FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Channel4
Channel4
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? " Money! Pay for their Xmas party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters???" it's publically owned not publically funded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters???" And the award for spectacularly misunderstanding goes to...! C4 is 100% funded by advertising revenue and sales/royalties of their shows around the world. Not one penny of taxpayers money goes to funding C4. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? And the award for spectacularly misunderstanding goes to...! C4 is 100% funded by advertising revenue and sales/royalties of their shows around the world. Not one penny of taxpayers money goes to funding C4." Yep it is a successful business but as it doesn’t kiss the governments ass it has to be broken up and sold off to the highest (most likely American) bidder so bang goes it’s public service remit….unless it gets sold to the Russians who might make Boris sit up and beg instead of trying to do his Churchill tribute act again….lmao! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!" It doesn’t cost you a penny!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. " Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. " You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!" a quote worthy of Nadine Dorries herself! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters???" So we can have them privately owned and controlled by rich individuals who support politicians they back such as Putin? Great idea. Read up on the Hungarian media too. They are mostly controlled by the leaders party. Hence no arguments against the state allowed . He’s a Putin sympathiser too. The bbc us the best safeguard for an independent media we will ever have . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It you vote labour will make country go backwards AGAIN " It hasn’t gone forwards in the last decade of Tory rule so can you recommend who else to vote for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!" How much taxpayer money is spent on C4? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! How much taxpayer money is spent on C4? " Answer is Fk all! How much does Channel 4 cost the taxpayer? In a tweet, Baroness Davidson added: “Channel 4 is publicly-owned, not publicly-funded. It doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. “It also, by charter, commissions content but doesn't make/own its own.6 hours ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! How much taxpayer money is spent on C4? " zero C4 makes around one billion pounds a year from advertising and uses that to comision and buy in content it costs you and me zip nowt didly squat eff all nothing nada zero . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters???" God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!" Well that was a lazy comment and showed you know absolutely nothing about the subject…. Honest question… did you research or what it just the standard knee jerk reaction to anything rail against | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? " . All state run broadcasting should be privatised. Why should private companies have to compete against those that are publicly funded. It is hardly a level playing field . I cannot see too many members of the public shredding tears with broadcasting being privatised. The sooner it happens the better. If I am paying for a service at least I want choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remit" Just as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? . All state run broadcasting should be privatised. Why should private companies have to compete against those that are publicly funded. It is hardly a level playing field . I cannot see too many members of the public shredding tears with broadcasting being privatised. The sooner it happens the better. If I am paying for a service at least I want choice. " you're not paying for C4. So all is well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny! "I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed..."Is it aired in Russia?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
Is it aired in Russia? "lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!" . ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,, Hello !!!! Is that you there Nadine ???  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. ." Comcast Time Warner Disney News corp National amusement Sony ....the 'big six' own pretty much all of the global news on a commercial level. The BBC is pretty much just the propaganda wing of the UK government. You're never going to get the truth from any of the legacy media companies. Doubtful if you'll get it from independent outlets also... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed..."I don’t watch left wing propaganda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda "Fact-based news is left wing now? Gosh you learn something every day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Comcast Time Warner Disney News corp National amusement Sony ....the 'big six' own pretty much all of the global news on a commercial level. The BBC is pretty much just the propaganda wing of the UK government. You're never going to get the truth from any of the legacy media companies. Doubtful if you'll get it from independent outlets also..." That list's a little out of date. Discovery look the prime bidder for Ch4, maybe they'll sack off ITN and install GB news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda "So where do you get your facts from, the internet? Everyone knows what a reliable source of truth that is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? . All state run broadcasting should be privatised. Why should private companies have to compete against those that are publicly funded. It is hardly a level playing field . I cannot see too many members of the public shredding tears with broadcasting being privatised. The sooner it happens the better. If I am paying for a service at least I want choice. " Talk about blindly posting without having read multiple posts above! Anyone would think you drop in, post a bit of propaganda and then pop off again  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda
So where do you get your facts from, the internet?
