Jump to content

Rugby League World
League Express
Garry Schofield Testimonial Brochure (Signed)


Member Since 19 Apr 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 12:52 AM

#3168068 BT Sport bait & switch

Posted by ckn on 30 July 2015 - 06:42 PM

Apparently a lot of RL fans feel the same.  According to LE they are cancelling their Sky subscription in droves. I haven't cancelled mine BTW. But then I never had one to cancel.   I'm a huge RL fan.  I like Union and I love Test cricket, but I wouldn't wipe my backside on any of Murdoch's publications, he is the worst thing that's happened to the British media in my memory.

If Sky are given the choice between not increasing their football bid next time and renewing or severely cutting their RL contract, I know exactly what'll get cut.

#3167955 BT Sport bait & switch

Posted by ckn on 30 July 2015 - 02:48 PM

I'm pretty sure Sky are amortizing the Premier League costs across the whole Sky customer base, not just the Sports customers.


I'm getting fed up of it now. I'm going to ditch Sky Sports in November and will start threatening a move away if they continue putting the prices up for no good reason.

Same with BT.  Buy any BT product and you're subsidising their idiot contract for football.

#3167762 BT Sport bait & switch

Posted by ckn on 30 July 2015 - 08:58 AM

For those of you, like me, who get free BT Sport as part of BT Broadband:


I tend to just stick BT's Champions League spam letters straight in the shredder but one today annoyed me.  It's worth being aware that unless you actively downgrade your package to BT Sport Lite by tomorrow that you'll be charged £5 a month for the privilege of subsidising BT's football expenditure.


This is the classic bait & switch that has had banks fined over the years and is quite cynical really.


BT have fallen into the same tactic as Sky by bundling football with the other sports and assuming that those of us who like other sports will put up with having to subsidise football just to get our fix of our preferred sports.  They then increase the fee year after year, knowing that once we've accepted the first increase that we'll accept them every year.


I've downgraded and sent them a snotty email reminding them that bait & switch tactics like this are illegal and tend to get fines from regulators.

#3165665 Labour leadership contest

Posted by ckn on 26 July 2015 - 10:58 PM

The last 2 elections should give you a clue,even a mild leftish oppositon was rejected

Britain( well lets forget the scots their on their own as far as English people are concerned)will not go socialist or in Corbyns case semi communist

Blair even had to change the name to "New Labour"and drop the socialist logo to get elected

1997 to 2010.  Four elections in a row that a right wing Tory party were rejected.  Remember, Cameron didn't get a majority in 2010 despite going up against one of the most unlikeable PMs for a long time and in a deep recession.


Even now, Cameron only has a bare-bones 12 seat majority.  That's it.  The smallest single party government majority since 1974 and the smallest Tory government majority this side of World War 2.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Tories, is it?


To take your words, the last two elections should give you a clue, even a Tory party going against one of the most disorganised Labour election campaigns since 1983 barely got a 12 seat majority.


We're also only a few elections away from Labour securing back-to-back majorities on very left-wing policies in 1997 and 2001.  And those majorities were the highest since 1918.  Even 2005, a hugely unpopular Labour lost a lot of core vote and still got a majority over 5 times that of the current government.  Yet we have patronising Tories trying to tell us that left wing policies are dead.


But then, let's not let facts get in the way of prejudice.

#3165620 Labour leadership contest

Posted by ckn on 26 July 2015 - 09:51 PM

You should have put in your opinion

Shes entitled to her opinion but IMO its severely flawed

As for the tories being worried by Corbyn behave,its like all their Xmas's came true.

Tories are signing up to vote for him,even his mates at the Communist Party(remember Jezzer writes a column for the Morning Star)  have told their comrades to sign up to get him in.

Trouble is for you socialists is that of the 4 candidates on offer,2 are clones of Ed Milliband (Cooper and Burnham) which the electorate have already kicked in to touch,Corbyn is at best a left winger who is un-electable and Kendall who's tarred with Blair.

Labour need to move centre right not full left,its suicide

Erm... No.  We have a right-wing party in power, we don't need a right-wing opposition.  That's not representative of society.

#3164798 Labour leadership contest

Posted by ckn on 26 July 2015 - 10:20 AM

Perhaps, but what exactly makes Charlotte Church a noteable political commentator ? Am I missing something as to why her view is important ?

It's not that she's a world leader, established commentator or anything like that, it's just an opinion that's resonating with more than a few.  The Tories and Blairites are getting their knickers in a twist about Corbyn but he's saying mainly the right things with the right tone to a group of disaffected people who are listening.  He's effectively the left-wing version of Nigel Farage, a very polarising figure who will persuade people to vote for him for reasons the centrists just don't get.


Bluntly put, I'd be happier voting for Corbyn than any of the other three given his current views but I do recognise that he's not going to capture the precious centre ground and he's going to be persistently in the media crosshairs.  That means he'll make Labour unwinnable unless he can somehow target the very large pool of disaffected people who don't vote.


Also, in a way, Corbyn will get it worse than Michael Foot because of the pervasiveness of modern media, including social media, means the big media companies get a power and influence position they could only dream of 30 years ago.

#3164337 The TV Thread

Posted by ckn on 25 July 2015 - 12:51 PM

I turned on the telly to see if there was anything worthwhile on the sport channels.  I got a little smile seeing "Live RL One Day Cup" thinking that there was a rugby league game on that I didn't know about, unfortunately it's cricket :(

#3164253 Why Private is Always Better Than Public.

