On 03/08/2020 09:17, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 08:16, tim... wrote:


"Farmer Giles" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2020 18:54, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:27, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 11:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 09:55, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:31:35 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Don't pension credits stop when you reach pensionable age?
(Assuming
you haven't accumulated enough before then.)

Pension credits do, ...

What are "pension credits"?

... but Pension Credit is a top-up for those over 60 with no
pension or
otherwise on a low-income. That's what the poster meant.

The first eligibilty requirement for pension credit is to be
over the
state pension age. Which isÂ* some what variable dependant on
your sex
and date of birth as they gradually push it up to 68. With plans to
push it even higher.


If that's the case, it's changed fairly recently then. It was
certainly over sixty a few years back because I claimed it for
someone who was that age.

You're thinking of the automatic NI credits that males over aged
60 get
if they are not paying any NI, for any reason.

These are convenient for someone who was contracted out for many
years
but not working after 60. The 5 years of NI credits cancel out 5
years
of contracting out deductions so you get a slightly better state
pension.


Now I am not. I was referring to Pension Credit as it was a few
years back - and could definitely be claimed by someone over sixty.

But not a bloke !!.

Yes, definitely. I helped a male relative claim it in 2008 - he was 62

so not a "few" years then

That's a moot point.


Googleing has turn up the snipped that bus pass eligibly at 60 stopped
in 2010

presumably rules for this benefit changed at the same time

I don't see why, but I'm not sure. Even if it did those under 65 would
have continued to get it.



Anyone over 60 but under 65 in 2010 will now be fully entitled to their
state pension anyway, possibly under the post-2016 rules.

On 03/08/2020 10:01, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 02/08/2020 21:30, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 18:51:07 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

The irony being if they live on their own and don't have any TV
watching visitors, *no one* would know if it was colour or b/w?


Nearly all the alleged B&W TVs are in Northern Ireland. Odd that.

Out of the range of the detector vans? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

no such thing as a detector van ....

there isn't these days. There were some in the past

indeed

On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:01, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 02/08/2020 21:30, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 18:51:07 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

The irony being if they live on their own and don't have any TV
watching visitors, *no one* would know if it was colour or b/w?


Nearly all the alleged B&W TVs are in Northern Ireland. Odd that.

Out of the range of the detector vans? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

no such thing as a detector van ....

there isn't these days. There were some in the past


Some that claimed to be, you mean. They were as fake as most BBC news.

They were operated by the GPO. They existed, I've been inside one. I've
also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually worked, too.

they just picked up the time base every 17 Kc/s .....

On 03/08/2020 11:17, Spike wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:02, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:

[detector vans] were operated by the GPO.
They existed, I've been inside one.
I've also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually worked, too.

Worked in what sense? The only possible thing that could be detected
would be the local oscillator in the tuner mixer. This 'beats' with the
incoming RF signal and produces the IF (intermediate frequency). This
wouldn't tell anyone if or what you were watching even if it was strong
enough to be detected from a distance, which is unlikely.

For a CRT TV or computer screen, the signal modulating the grid of the
tube was fortuitously radiated over a wide range of frequencies, This
could be picked up, usually at VHF, and used to modulate one's own CRT,
letting you see on your screen exactly what was on the target's screen.

you tell them spike....

On Mon, 03 Aug 2020 10:56:33 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

I think the real issue here is giving the licence free to some in the
first place. People were paying and were ok with that (few other
choices, good content, no advertising etc), just as all those who know
if they want to watch Netflix or Amazon Video now they have to pay for
it. The problem arises when you make it free to anyone and then decide
to take that away again.

I think the biggest insult is what I remember being only a tiny
discount to 'viewers' (as that's the primary interface of 'TV'
(compared with radio)) who were registered blind?

I appreciate the impact would vary depending on what was on ... and
how good the narration was, but still. ;-(


To me, the main issue is expecting the BBC to pay for a 'benefit'

Who got them to offer the free licence in the first place OOI?

If this
is fair, perhaps the energy companies should pay the winter fuel
allowance?

Or should they pay the FIT payments etc?

snip

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:01, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 02/08/2020 21:30, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 18:51:07 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

The irony being if they live on their own and don't have any TV
watching visitors, *no one* would know if it was colour or b/w?


Nearly all the alleged B&W TVs are in Northern Ireland. Odd that.

Out of the range of the detector vans? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

no such thing as a detector van ....

there isn't these days. There were some in the past


Some that claimed to be, you mean. They were as fake as most BBC news.