Everyone knows what a reliable source of truth that is."Ticktock can’t be refuted. Everything there is true! The whole industry knows it is the go to source of global energy news! So probably good for media industry news too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? . All state run broadcasting should be privatised. Why should private companies have to compete against those that are publicly funded. It is hardly a level playing field . I cannot see too many members of the public shredding tears with broadcasting being privatised. The sooner it happens the better. If I am paying for a service at least I want choice. " Factually incorrect if we are talking about Channel 4 which is as you should know self-funding | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda "This is where we are now! Britain in 2022 has been pulled so far to the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda "you must be still doggedly watching RT News and Tommy Robinson podcasts from a mexican jail through various layers of VPN over Onion to get your extreme far-right information these days then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!a quote worthy of Nadine Dorries herself!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda "I always suspected Nadine Dorries was a swinger. Does she live in Slough? .
I know we’re all beating our heads against a brick wall, but…..no taxpayers’ money goes into C4.
I watched Dorries’s appearance in front of the Select Committee when this had to be explained to her again last night. It was excrutiating watching the cogs in her tiny brain turn as this was explained to her.
Shameful we have a government with people so dense in.
There’s a backlash, with even Tories speaking out against the move now. I think it’ll get quietly shelved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! It doesn’t cost you a penny!
I suggest she watches Channel 4 news to become better informed...
I don’t watch left wing propaganda
I always suspected Nadine Dorries was a swinger. Does she live in Slough? .
I know we’re all beating our heads against a brick wall, but…..no taxpayers’ money goes into C4.
I watched Dorries’s appearance in front of the Select Committee when this had to be explained to her again last night. It was excrutiating watching the cogs in her tiny brain turn as this was explained to her.
Shameful we have a government with people so dense in.
There’s a backlash, with even Tories speaking out against the move now. I think it’ll get quietly shelved."Yep, another U turn , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadine's appearance at the Select Committee is a must watch ,, she informs MPs that Channel4 receives tax payers money , Her fellow Conservative MP ,Damian Green , informs her that it doesn't , Nadine's reply ,,, ,,, " and so. eractually yeah. and. but " " She is as thick as a Boxing Day turd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadine's appearance at the Select Committee is a must watch ,, she informs MPs that Channel4 receives tax payers money , Her fellow Conservative MP ,Damian Green , informs her that it doesn't , Nadine's reply ,,, ,,, " and so. eractually yeah. and. but " She is as thick as a Boxing Day turd " . ,,, ,, it's not actually the words you need to listen to ,it's the silences between each and every word that are deafening , , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadine's appearance at the Select Committee is a must watch ,, she informs MPs that Channel4 receives tax payers money , Her fellow Conservative MP ,Damian Green , informs her that it doesn't , Nadine's reply ,,, ,,, " and so. eractually yeah. and. but " She is as thick as a Boxing Day turd . ,,, ,, it's not actually the words you need to listen to ,it's the silences between each and every word that are deafening , , " You can hear her brain straining | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” " Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". " First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So have you stopped talking about channel 4 now Mitzi????
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!! "Top quality programmes like “Naked Attraction” will be missed! It seriously, the government own channel 4. So let them sell it off!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So have you stopped talking about channel 4 now Mitzi????
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!!
Top quality programmes like “Naked Attraction” will be missed! It seriously, the government own channel 4. So let them sell it off!!!"PMSL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So have you stopped talking about channel 4 now Mitzi????
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!!
Top quality programmes like “Naked Attraction” will be missed! It seriously, the government own channel 4. So let them sell it off!!!"And for every “naked attraction” there is a “8 out of 10 cats” or a “Derry Girls” So if that is your reasoning it’s a very very flimsy one at best….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So have you stopped talking about channel 4 now Mitzi????
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!!
Top quality programmes like “Naked Attraction” will be missed! It seriously, the government own channel 4. So let them sell it off!!!"I am going to be pedantic here
The “Government” ie the Executive own NOTHING. Let’s be really clear on this.
C4 is a “State Owned” asset. ie WE own it.
And as already made clear many times on this thread, our ownership of C4 costs the taxpayer absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero! It is totally self funding. However, the state ownership aspect means that alongside programming of a more commercial nature (which they need to generate overseas sales revenue and advertising revenue) they also have a public remit to provide programming that would not otherwise get made (minority groups, educational content etc).
