you so stubbornly refuse to accept this: not having a tv license and not paying the fine for not having a tv license are two different things.

I am staying a fact and not “arguing about technicalities”

Could be another fun afternoon.

Couple of questions-


Why do you think Tom Watson, Gordon Brown, the Belfast Telegraph , the Guardian, LBC and many of its callers believe, that, you should you not pay your TV licence, the ultimate sanction you will receive is imprisonment?

Are they all wrong. Is it not?

What do you believe I meant, when , in the very first reply I posted to when I said -

"Like I said, you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside."

Because that "or" clearly demonstrates that I'm fully aware of something. What do you think that something is?

[TheFamilyCat]

Couple of questions-


Why do you think Tom Watson, Gordon Brown, the Belfast Telegraph , the Guardian, LBC and many of its callers believe, that, you should you not pay your TV licence, the ultimate sanction you will receive is imprisonment?

Are they all wrong. Is it not?

What do you believe I meant, when , in the very first reply I posted to when I said -

"Like I said, you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside."

Because that "or" clearly demonstrates that I'm fully aware of something. What do you think that something is?

First of all, I see you failed to answer my question.

I won’t bother with your first question, I have answered it several times.

The “or” certainly does clearly demonstrate that you are fully aware that they are two different things. The “whether it’s.....” also clearly demonstrates that you think that a person can be sent to prison for both.

[RingoMcCartney]

First of all, I see you failed to answer my question.

I won’t bother with your first question, I have answered it several times.

The “or” certainly does clearly demonstrate that you are fully aware that they are two different things. The “whether it’s.....” also clearly demonstrates that you think that a person can be sent to prison for both.

Hahaha. You won't answer because it because it's awkward for you to do so.

Its the "everybody else has got it wrong and I'm the only one that's right" technique.

Like I said, you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside.

How can anybody reasonable claim that if someone can't afford to pay the initial £154 then they will somehow be able to find an additional £1000?

You argue the technicalities all you like, in support of a regressive tax on those least able to afford it.

Sound familiar?

It's what I said to you over 24 hours ago! Half expecting somebody like you to come along, spread those wings and fly in the face of what the vast majority of of reasonable and rational people freely accept. You didn't let me down!

Don't pay your TV licence, you can end up inside.

I can confirm that you are indeed a technicalities obsessive, and a grand master at arguing the toss.

Here endeth my contribution to this thread.

[martin_p]

How can anybody reasonable claim that if someone can't afford to pay the initial £154 then they will somehow be able to find an additional £1000?

By pointing out that the vast majority of people fined for not paying their licence fee do actually pay the fine.

[TheFamilyCat]

Hahaha. You won't answer because it because it's awkward for you to do so.

Its the "everybody else has got it wrong and I'm the only one that's right" technique.

Like I said, you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside.

How can anybody reasonable claim that if someone can't afford to pay the initial £154 then they will somehow be able to find an additional £1000?

You argue the technicalities all you like, in support of a regressive tax on those least able to afford it.

Sound familiar?

It's what I said to you over 24 hours ago! Half expecting somebody like you to come along, spread those wings and fly in the face of what the vast majority of of reasonable and rational people freely accept. You didn't let me down!

Don't pay your TV licence, you can end up inside.

I can confirm that you are indeed a technicalities obsessive, and a grand master at arguing the toss.

Here endeth my contribution to this thread.

I’ve answered your first question several times already and I answered your second, so no awkwardness here.

Also, I haven’t made a single post supporting the “tax” as you call it.

Don’t pay your tv license and you get fined. Don’t pay the fine, you can go to prison.

[TheFamilyCat]

It's 2019. The idea of being forced, through threat of imprisonment, to pay for the privilege of what for millions, is one of their few reliefs from loneliness they have left. Is an anathema to anybody who believes in basic fairness.

Going back to your first post on the subject and with hindsight maybe the gov.uk website may have been a good place to start.

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No “threat of imprisonment”, in fact no mention at all of prison. Just that the punishment for not having a licence is a £1000 fine.

59429DEC-987B-4777-9222-C1034E647F47.png (78.04 KiB) Viewed 1971 times

[Burnley Ace]

Like I said, you can argue the toss if you like. Whether it's non payment of the subsequent increased fine or the TV licence itself, you can end up inside.

How can anybody reasonable claim that if someone can't afford to pay the initial £154 then they will somehow be able to find an additional £1000?

You argue the technicalities all you like, in support of a regressive tax on those least able to afford it. But the example here-

https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 62137.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Proves I'm right.

Also, Labours Tom Watson said in Parliament within the last hour it was shameful that pensioners, some of whom the poorest in society, could "face imprisonment" for not paying the TV licence.

Hopefully it'll be on this evenings 6 o'clock news, so you eat your humble pie along with your tea.

I will pay you £1000 if you can find one case where a pensioner has gone to court and been fined £1000 for not having a TV licence.