They were operated by the GPO. They existed, I've been inside one. I've
also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually worked, too.

they just picked up the time base every 17 Kc/s .....

15,625Hz

(17 probably comes from GPO ringing tone, but that was Hz)

Older sets use to radiate LO quite seriously

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/08/2020 13:52, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:01, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 02/08/2020 21:30, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 18:51:07 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

The irony being if they live on their own and don't have any TV
watching visitors, *no one* would know if it was colour or b/w?


Nearly all the alleged B&W TVs are in Northern Ireland. Odd that.

Out of the range of the detector vans? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

no such thing as a detector van ....

there isn't these days. There were some in the past


Some that claimed to be, you mean. They were as fake as most BBC news.

They were operated by the GPO. They existed, I've been inside one. I've
also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually worked, too.

they just picked up the time base every 17 Kc/s .....

15,625Hz

(17 probably comes from GPO ringing tone, but that was Hz)

Older sets use to radiate LO quite seriously

nah I had forgotten having not hearing it on 80m for a while.....15.625
Kc/s ...shirley

On 03/08/2020 11:33, Andrew wrote:
On 03/08/2020 09:17, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 08:16, tim... wrote:


"Farmer Giles" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2020 18:54, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:27, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 11:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 09:55, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:31:35 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Don't pension credits stop when you reach pensionable age?
(Assuming
you haven't accumulated enough before then.)

Pension credits do, ...

What are "pension credits"?

... but Pension Credit is a top-up for those over 60 with no
pension or
otherwise on a low-income. That's what the poster meant.

The first eligibilty requirement for pension credit is to be
over the
state pension age. Which isÂ* some what variable dependant on
your sex
and date of birth as they gradually push it up to 68. With
plans to
push it even higher.


If that's the case, it's changed fairly recently then. It was
certainly over sixty a few years back because I claimed it for
someone who was that age.

You're thinking of the automatic NI credits that males over aged
60 get
if they are not paying any NI, for any reason.

These are convenient for someone who was contracted out for many
years
but not working after 60. The 5 years of NI credits cancel out 5
years
of contracting out deductions so you get a slightly better state
pension.


Now I am not. I was referring to Pension Credit as it was a few
years back - and could definitely be claimed by someone over sixty.

But not a bloke !!.

Yes, definitely. I helped a male relative claim it in 2008 - he was 62

so not a "few" years then

That's a moot point.


Googleing has turn up the snipped that bus pass eligibly at 60
stopped in 2010

presumably rules for this benefit changed at the same time

I don't see why, but I'm not sure. Even if it did those under 65 would
have continued to get it.



Anyone over 60 but under 65 in 2010 will now be fully entitled to their
state pension anyway, possibly under the post-2016 rules.

Yes, but what I meant was that anyone who became 60 in (say) 2009, and
qualified for PC, would still continue to get it after the rules changed.

On 03/08/2020 11:17, Spike wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:02, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:

[detector vans] were operated by the GPO.
They existed, I've been inside one.
I've also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually worked, too.

Worked in what sense? The only possible thing that could be detected
would be the local oscillator in the tuner mixer. This 'beats' with the
incoming RF signal and produces the IF (intermediate frequency). This
wouldn't tell anyone if or what you were watching even if it was strong
enough to be detected from a distance, which is unlikely.

For a CRT TV or computer screen, the signal modulating the grid of the
tube was fortuitously radiated over a wide range of frequencies, This
could be picked up, usually at VHF, and used to modulate one's own CRT,
letting you see on your screen exactly what was on the target's screen.


That would be just the video frequency, and wouldn't tell you if you
were watching broadcast TV or not - nor would the signals have
sufficient energy to be picked up any distance away. Same with the line
frequency at 15.635 kHz. The TV could be being used as a monitor, or
similar, and those signals would still be present.

Some of this stuff is now a distant memory for me, but I was in the
television industry for many years.

On 03/08/2020 16:58, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 11:17, Spike wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:02, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:

[detector vans] were operated by the GPO.
They existed, I've been inside one.
I've also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually
worked, too.

Worked in what sense? The only possible thing that could be detected
would be the local oscillator in the tuner mixer. This 'beats' with the
incoming RF signal and produces the IF (intermediate frequency). This
wouldn't tell anyone if or what you were watching even if it was strong
enough to be detected from a distance, which is unlikely.

For a CRT TV or computer screen, the signal modulating the grid of the
tube was fortuitously radiated over a wide range of frequencies, This
could be picked up, usually at VHF, and used to modulate one's own CRT,
letting you see on your screen exactly what was on the target's screen.


