Earn 20,000 Avios with a subscription to The Telegraph

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Biy says:

  11 May11 May 09:15

  I don’t think any paper is worth £520, especially the Telegraph who suppress critical stories which may impact their advertising.

• Julian says:

  11 May11 May 09:19

  Nearly a pound a day just to access the paper online!!! They surely have to be kidding.

  Time was (about 10 years ago) when The Times were sending me annual voucher offers for their print edition for only about £100 per annum or £2 per week (including the Sunday Times as part of it)

  Quite different from say Nutmeg where I was on the verge of wanting to move £50k in to an equity related ISA anyway so the 50,000 Avios offer (which were credited to my Avios account fairly promptly within two weeks of my money arriving at Nutmeg from Nationwide) gave me the push to take some action.

  Sad to say print newspapers have had their day, even though one of my close relatives still earns their living by working at one of them.

  • the real harry1 says:

    11 May11 May 09:26

    you got it all wrong – it’s cheap Avios @ 0.65p plus free newspaper subscription on top, the way I see it

    • Julian says:

      11 May11 May 09:52

      It only works like that for someone who always bought the print edition of the newspaper daily at a news shop at full price. In which case the Avios are free and the paper is at a discount to the usual price.

      For anyone else its a load of useless recycling at a price per Avios that is over 50% more than the maximum of 0.4p per Avios (Tesco Clubcard voucher rate) at which I am prepared to proactively buy a currency regularly prone to sudden huge devaluations.

      • jonty says:

        11 May11 May 10:43

        0.4p per avios or 0.4 Clubcard points per Avios? I’d value a Clubcard point at a lot more than 1p.

        • Julian says:

          11 May11 May 11:06

          Surely a Clubcard point is only worth more than 1p each if you enjoy going to their choice of theme parks or restaurants or museums etc or jumping through formerly incredibly complicated hoops to use them on ferry journeys. Or if you are happy buying the restricted choice of goods Tesco make available on their double up promotions.

          And as they also expire after 2 years and can only be rolled over for 2 more years once you do have to make use of them some how or other.

• JD says:

  11 May11 May 09:45

  Virgin Red were giving away a 6 month digital subscription for nothing not so long ago. Even then I didn’t bother!

• mark2 says:

  11 May11 May 11:40

  Alternatively, if you spend £10 every day in Waitrose, you can have the paper of your choice (always plenty of Guardians left over) as well as at least 3650 Avios and 14,600 Virgin Miles (21,300 Hilton points).

  • mark2 says:

    11 May11 May 11:41

    and a free coffee

    • flyforfun says:

      11 May11 May 11:44

      Haven’t they cut that out recently? Made it conditional on a purchase or something?

      • mark2 says:

        11 May11 May 12:07

        Yes, that’s why I said ‘if you spend £10’

• Nick_C says:

  11 May11 May 11:51

  The political comments on this thread are gratuitous, and add nothing of value to the article.

  I would buy the Telegraph, The Mail, the Morning Star or Socialist Worker if it came with a shed load of very cheap Avios.

  A lot of people read the Telegraph. If this article helps those people to pick up some free Avios then it’s achieved it’s purpose.

  There are plenty of internet sites where you can slag off people for their political views if that is what gets you off. This site is usually friendly and helpful. Would be nice to keep it that way.

  • Callum says:

    11 May11 May 12:44

    Robs a big boy, if he doesn’t like it he’s perfectly capable of saying so himself…

    Though if you read the likes of the Mail you deserve to be “slagged off” (if you view the comments here as slagging people off, I’m truly jealous of what must be a perfect existence!) 24/7 using any and every method available. Unless you’re my grandparents of course, where it’s strictly done behind their backs because they’re “from a different era”!

    • Nick_C says:

      11 May11 May 12:54

      I wasn’t thinking of Rob! I was thinking of people who are Telegraph readers who also read this site. I’m not one of them, but the comments are rude and nasty, and unexpected on this site. People are entitled to their views. On a political forum, if people are expressing views and you want to disagree with them then that is fair game. To bring politics and disrespectful attitudes onto a site dedicated to maximising airmiles etc is unwelcome.

      • Leo_C says:

        11 May11 May 15:02

        Nick , I share your sentiments entirely. Rob works hard on HFP is about helping one another, mutually respecting others and debating maximising Air Miles not for political commentary. I respectfully ask people to not hijack the forum in this way.

    • LB says:

      11 May11 May 13:03

      Play nicely boys…

    • Rationalist says:

      11 May11 May 13:10

      Always nice when someone uses a term like “deserves”. Just like someone saying a victim was “asking for it”. Must be fun being a moral arbiter, though you seem quite prejudiced so I don’t think you are qualified for it.