Posted by ckn on 25 July 2015 - 09:55 AM

One of my NHS teams is currently providing consultancy at private sector rates to a private healthcare company.  We've already allocated the quite substantial income to providing a few projects free of charge for NHS areas that struggle for funding.  Previously, this consultancy work used to go to one of the major consultancy firms, I'm hoping that we can secure doing far more of this work in future so we can fund more NHS essential work at the expense of for-profit companies.


A well run public sector organisation is better than a private sector one where there's a direct comparison of services simply because the "profit" a public sector organisation will be reinvested within the public purse for the greater good rather than going into the pockets of a few.

A perfect example: If a consultancy company gets a bit of work then the net profit margin they make from the NHS is typically around 40-50%, and up to 70% in some cases, with every bit of that going into the pockets of the private sector as profit.  If my team does it at the same price then we take that nice profit (which is far higher as the public sector NHS is more efficient than most consultancy companies, mainly due to far, far lower salaries) and reinvest it in the NHS for the ultimate benefit of the patient.


What annoys me though is that there's plenty of NHS senior managers who think they have to go externally to these consultancies to get advice at £1500 p/d when they can get identical, and patient outcome focussed rather than profit focussed, outcome from within the NHS for under half that price.

#3164242 Save the Bees

Posted by ckn on 25 July 2015 - 09:39 AM

If I've banked all my money then fek to the rest who cares about them.

That's it in a nutshell for so many policies, screw tomorrow just to make sure a narrow few are well looked after today.  The narrow minded idiocy around such things as bees, where there's solid evidence of the impact, is just astonishing.  It really just beggars belief that the government lets farmers away with what they do now from things like this to widespread abuse of antibiotics that ratchet up antibiotic resistance.  On that latter one, it's not the sole cause of antibiotic resistance but it's certainly a significant factor, we're down to last option and trial drugs for certain infections with no credible belief that we'll continue to keep up for more than another decade before surgeries start to become too risky and people start dying again from relatively simple infections.


We genuinely took one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse and turned him into a minor issue in relative terms but we're doing our damnedest to bring him back again.  (The first part as ably explained by XKCD).  Mortality due to infectious disease is on the rise again and a significant bit of that is antibiotic resistance with poorer countries unable to access the latest (and unfortunately already in widespread use) generation of antibiotics.  Yet, we allow farmers to routinely blast their animals with antibiotics just to make an extra £ or two from healthy looking animals.


But then people who point out things like that are accused of wanting to harm industry, same with the bees above, same with the frustration at the obvious hampering of renewable energy.


But then, vote Tory, get the country's future treated as the toilet paper for a narrow few.

#3161979 10% pay rise for MPs

Posted by ckn on 21 July 2015 - 03:15 PM

The Finance Bill is being debated now.  I count 8 Tory MPs, 5 Labour MPs (including 3 on the front bench with one almost horizontal with boredom, seriously put on 504 now if you have Sky access), 7 SNP MPs and a few assorted others.  Yep, on the year's most important Bill, there are more SNP MPs in house than Labour.  And it's the SNP Treasury Spokesman who is leading the opposition.  There's not even 5% of the MPs in there.  They'll all dredge themselves from their hidey-holes to vote though, except Labour who won't.


For those who think MPs deserve the pay rise, go on justify it on that evidence.

#3161937 Labour leadership contest

Posted by ckn on 21 July 2015 - 01:50 PM

The other, decent, Labour MPs must be ripping their hair out in frustration. 

It's interesting to see the Speaker putting up a better opposition than the Labour front bench!  That Bercow bloke could grow on me if he keeps up that sort of attitude to the Tories...

#3161919 Labour leadership contest

Posted by ckn on 21 July 2015 - 01:17 PM

I think after all the candidates apart fro Corbyn abstaining on the welfare vote means that whoever is elected Leader faces the next 5 years of tearing itself apart ,but that is the Labour Party.

Stretching the line of on-topic here but the two votes last night carried with 308 for, that's not half the House.  The Tory majority of 12 would have forced every Tory MP to turn up if Labour had opposed.  Even the DUP gave a three line whip on the subject.  Imagine the fight Cameron would have internally to get every MP to turn up to every major vote if Labour made a point of the issue rather than appeasement?  That's where Harman, Burnham and Cooper have it all wrong with their misplaced abstain whip and the support of it.  A bit of pressure and it'll be the Tories tearing themselves apart because the cynical ones will start asking for concessions to turn up all the time and toe the party line.

#3161884 US Presidential Election 2016

Posted by ckn on 21 July 2015 - 11:55 AM

When the alternative is a Sarah Palin or a Donald Trump then a Bush seems a very sensible choice. <_<

And if all else fails, Bush has the Florida Supreme Court to back him up, just like they did with his brother. :ph34r:

#3161497 10% pay rise for MPs

Posted by ckn on 20 July 2015 - 05:18 PM

One of the most important bills of the year, the Welfare Bill, is up for its 2nd reading (the important one) and Parliament is substantially under 1/4 full.  I even think 1/4 full is grossly optimistic going by what I can see on telly (channel 504 on Sky).  One other Labour shadow front-bencher and none of the big-hitters have turned up to hear Stephen Timms' rebuttal (the Shadow Work and Pensions Minister).  There are five Labour MPs in total on the front two green benches of their side.


Worth their pay?  Not a bloody bit of it on this showing, never mind their pay rise.


Edit: Corbyn spotted hiding right in the top corner behind the SNP and Northern Irish MPs.

#3161398 Bradfords attendance today

Posted by ckn on 20 July 2015 - 02:55 PM

I've spent a bit of time trying to work out a suitable moderator post for this thread but can't so I'll leave it with:


Oh come on, can some of you try for once not to take a positive starting thread and contaminate it with your negative dross?  It really is getting boring now.