That would be just the video frequency, and wouldn't tell you if you
were watching broadcast TV or not - nor would the signals have
sufficient energy to be picked up any distance away. Same with the line
frequency at 15.635 kHz. The TV could be being used as a monitor, or
similar, and those signals would still be present.

Some of this stuff is now a distant memory for me, but I was in the
television industry for many years.
not heard 15 Kc/s for years .......

On 03/08/2020 16:48, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 11:33, Andrew wrote:
On 03/08/2020 09:17, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 08:16, tim... wrote:


"Farmer Giles" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2020 18:54, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:27, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 11:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 09:55, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:31:35 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Don't pension credits stop when you reach pensionable age?
(Assuming
you haven't accumulated enough before then.)

Pension credits do, ...

What are "pension credits"?

... but Pension Credit is a top-up for those over 60 with no
pension or
otherwise on a low-income. That's what the poster meant.

The first eligibilty requirement for pension credit is to be
over the
state pension age. Which isÂ* some what variable dependant on
your sex
and date of birth as they gradually push it up to 68. With
plans to
push it even higher.


If that's the case, it's changed fairly recently then. It was
certainly over sixty a few years back because I claimed it for
someone who was that age.

You're thinking of the automatic NI credits that males over aged
60 get
if they are not paying any NI, for any reason.

These are convenient for someone who was contracted out for many
years
but not working after 60. The 5 years of NI credits cancel out 5
years
of contracting out deductions so you get a slightly better state
pension.


Now I am not. I was referring to Pension Credit as it was a few
years back - and could definitely be claimed by someone over sixty.

But not a bloke !!.

Yes, definitely. I helped a male relative claim it in 2008 - he was 62

so not a "few" years then

That's a moot point.


Googleing has turn up the snipped that bus pass eligibly at 60
stopped in 2010

presumably rules for this benefit changed at the same time

I don't see why, but I'm not sure. Even if it did those under 65
would have continued to get it.



Anyone over 60 but under 65 in 2010 will now be fully entitled to their
state pension anyway, possibly under the post-2016 rules.

Yes, but what I meant was that anyone who became 60 in (say) 2009, and
qualified for PC, would still continue to get it after the rules changed.
I retired in 2010 at 57 and got the lower pension is that correct or was
I diddled ? .....

On 03/08/2020 20:25, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 16:58, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 11:17, Spike wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:02, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:

[detector vans] were operated by the GPO.
They existed, I've been inside one.
I've also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually
worked, too.

Worked in what sense? The only possible thing that could be detected
would be the local oscillator in the tuner mixer. This 'beats' with the
incoming RF signal and produces the IF (intermediate frequency). This
wouldn't tell anyone if or what you were watching even if it was strong
enough to be detected from a distance, which is unlikely.

For a CRT TV or computer screen, the signal modulating the grid of the
tube was fortuitously radiated over a wide range of frequencies, This
could be picked up, usually at VHF, and used to modulate one's own CRT,
letting you see on your screen exactly what was on the target's screen.


That would be just the video frequency, and wouldn't tell you if you
were watching broadcast TV or not - nor would the signals have
sufficient energy to be picked up any distance away. Same with the
line frequency at 15.635 kHz. The TV could be being used as a monitor,
or similar, and those signals would still be present.

Some of this stuff is now a distant memory for me, but I was in the
television industry for many years.
not heard 15 Kc/s for years .......

I couldn't hear it as a young man working in TV servicing - a great
disadvantage! BTW, I meant 15.625kHz - 625 lines x 25.

On 03/08/2020 20:27, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 16:48, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 11:33, Andrew wrote:
On 03/08/2020 09:17, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 08:16, tim... wrote:


"Farmer Giles" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2020 18:54, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 18:27, Andrew wrote:
On 02/08/2020 11:41, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 09:55, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:31:35 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75
and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Don't pension credits stop when you reach pensionable age?
(Assuming
you haven't accumulated enough before then.)

Pension credits do, ...

What are "pension credits"?

... but Pension Credit is a top-up for those over 60 with no
pension or
otherwise on a low-income. That's what the poster meant.

The first eligibilty requirement for pension credit is to be
over the
state pension age. Which isÂ* some what variable dependant on
your sex
and date of birth as they gradually push it up to 68. With
plans to
push it even higher.


If that's the case, it's changed fairly recently then. It was
certainly over sixty a few years back because I claimed it for
someone who was that age.