      • Callum says:

        12 May12 May 01:27

        Yes, criticising people who financially support a vicious, vitriolic, lying, racist, sexist, homophobic, sleezebag publication is exactly the same as saying victims are “asking for it”…

        I wouldn’t use the word fun, though I guess there’s a thin veil of satisfaction for exposing such ghastly people as the antiquated relics that they are.

        • Rationalist says:

          12 May12 May 06:51

          It’s always funny to see how those who pontificate as if they own the moral high ground can so easily denigrate vast swathes of people with sweeping broadbrush statements. I suppose seeing life in black and white makes things much simpler for those who are unwilling or unable to appreciate nuance. Almost sounds like you should be writing for the Daily Mail!

  • Divas says:

    11 May11 May 15:29

    Don’t you have a conscience? When does it kick in?
    Even if you are net upfront cost to the paper, you are delivering them a paying subscriber number. They know they are buying subscriber numbers by bribing people to subscribe.
    I can afford not to be bribed.

    I’ve turned down plenty of fare deals involving transiting highly questionable countries, even if cost is thousands less it is a question of conscience.

    People are perfectly free to speak up when their own red lines are crossed. Free democratic civilized society depends upon people speaking up.

    Nobody is trying to ram their views onto anyone else. They are just speaking up. I would think less of this site if it did not allow that.

    • the real harry1 says:

      11 May11 May 15:59

      What about ‘turning down’ the opportunity to post your political drivel on a points site & saving it for somewhere more appropriate?

      • Divas says:

        11 May11 May 16:37

        ‘political drivel’ – you are the person being rude to other posters.

        When it comes to matters of conscience, you are not seeking an argument simply by saying ‘not in my name’. Our civilised free society relies about people not quietly nodding along, but simply saying ‘no’.

        That is all people are doing here. Saying that this crosses their boundary.

        Your position appears to be that people should just keep quiet. That’s not our society. You speak up on matters of conscience. That is what protects our society and values.

        Nobody is looking to debate the matter here. But it seems neither you ‘the real harry1’ nor ‘Nick_C’ understand this. It seems you can’t see the difference between simply speaking up and saying ‘not in my name’ vs having an argument and looking for a debate.

        This mini-thread on this post began with ‘Nick_C’ seeking to silence people merely saying ‘not in my name’.

        I think you should reflect upon that.
        (I will certainly be reflecting upon helping you with things again in the future).

        • DV says:

          11 May11 May 16:59

          Self-indulgent crap. Society does not rely on people saying no to the Telegraph or the Guardian. Grow up.

        • Rationalist says:

          11 May11 May 18:14

          “I think you should reflect upon that.
          (I will certainly be reflecting upon helping you with things again in the future)”

          I’m sure they will cope without your input! Your pomposity is matched only by your obnoxiousness.

        • Anna says:

          11 May11 May 18:31

          There’s a big difference between expressing an opinion and accusing someone else of not having a conscience because they don’t agree with you!

        • Divas says:

          11 May11 May 22:00

          Anna – there is also a big difference between asking and accusing.

        • Divas says:

          11 May11 May 22:06

          DV – you say “Self-indulgent crap. Society does not rely on people saying no to the Telegraph or the Guardian. Grow up.”

          Focusing on the middle sentence (that’s the polite one – without the insults) your position appears to be that the nature of society is not the product of the actions of its members. I don’t see how that argument logically stands up.

          It appears to be an argument of ‘judge us by the values we claim to subscribe to, not by our actual actions’.

        • Divas says:

          11 May11 May 22:13

          Rationalist – I remind you that those of us who disagree, did not come here looking for an argument. All we were doing was just saying ‘not in our name’.

          Beyond saying effectively that, I only interacted in two ways:

          Firstly, I responded to someone posting that they liked the idea of doing it if they would be a cost to the paper (as they didn’t like it). Given they clearly shared my views I do not think this interaction is of interest to you. (I pointed out that I felt this was a flat approach).

          Secondly, I responded to someone asking for people to not raise their objections (this mini-thread). I pointed out that we are NOT seeking to argue the point here. Rather, we are simply voicing our concern and saying ‘not in our name’ (effectively).

          It is your response that has the unpleasantness: “Your pomposity is matched only by your obnoxiousness.”
          I would have to wonder if the point makes you feel uncomfortable in some way?
          Otherwise why are you being so unpleasant and insulting to people?

        • Rationalist says:

          11 May11 May 23:39

          Are you still droning on?

          Your hyperbole is astounding. “Not in my name”, “red lines”, “civilised free society”. It’s a newspaper subscription offering Avios, not a meet and greet with Robert Mugabe.

          Was my comment unpleasant? If so, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you are obnoxious and pompous and every word you type only further demonstrates that. Don’t shoot the messenger!