[Burnley Ace]

Using Ringos “logic” you can be sent to prison for littering, having a wee behind a wall, having a bald tyre, in fact you can be sent to prison for committing any criminal offence!

[Burnley Ace]

You argue the technicalities all you like, in support of a regressive tax on those least able to afford it.

And that’s wrong as well. Those pensioners least able to afford it will be on pension credit and will still get a free licence.

You have been very sloppy today Ringo!!

[Paul Waine]

As at 2015/6, the BBC employed 20, 916 people.
Cheers !

Hi Eddie, I find 20,916 a surprisingly high number of BBC employs. I guess there are also an unknown number who aren't in these numbers who are contractors.

How do these numbers compare with the other tv/radio/news/media companies?

Does the BBC need them all? Or, more critically, if the BBC was funded in some other way, would these numbers be lower?

[Paul Waine]

No problem with free tv licences for over 75s. Equally, no problem with BBC limiting this to those on pensioner benefits.

I've had my bus pass for a few years - with the 60+ "generosity" of London travel system.

And, I'm still at work - and paying all the tax I'm due to pay.

Interesting, though, to compare the consequences of failing to pay a commercial bill, maybe a tradesperson who's done work for you or failing to pay your credit card bill - or a company failing to pay it's creditors (a retail store and landlord, for example) - I don't think in these case you get fined and, if fine unpaid, can go to jail.

[Paul Waine]

I will pay you £1000 if you can find one case where a pensioner has gone to court and been fined £1000 for not having a TV licence.

Hi B Ace, is that a pensioner over 75 or one that is under 75? Obviously, none of the former up to now (since free license was introduced).

TV Licensing site, so far as I can see, doesn't list the people who have been fined. I'm sure this information will be available, somewhere in court proceedings.

[Burnley Ace]

Hi B Ace, is that a pensioner over 75 or one that is under 75? Obviously, none of the former up to now (since free license was introduced).

TV Licensing site, so far as I can see, doesn't list the people who have been fined. I'm sure this information will be available, somewhere in court proceedings.

A person getting their state pension.

[dsr]

I will pay you £1000 if you can find one case where a pensioner has gone to court and been fined £1000 for not having a TV licence.

You were pretty darn close to having to cough up for this one - she had a lung condition, waiting for 2 hip replacements, and has mobility issues, but was fined £1,100 including costs and later got sent down - but aged only 59! Phew!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 62137.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

Hi Eddie, I find 20,916 a surprisingly high number of BBC employs. I guess there are also an unknown number who aren't in these numbers who are contractors.

How do these numbers compare with the other tv/radio/news/media companies?

Does the BBC need them all? Or, more critically, if the BBC was funded in some other way, would these numbers be lower?

Sky employ over 30.000.

[Burnley Ace]

You were pretty darn close to having to cough up for this one - she had a lung condition, waiting for 2 hip replacements, and has mobility issues, but was fined £1,100 including costs and later got sent down - but aged only 59! Phew!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 62137.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not really. As you point out she isn’t a pensioner and that little phrase “totalling” includes Court costs and bailiffs fees! I’m still waiting for sloppy Ringo to post a link to the pensioner fined £1000. I will of course accept another apology

[Paul Waine]

Cheers, Paul, I don't know the exact breakdown of the roles involved - I was just amazed by Ringsting's assertion that 40 out of over 21,000 is "a lot".
It's actually 0.19 %. The idiot talks trash even when he's sober now.

And Sky has 30,000 per Martin.

We've got to hope that both BBC and Sky know all their roles.

I wonder if these are Full Time Equivalent (FTE) figures or include a number of part-time staff (cameras and support) and "stringers" who provide news when there is something happening in their area.

[IanMcL]

The Tories remain the villains, depriving all and picking on pensioners.

[yorkyclaret]

All pensioners who are on the basic state pension will be eligible. But if they have SERPS, or private pension, or other sources of income, they may well be over the limit and not eligible.

Doesn't read that way to me.

2 Savings credit

Savings credit is a reward for those with a modest income who have saved for retirement. After all, if saving means you end up with little more than those who don't save, it'd discourage people from providing for themselves.

Savings credit is only available to people who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016. It is worth up to £13.73 a week for a single person or £15.35 for couples.

To qualify, you must have a minimum income of £144.38 a week if you're single, and £229.67 a week if you're in a couple. For every £1 by which your income exceeds this amount, you get 60p of savings credit – up to the £13.73/£15.35 maximum.

If your income is less than the £144.38/£229.67 savings credit threshold, you won't qualify for this benefit.

[Tricky Trevor]

This fella, who some of you might know, posted this yesterday. It’s a start.

0524AFE0-3A9E-4E67-BE8F-3B7CFB88A34A.jpeg (232.68 KiB) Viewed 1792 times

65084011-0B81-49B4-99B1-FC6249833BDB.jpeg (88.59 KiB) Viewed 1792 times

BTW:Civil disobedience worked perfectly well in Ireland, when they brought in water charges. They were scrapped and repayments made.