You're thinking of the automatic NI credits that males over
aged 60 get
if they are not paying any NI, for any reason.

These are convenient for someone who was contracted out for
many years
but not working after 60. The 5 years of NI credits cancel out
5 years
of contracting out deductions so you get a slightly better
state pension.


Now I am not. I was referring to Pension Credit as it was a few
years back - and could definitely be claimed by someone over sixty.

But not a bloke !!.

Yes, definitely. I helped a male relative claim it in 2008 - he
was 62

so not a "few" years then

That's a moot point.


Googleing has turn up the snipped that bus pass eligibly at 60
stopped in 2010

presumably rules for this benefit changed at the same time

I don't see why, but I'm not sure. Even if it did those under 65
would have continued to get it.



Anyone over 60 but under 65 in 2010 will now be fully entitled to their
state pension anyway, possibly under the post-2016 rules.

Yes, but what I meant was that anyone who became 60 in (say) 2009, and
qualified for PC, would still continue to get it after the rules changed.
I retired in 2010 at 57 and got the lower pension is that correct or was
I diddled ? .....

Not sure what you mean, but you wouldn't have been entitled to pension
Credit aged 57 at any time.

On 03/08/2020 20:54, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 20:25, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 16:58, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 11:17, Spike wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:02, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:

[detector vans] were operated by the GPO.
They existed, I've been inside one.
I've also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually
worked, too.

Worked in what sense? The only possible thing that could be detected
would be the local oscillator in the tuner mixer. This 'beats' with
the
incoming RF signal and produces the IF (intermediate frequency). This
wouldn't tell anyone if or what you were watching even if it was
strong
enough to be detected from a distance, which is unlikely.

For a CRT TV or computer screen, the signal modulating the grid of the
tube was fortuitously radiated over a wide range of frequencies, This
could be picked up, usually at VHF, and used to modulate one's own CRT,
letting you see on your screen exactly what was on the target's screen.


That would be just the video frequency, and wouldn't tell you if you
were watching broadcast TV or not - nor would the signals have
sufficient energy to be picked up any distance away. Same with the
line frequency at 15.635 kHz. The TV could be being used as a
monitor, or similar, and those signals would still be present.

Some of this stuff is now a distant memory for me, but I was in the
television industry for many years.
not heard 15 Kc/s for years .......

I couldn't hear it as a young man working in TV servicing - a great
disadvantage! BTW, I meant 15.625kHz - 625 lines x 25.
right...I mean on my 80m ham radio receiver .......buzz every 15
Kc/s....I refuse to use hertz...it means nothing

On 03/08/2020 21:27, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 20:54, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 20:25, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 03/08/2020 16:58, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 11:17, Spike wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:02, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 03/08/2020 10:38, charles wrote:

[detector vans] were operated by the GPO.
They existed, I've been inside one.
I've also seen the portable kit, developed later, which actually
worked, too.

Worked in what sense? The only possible thing that could be detected
would be the local oscillator in the tuner mixer. This 'beats'
with the
incoming RF signal and produces the IF (intermediate frequency). This
wouldn't tell anyone if or what you were watching even if it was
strong
enough to be detected from a distance, which is unlikely.

For a CRT TV or computer screen, the signal modulating the grid of the
tube was fortuitously radiated over a wide range of frequencies, This
could be picked up, usually at VHF, and used to modulate one's own
CRT,
letting you see on your screen exactly what was on the target's
screen.


That would be just the video frequency, and wouldn't tell you if you
were watching broadcast TV or not - nor would the signals have
sufficient energy to be picked up any distance away. Same with the
line frequency at 15.635 kHz. The TV could be being used as a
monitor, or similar, and those signals would still be present.

Some of this stuff is now a distant memory for me, but I was in the
television industry for many years.
not heard 15 Kc/s for years .......

I couldn't hear it as a young man working in TV servicing - a great
disadvantage! BTW, I meant 15.625kHz - 625 lines x 25.
right...I mean on my 80m ham radio receiver .......buzz every 15
Kc/s....I refuse to use hertz...it means nothing

It's a painful term - as I remember some wag saying at college many
years ago!

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 21:27:24 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

snip

I refuse to use hertz...it means nothing

You really are a dick aren't you Crazy Jim?

'You refuse to' ... like you are some sort of vigilante or rebel?

The *reason* we all try to use the same terms and standards is so that
we can better / more efficiently / accurately communicate with each
other.

Is your old Yank Tank RHD as if it is I'm surprised you don't 'refuse'
to drive on the left (in the UK)?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:57:22 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

I retired in 2010 at 57 and got the lower pension is that correct
or
was I diddled ? .....