          Looking forward to my reply already!

        • Divas says:

          12 May12 May 03:22

          Rationalist – you say “Your hyperbole is astounding. ….It’s a newspaper subscription offering Avios, not a meet and greet with Robert Mugabe.”

          I think my response to that is captured simply by “First they came …”.

          The fact you don’t think it is unacceptable and a newspaper that you cannot remain silent about is fine. I’m not asking you to speak up, I’m not demanding you agree.
          You don’t have to agree. But you have no place in a free society to say we must be quiet and should not speak. Those of us who do think it is a speak up situation. We are speaking up – nothing more. We are not seeking to argue the point here. Were are simply speaking up rather than nodding along.

          Now as for the other words you use “droning on”, “obnoxious”, “pompous”. I point out that I’m engaging your your points. But I’m not calling you names.

        • Divas says:

          12 May12 May 03:31

          “the real harry1” says “Would it be your wankerish attitude?”

          I’m engaging with points raised. You are just being rude. I know there is a wide demographic to this site, but …if you don’t like what someone is saying ignore them. Or engage with them. Don’t just post abuse.

      • Callum says:

        12 May12 May 01:32

        Someone with your incessant off topic posting history has very little right to throw a hissy fit about being inappropriate…

        Throwing insults around while whinging about civility is also a rather moronic way to conduct a discussion (a discussion that, somewhat amusingly, wouldn’t be happening if you just butted out!).

        • Rationalist says:

          12 May12 May 07:32

          A few corrections to your erroneous comment.

          It was actually you who for some unknown need decided to bring in an unrelated newspaper which has no Avios offers going. This added nothing to the discussion other than a chance for you to do a bit of virtue signalling. No relevance to collecting Avios at all.

          I haven’t thrown around insults, I have merely summed up quality of the comments by another contributor who has totally gone over the top. When someone is being condescending to other posters and talking down to them it is not uncivil to point that out to them.

        • Genghis says:

          12 May12 May 08:21

          I can sense someone will be doing some weeding this morning

        • the real harry1 says:

          12 May12 May 19:05

          Percy Thrower?

    • Rationalist says:

      12 May12 May 08:06

      Well you surpassed yourself in that last comment.

      To cite the phrase “first they came for…” knowing its connotations in the context of a few additional newspaper subscriptions for the Telegraph is laughable and embarrassing.

      Nowhere in my posts have I demanded silence so you have misunderstood or misconstrued.

      As far as my use of adjectives to describe your actions, that is not name calling so again you either misunderstand or misconstrue.

      You claim you didn’t come to argue the point, you just wanted the world to know “NOT IN MY NAME”. In that case when you had made your own personal stand, in the comments section of HFP no less, presumably you would have moved on, safe in the knowledge you had made yourself heard and deprived the Telegraph of a subscriber……..

      • Ro says:

        12 May12 May 08:20

        Your irony game is on point.

• Fenny says:

  11 May11 May 13:09

  I have a “free” sub to the Telegraph because I play their fantasy football. It annoys me that they send me all kinds of emails trailing articles that turn out to be premium only. I occasionally read some of the non-premium content to get a different perspective on the latest “news”, but I’m not prepared to cough up for the other articles. (It might have been a different matter if they’d run a European FF competition this year, but they didn’t!).

  But I guess I’d class as an existing subscriber and wouldn’t be eligible for the points.

• Jas Gill says:

  11 May11 May 13:42

  Afternoon All

  O/T

  I’ve got a £13,000 non-Amex spend coming up. Currently, only have the Hilton Honours Visa card. What card should I apply for in order to get the maximum benefit from this spend. Please note that I can split the spend between two cards, therefore, can refer the wife.
  Any replies much appreciated.
  Regards
  Jas

  • Genghis says:

    11 May11 May 13:50

    HSBC card if eligible. If not, IHG black.

    • Lawro says:

      11 May11 May 14:06

      Virgin Black also worth a look at 1 mile per £1.

  • Anna says:

    11 May11 May 18:08

    Lloyds MasterCard x 2 would get you nearly 2 upgrade vouchers?

• Genghis says:

  11 May11 May 17:30

  We all have different political leanings but unite with an interest in points and miles / travel / lounges etc. I certainly have no interest in discussing politics on HfP (I have enough debate at work over lunch). What is Rob’s take on comments with a political angle on his site? Any OT guidance?

  • Rob says:

    11 May11 May 20:29

    I have let it slide today purely because it is under an article about The Telegraph and therefore unlikely to be read by anyone who doesn’t have an opinion on The Telegraph. I don’t recommend trying it elsewhere 🙂

  • Ro says:

    12 May12 May 08:21

    Genghis i thought people united here with their love for Alex Cruz ;-)?

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.