Not sure what you mean, but you wouldn't have been entitled to pension
Credit aged 57 at any time.

Didn't think you could take the state pension early either, defer it
yes.

So one must assume this pension is a private or works one which will
have it's own set of rules regarding early payment. I could have
taken my works pension at 55 with a 25% reduction tapering to 0% at
60 (its "retirement" age).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 03/08/2020 22:26, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 21:27:24 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

snip

I refuse to use hertz...it means nothing

You really are a dick aren't you Crazy Jim?

'You refuse to' ... like you are some sort of vigilante or rebel?

The *reason* we all try to use the same terms and standards is so that
we can better / more efficiently / accurately communicate with each
other.

Is your old Yank Tank RHD as if it is I'm surprised you don't 'refuse'
to drive on the left (in the UK)?

Cheers, T i m

bull**** Timmy c/s cycles per seconds describes what is going on and
hertz is some German bloke......c/s thus we can better / more
efficiently / accurately communicate with each
other........

On 03/08/2020 22:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:57:22 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

I retired in 2010 at 57 and got the lower pension is that correct
or
was I diddled ? .....

Not sure what you mean, but you wouldn't have been entitled to pension
Credit aged 57 at any time.

Didn't think you could take the state pension early either, defer it
yes.

So one must assume this pension is a private or works one which will
have it's own set of rules regarding early payment. I could have
taken my works pension at 55 with a 25% reduction tapering to 0% at
60 (its "retirement" age).

sorry I was thinking about my company pension I meant my state pension
at 65 seemed to just miss getting the old higher amount

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:13:05 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

On 03/08/2020 22:26, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 21:27:24 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

snip

I refuse to use hertz...it means nothing

You really are a dick aren't you Crazy Jim?

'You refuse to' ... like you are some sort of vigilante or rebel?

The *reason* we all try to use the same terms and standards is so that
we can better / more efficiently / accurately communicate with each
other.

Is your old Yank Tank RHD as if it is I'm surprised you don't 'refuse'
to drive on the left (in the UK)?

Cheers, T i m

bull**** Timmy

Only to crazy's like you it seems.

c/s cycles per seconds describes what is going on

So what is a volt, amp, degree, foot, kilo describing?

and
hertz is some German bloke......

And?

c/s thus we can better / more
efficiently / accurately communicate with each
other........

Nope. You might be able to talk to yourself better. Do you actually
have any friends? Doesn't look like you spend any time talking to them
on AR, judging by the amount of time you spend here on a DIY group.

Cheers, T i m

On 04/08/2020 08:37, T i m wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote:

c/s thus we can better / more
efficiently / accurately communicate with each other........

Nope. You might be able to talk to yourself better. Do you actually
have any friends? Doesn't look like you spend any time talking to them
on AR, judging by the amount of time you spend here on a DIY group.

It could be worse, but at least Jimbo isn't a virtue-signalling
narcissistic lifestyle-choice half-brainer...

--
Spike

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 03/08/2020 08:19, tim... wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2020 13:34, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 12:41, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:41:14 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

The first eligibilty requirement for pension credit is to be over
the
state pension age. Which is some what variable dependant on your
sex
and date of birth as they gradually push it up to 68. With plans
to
push it even higher.

If that's the case, it's changed fairly recently then. It was
certainly
over sixty a few years back because I claimed it for someone who was
that age.

Presumably a woman. State pension age for men has been 65 for a very
long time. They shifted women from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2018.


No, it wasn't a woman. Pension Credit could be claimed by anyone over
sixty who met certain criteria. I accept that it's different now.

You don't have to claim NI credits (which is what you mean) if you are
male and over aged 60.
They are applied by DWP automatically.

Oh no they're not



They were to me. Clearly shown on NI dashboard website and on
my BR19 pensions forecasts.

That will have been before they changed the rules about unemployed over 60s
being able to sign on just for NI credits without passing the "looking for
work" test

those days have long gone

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 08:09:34 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

But if "living with" means not married to,

Nope, we are married (her idea and she paid for the certificate,
surprisingly). ;-)

Oh, OK.

;-)

I wonder why you were so coy about it :-)

I didn't realise I was?

then your partner's pension needs
will be assessed on a single person basis

Which is how I think it is now.

(though perversely probably take
into account your contributions to family costs)

Which are nil. When I was working I was on a reasonable wage so was
able to pay for this modest 3 bed cottage (and have no other loans or
debts) when I was 40.

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

unless you are counting pennies

On 04/08/2020 11:46, tim... wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 03/08/2020 08:19, tim... wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2020 13:34, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 02/08/2020 12:41, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:41:14 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

The first eligibilty requirement for pension credit is to be over
the
state pension age. Which isÂ* some what variable dependant on your
sex
and date of birth as they gradually push it up to 68. With plans
to
push it even higher.

If that's the case, it's changed fairly recently then. It was
certainly
over sixty a few years back because I claimed it for someone who was
that age.

Presumably a woman. State pension age for men has been 65 for a very
long time. They shifted women from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2018.


No, it wasn't a woman. Pension Credit could be claimed by anyone
over sixty who met certain criteria. I accept that it's different now.

You don't have to claim NI credits (which is what you mean) if you are
male and over aged 60.
They are applied by DWP automatically.

Oh no they're not



They were to me. Clearly shown on NI dashboard website and on
my BR19 pensions forecasts.

That will have been before they changed the rules about unemployed over
60s being able to sign on just for NI credits without passing the
"looking for work" test

those days have long gone




I never signed on. Never have. Once the work as computer contractor
dried up, I just no longer paid any tax and NI and every 19th filled
in the part of the HMRC website that indicates no payments
made.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:53:44 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

Since when have you been so literal ... ah ... ;-(

unless you are counting pennies

Look after the pennies ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 04/08/2020 18:57, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:53:44 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

Since when have you been so literal ... ah ... ;-(

unless you are counting pennies

Look after the pennies ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

and you will have lots of pennies

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On 1 Aug 2020 23:44:33 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 22:16:10 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 18:03:26 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

Anyone had the letter from TV LIcensing yet ?.

BBC Moneybox says they will send out letters, so any emails,
texts or phone calls will be from scammers. Some folks will fall for a
scammer though.

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Of course, there may be unexpected consequences. Lots of eligible people,
who haven't doen it until now, deciding to apply for pension credit.

I think the real issue here is giving the licence free to some in the
first place. People were paying and were ok with that (few other
choices, good content, no advertising etc), just as all those who know
if they want to watch Netflix or Amazon Video now they have to pay for
it. The problem arises when you make it free to anyone and then decide
to take that away again.

I think the biggest insult is what I remember being only a tiny
discount to 'viewers' (as that's the primary interface of 'TV'
(compared with radio)) who were registered blind?

I appreciate the impact would vary depending on what was on ... and
how good the narration was, but still. ;-(


To me, the main issue is expecting the BBC to pay for a 'benefit' If this
is fair, perhaps the energy companies should pay the winter fuel
allowance? Or supermarkets providing free food to poor pensioners? But
then given how much many of them contribute to Tory party funds, unlikely.

BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the covering
of iplayer.
So just standard Trump thinking. Anyone who criticises in any way should
be penalised in any way possible.


--
bert

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:53:44 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

Since when have you been so literal

when the difference is material to the discussion

expecting that someone who has retired several years early (with no obvious
income) might have a cash fund of some sort is not unreasonable

and circa £50,000 is a not an unreasonable amount to suggest for that fund

£5 million is

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On 1 Aug 2020 23:44:33 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 22:16:10 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 18:03:26 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

Anyone had the letter from TV LIcensing yet ?.

BBC Moneybox says they will send out letters, so any emails,
texts or phone calls will be from scammers. Some folks will fall for
a
scammer though.

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Of course, there may be unexpected consequences. Lots of eligible
people,
who haven't doen it until now, deciding to apply for pension credit.

I think the real issue here is giving the licence free to some in the
first place. People were paying and were ok with that (few other
choices, good content, no advertising etc), just as all those who know
if they want to watch Netflix or Amazon Video now they have to pay for
it. The problem arises when you make it free to anyone and then decide
to take that away again.

I think the biggest insult is what I remember being only a tiny
discount to 'viewers' (as that's the primary interface of 'TV'
(compared with radio)) who were registered blind?

I appreciate the impact would vary depending on what was on ... and
how good the narration was, but still. ;-(


To me, the main issue is expecting the BBC to pay for a 'benefit' If this
is fair, perhaps the energy companies should pay the winter fuel
allowance? Or supermarkets providing free food to poor pensioners? But
then given how much many of them contribute to Tory party funds, unlikely.

BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the covering
of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on their
income

Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my license
payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex" getting a free TV
licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar) abuse
of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably qualify
not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that problem before
foisting the concession onto the BBC.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:18:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:53:44 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

Since when have you been so literal

when the difference is material to the discussion

Ok ...

expecting that someone who has retired several years early (with no obvious
income) might have a cash fund of some sort is not unreasonable

Of course, and we do, just not 'millions'. ( a term indicating that
it's not a substantial amount, not even 10's or 100's of thousands
etc).

and circa £50,000 is a not an unreasonable amount to suggest for that fund

I know. I know what you need to be able to live on the interest and I
know we have *way* less than that.

£5 million is

I know?

I'm not the one taking something literally mate. Cummon, try to pull
it all together ... we were talking of small pensions, pension credits
and someone who is used to helping to make ends meet by doing stuff
himself ... not paint a picture of any sort? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
tim... wrote:
BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the covering
of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on their
income

They did at the time. But come the time for reviewing the licence fee,
surely that is up for negotiation too?

Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my license
payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex" getting a
free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

Of course. But many see the licence as just another tax, rather than one
which is ring fenced to a specific purpose.

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar)
abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably
qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that
problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.

I'll say it again. If it is up to the BBC to subsidise anyone for whatever
reason, why not the energy and telephone etc companies too?

Of course the answer is simple. This government hates the idea of the BBC
not being an organ of government and doing what it tells them to.

No different from Trump trying to silence any opposition to him in the US.

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/08/2020 19:12, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 04/08/2020 18:57, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:53:44 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

Since when have you been so literal ... ah ... ;-(

unless you are counting pennies

Look after the pennies ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

and you will have lots of pennies

I check all 'copper' with a magnet and save the
non-ferrous ones. I suspect they are already worth
more than their face value.

The 2p also make useful non-rustable washers or shims.

5 years ago I noticed that the toilet cystern was
only supported by the angle brackets because the numpty
builders in 1976 used mild steel screws and washers
to secure the top of the cystern to the wall. I used
a couple of 2p, with a hole and brass screws instead.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the
covering
of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on their
income

They did at the time. But come the time for reviewing the licence fee,
surely that is up for negotiation too?

There is never any chance at all that the BBC will extract fee increases
above inflation from this process (which would be needed to make up any
shortfall from elsewhere)

It's a tough enough job getting inflation increases agreed

Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my license
payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex" getting a
free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

Of course. But many see the licence as just another tax, rather than one
which is ring fenced to a specific purpose.

Who cares, let's call it a tax

I'd still resent some people, unjustifiably, not having to pay that tax

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar)
abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably
qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that
problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.

I'll say it again. If it is up to the BBC to subsidise anyone for whatever
reason, why not the energy and telephone etc companies too?

I'm not disagreeing with you

Of course the answer is simple. This government hates the idea of the BBC
not being an organ of government and doing what it tells them to.

They'll miss it when it's gone (which it will if the nonsense idea of
subscription model ever gets passed)

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:18:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:53:44 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

I'm surprised that if you have no savings,

We do, just not millions ...

since when has 50,000 been millions

Since when have you been so literal

when the difference is material to the discussion

Ok ...

expecting that someone who has retired several years early (with no
obvious
income) might have a cash fund of some sort is not unreasonable

Of course, and we do, just not 'millions'. ( a term indicating that
it's not a substantial amount, not even 10's

given the "needs" here, I can't accept it as a proxy for such a tiny amount

or 100's of thousands
etc).

and circa £50,000 is a not an unreasonable amount to suggest for that fund

I know. I know what you need to be able to live on the interest and I
know we have *way* less than that.

at the levels I am talking you *can't* live on the interest

you have to draw down

even much less than 50K is not going to make much difference to a 30 year
retirement.

1-2K per year

perhaps the costs of a restaurant meal (for 2) once per fortnight

£5 million is

I know?

I'm not the one taking something literally mate. Cummon, try to pull
it all together ... we were talking of small pensions, pension credits
and someone who is used to helping to make ends meet by doing stuff
himself ... not paint a picture of any sort? ;-(

and I'm talking "what is it that makes a capital retirement sum, small or
large"

and I'm saying, that less than 100K is small
less than 50K, very small

HTH

tim

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 12:26:30 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:
snip

expecting that someone who has retired several years early (with no
obvious
income) might have a cash fund of some sort is not unreasonable

Of course, and we do, just not 'millions'. ( a term indicating that
it's not a substantial amount, not even 10's

given the "needs" here, I can't accept it as a proxy for such a tiny amount

Then that's your problem.

or 100's of thousands
etc).

and circa £50,000 is a not an unreasonable amount to suggest for that fund

I know. I know what you need to be able to live on the interest and I
know we have *way* less than that.

at the levels I am talking you *can't* live on the interest

you have to draw down

even much less than 50K is not going to make much difference to a 30 year
retirement.

1-2K per year

perhaps the costs of a restaurant meal (for 2) once per fortnight

Quite?

£5 million is

I know?

I'm not the one taking something literally mate. Cummon, try to pull
it all together ... we were talking of small pensions, pension credits
and someone who is used to helping to make ends meet by doing stuff
himself ... not paint a picture of any sort? ;-(

and I'm talking "what is it that makes a capital retirement sum, small or
large"

I know, as was I, and I stated that we don't have enough savings to do
that on.

and I'm saying, that less than 100K is small
less than 50K, very small

Yup.

HTH

Not me as I knew everything you eventually came round to up front (and
why I haven't done anything about the two private pensions that
matured a couple of years ago).

Cheers, T i m

In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On 1 Aug 2020 23:44:33 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 22:16:10 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 18:03:26 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

Anyone had the letter from TV LIcensing yet ?.

BBC Moneybox says they will send out letters, so any emails,
texts or phone calls will be from scammers. Some folks will fall
for a
scammer though.

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Of course, there may be unexpected consequences. Lots of eligible
people,
who haven't doen it until now, deciding to apply for pension credit.

I think the real issue here is giving the licence free to some in the
first place. People were paying and were ok with that (few other
choices, good content, no advertising etc), just as all those who know
if they want to watch Netflix or Amazon Video now they have to pay for
it. The problem arises when you make it free to anyone and then decide
to take that away again.

I think the biggest insult is what I remember being only a tiny
discount to 'viewers' (as that's the primary interface of 'TV'
(compared with radio)) who were registered blind?

I appreciate the impact would vary depending on what was on ... and
how good the narration was, but still. ;-(


To me, the main issue is expecting the BBC to pay for a 'benefit' If this
is fair, perhaps the energy companies should pay the winter fuel
allowance? Or supermarkets providing free food to poor pensioners? But
then given how much many of them contribute to Tory party funds, unlikely.

BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the
covering of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

Aw poor little snowflakes. Only paid 1/2 million pa.
I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on
their income

All those directors and none could do a few sums.
Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my
license payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex"
getting a free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar)
abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably
qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that
problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.




It's part of the basic state pension system. Unfortunately means testing
is a very blunt instrument and millions don't apply for what they are
entitled to, usually ones who need it most. The cost often outweighs the
savings. You could of course make it a taxable benefit and claw back 20
or 40%
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the covering
of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on their
income

They did at the time. But come the time for reviewing the licence fee,
surely that is up for negotiation too?

Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my license
payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex" getting a
free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

Of course. But many see the licence as just another tax, rather than one
which is ring fenced to a specific purpose.

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar)
abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably
qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that
problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.

I'll say it again. If it is up to the BBC to subsidise anyone for whatever
reason, why not the energy and telephone etc companies too?

It's not a subsidy by the BBC it is a reduction in their revenue. But if
they now don't like ti then reset the fee back to 2015, government pay
the £93m this year and renegotiate the deal.
Of course the answer is simple. This government hates the idea of the BBC
not being an organ of government and doing what it tells them to.

Conspiracy theory again. Just a simple case of government trying to
reduce cost of welfare and hence budget deficit.
No different from Trump trying to silence any opposition to him in the US.


--
bert

On Wed, 05 Aug 2020 21:40:00 +0100, bert wrote:

Conspiracy theory again. Just a simple case of government trying to
reduce cost of welfare and hence budget deficit.

And being careful to shift the apparent blame onto the BBC.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article , Bob Eager
writes
On Wed, 05 Aug 2020 21:40:00 +0100, bert wrote:

Conspiracy theory again. Just a simple case of government trying to
reduce cost of welfare and hence budget deficit.

And being careful to shift the apparent blame onto the BBC.

No blame involved if BBC had stuck to their side of the bargain.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
I'll say it again. If it is up to the BBC to subsidise anyone for whatever
reason, why not the energy and telephone etc companies too?

It's not a subsidy by the BBC it is a reduction in their revenue.

Love your logic.


Collins GEM English Dictionary
subsidize v. help financially. ˜subsidy n. financial aid.

But a good Tory, you'll reserve that for things you don't approve of.

Rather sad you can't afford to pay a TV licence.

--
*If at first you do succeed, try not to look too astonished.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.