As someone has said, sell it off and we get another C5 and any benefit to the Exchequer will soon be forgotten and swallowed up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered." I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadine's appearance at the Select Committee is a must watch ,, she informs MPs that Channel4 receives tax payers money , Her fellow Conservative MP ,Damian Green , informs her that it doesn't , Nadine's reply ,,, ,,, " and so. eractually yeah. and. but " She is as thick as a Boxing Day turd " The parallels increase with each post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.." You seem to have made an assumption I am “of the left” which is wrong. I am most assuredly a Centrist who sees the need for compromise and a marriage of the elements of Capitalism and Socialism but always ultimately for the benefit of society. Profit and healthcare are an oxymoron in my opinion. Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice. A civilised society should do all it can to look after everyone. IMHO there should be more of a discussion about elective surgery and treatment. Cosmetic treatment where there is no mental health impact. Focus on primary care and actual suck people. I also think that everyone entering the UK (who is not a British citizen or a genuine refugee/asylum seeker) should be required by law to have health/travel insurance. In that way resources are better targeted at Brit Citz/tax payers. I love how you hand wave away pre-existing or hereditary conditions as if these don’t matter! Good luck with that and paying a premium/getting cover. As for no evidence re USA style - seriously! Do some research into people like Aaron Banks. Look into what the USA will require for a trade deal. It’s all there! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.. You seem to have made an assumption I am “of the left” which is wrong. I am most assuredly a Centrist who sees the need for compromise and a marriage of the elements of Capitalism and Socialism but always ultimately for the benefit of society. Profit and healthcare are an oxymoron in my opinion. Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice. A civilised society should do all it can to look after everyone. IMHO there should be more of a discussion about elective surgery and treatment. Cosmetic treatment where there is no mental health impact. Focus on primary care and actual suck people. I also think that everyone entering the UK (who is not a British citizen or a genuine refugee/asylum seeker) should be required by law to have health/travel insurance. In that way resources are better targeted at Brit Citz/tax payers. I love how you hand wave away pre-existing or hereditary conditions as if these don’t matter! Good luck with that and paying a premium/getting cover. As for no evidence re USA style - seriously! Do some research into people like Aaron Banks. Look into what the USA will require for a trade deal. It’s all there!" On many things we are on the same page. I didn't say that US company's would not provide care but that doesn't mean a US style system. I'm sure there are US company's involved in Germany and other country's. You said I quote "Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice". On that I totally disagree. Sick people are consumers and should have choice. When I need a hospital in Germany I choose which one I want to go to, and which doctor will treat me. I don't get TOLD where to go. As for refusing cover or hiking premiums for pre exiting complaints that just doesn't happen. The only circumstance that I know of in Germany is when people have opted out of the state partnership insurance to save money when the fixed premiums are cheaper than the percentage taken by the state partners. You cannot just hop back when you feel like it. But it only really affects a few higher earners and there are still safeguards built into that. This myth that is always trumpeted by the left that private automatically means US. is exactly that, a myth. You say you are not from the left but it appears that you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Take a look how others work, you may just get a surprise. Just as an example. When Mrs H felt a lump in her breast a few years ago she phoned the doctor for an appointment on the Monday morning. The doctor (not the receptionist) said I don't need to see you and gave her the phone number of a specialist hospital. She phoned the hospital and got an appointment for the next day (Tuesday). They did the biopsy there and then and she got the result (not good) the following day (Wednesday) She was admitted into hospital the following Monday, had the operation on Tuesday, and was home on Friday. The only thing she paid for was the optional extra of a single room. Yep shit private health care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.. You seem to have made an assumption I am “of the left” which is wrong. I am most assuredly a Centrist who sees the need for compromise and a marriage of the elements of Capitalism and Socialism but always ultimately for the benefit of society. Profit and healthcare are an oxymoron in my opinion. Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice. A civilised society should do all it can to look after everyone. IMHO there should be more of a discussion about elective surgery and treatment. Cosmetic treatment where there is no mental health impact. Focus on primary care and actual suck people. I also think that everyone entering the UK (who is not a British citizen or a genuine refugee/asylum seeker) should be required by law to have health/travel insurance. In that way resources are better targeted at Brit Citz/tax payers. I love how you hand wave away pre-existing or hereditary conditions as if these don’t matter! Good luck with that and paying a premium/getting cover. As for no evidence re USA style - seriously! Do some research into people like Aaron Banks. Look into what the USA will require for a trade deal. It’s all there! On many things we are on the same page. I didn't say that US company's would not provide care but that doesn't mean a US style system. I'm sure there are US company's involved in Germany and other country's. You said I quote "Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice". On that I totally disagree. Sick people are consumers and should have choice. When I need a hospital in Germany I choose which one I want to go to, and which doctor will treat me. I don't get TOLD where to go. As for refusing cover or hiking premiums for pre exiting complaints that just doesn't happen. The only circumstance that I know of in Germany is when people have opted out of the state partnership insurance to save money when the fixed premiums are cheaper than the percentage taken by the state partners. You cannot just hop back when you feel like it. But it only really affects a few higher earners and there are still safeguards built into that. This myth that is always trumpeted by the left that private automatically means US. is exactly that, a myth. You say you are not from the left but it appears that you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Take a look how others work, you may just get a surprise. Just as an example. When Mrs H felt a lump in her breast a few years ago she phoned the doctor for an appointment on the Monday morning. The doctor (not the receptionist) said I don't need to see you and gave her the phone number of a specialist hospital. She phoned the hospital and got an appointment for the next day (Tuesday). They did the biopsy there and then and she got the result (not good) the following day (Wednesday) She was admitted into hospital the following Monday, had the operation on Tuesday, and was home on Friday. The only thing she paid for was the optional extra of a single room. Yep shit private health care." First and MOST important thing is...I hope Mrs H is ok? I will look into things more as what you describe sounds good. How much do people pay a year in Germany and how does that compare with NI contributions? (Even though we all know the UK Govt does not ringfence NI for healthcare and NI covers social security too!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. ." I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So have you stopped talking about channel 4 now Mitzi????
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!!
Top quality programmes like “Naked Attraction” will be missed! It seriously, the government own channel 4. So let them sell it off!!!
I am going to be pedantic here
The “Government” ie the Executive own NOTHING. Let’s be really clear on this.
C4 is a “State Owned” asset. ie WE own it.
And as already made clear many times on this thread, our ownership of C4 costs the taxpayer absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero! It is totally self funding. However, the state ownership aspect means that alongside programming of a more commercial nature (which they need to generate overseas sales revenue and advertising revenue) they also have a public remit to provide programming that would not otherwise get made (minority groups, educational content etc).
As someone has said, sell it off and we get another C5 and any benefit to the Exchequer will soon be forgotten and swallowed up."Worse than that. C4 both pays its way, and because of being public owned tends to invest in the creation of a lot of local product. It uses companies that have UK employees and pay UK taxes. The net effect of C4's public ownership is to generate money and jobs in the UK. If dimwit Dorries is allowed to sell off C4, which is not in the first place owned by the government, it is owned by me and you and every other uk citizen, all of this investment will undoubtedly stop. The company would become foreign owned by some big group that would bleed its finances dry and just broadcast their own cheap content. There would be an instant cash lump income for the government, which would no doubt be just as instantly embezzled by ministers friends and relatives (I'm not saying that this government is corrupt but... well yes, actually they are corrupt), followed by a reduction in both monetary and cultural income for this country. Anybody that believes selling off C4 (which I reiterate is not the property of the government to be able to morally sell) is a good idea, has to be dimmer than Dorries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.. You seem to have made an assumption I am “of the left” which is wrong. I am most assuredly a Centrist who sees the need for compromise and a marriage of the elements of Capitalism and Socialism but always ultimately for the benefit of society. Profit and healthcare are an oxymoron in my opinion. Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice. A civilised society should do all it can to look after everyone. IMHO there should be more of a discussion about elective surgery and treatment. Cosmetic treatment where there is no mental health impact. Focus on primary care and actual suck people. I also think that everyone entering the UK (who is not a British citizen or a genuine refugee/asylum seeker) should be required by law to have health/travel insurance. In that way resources are better targeted at Brit Citz/tax payers. I love how you hand wave away pre-existing or hereditary conditions as if these don’t matter! Good luck with that and paying a premium/getting cover. As for no evidence re USA style - seriously! Do some research into people like Aaron Banks. Look into what the USA will require for a trade deal. It’s all there! On many things we are on the same page. I didn't say that US company's would not provide care but that doesn't mean a US style system. I'm sure there are US company's involved in Germany and other country's. You said I quote "Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice". On that I totally disagree. Sick people are consumers and should have choice. When I need a hospital in Germany I choose which one I want to go to, and which doctor will treat me. I don't get TOLD where to go. As for refusing cover or hiking premiums for pre exiting complaints that just doesn't happen. The only circumstance that I know of in Germany is when people have opted out of the state partnership insurance to save money when the fixed premiums are cheaper than the percentage taken by the state partners. You cannot just hop back when you feel like it. But it only really affects a few higher earners and there are still safeguards built into that. This myth that is always trumpeted by the left that private automatically means US. is exactly that, a myth. You say you are not from the left but it appears that you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Take a look how others work, you may just get a surprise. Just as an example. When Mrs H felt a lump in her breast a few years ago she phoned the doctor for an appointment on the Monday morning. The doctor (not the receptionist) said I don't need to see you and gave her the phone number of a specialist hospital. She phoned the hospital and got an appointment for the next day (Tuesday). They did the biopsy there and then and she got the result (not good) the following day (Wednesday) She was admitted into hospital the following Monday, had the operation on Tuesday, and was home on Friday. The only thing she paid for was the optional extra of a single room. Yep shit private health care. First and MOST important thing is...I hope Mrs H is ok? I will look into things more as what you describe sounds good. How much do people pay a year in Germany and how does that compare with NI contributions? (Even though we all know the UK Govt does not ringfence NI for healthcare and NI covers social security too!)" Yes she is fine thanks 8 years cancer free. The cost in Germany is a fair bit more than in the UK. If you are working you pay 14% employee contribution and the employer pays the same. That is just for healthcare. Pension and unemployment cover are extra. However we do get what we pay for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.. You seem to have made an assumption I am “of the left” which is wrong. I am most assuredly a Centrist who sees the need for compromise and a marriage of the elements of Capitalism and Socialism but always ultimately for the benefit of society. Profit and healthcare are an oxymoron in my opinion. Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice. A civilised society should do all it can to look after everyone. IMHO there should be more of a discussion about elective surgery and treatment. Cosmetic treatment where there is no mental health impact. Focus on primary care and actual suck people. I also think that everyone entering the UK (who is not a British citizen or a genuine refugee/asylum seeker) should be required by law to have health/travel insurance. In that way resources are better targeted at Brit Citz/tax payers. I love how you hand wave away pre-existing or hereditary conditions as if these don’t matter! Good luck with that and paying a premium/getting cover. As for no evidence re USA style - seriously! Do some research into people like Aaron Banks. Look into what the USA will require for a trade deal. It’s all there! On many things we are on the same page. I didn't say that US company's would not provide care but that doesn't mean a US style system. I'm sure there are US company's involved in Germany and other country's. You said I quote "Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice". On that I totally disagree. Sick people are consumers and should have choice. When I need a hospital in Germany I choose which one I want to go to, and which doctor will treat me. I don't get TOLD where to go. As for refusing cover or hiking premiums for pre exiting complaints that just doesn't happen. The only circumstance that I know of in Germany is when people have opted out of the state partnership insurance to save money when the fixed premiums are cheaper than the percentage taken by the state partners. You cannot just hop back when you feel like it. But it only really affects a few higher earners and there are still safeguards built into that. This myth that is always trumpeted by the left that private automatically means US. is exactly that, a myth. You say you are not from the left but it appears that you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Take a look how others work, you may just get a surprise. Just as an example. When Mrs H felt a lump in her breast a few years ago she phoned the doctor for an appointment on the Monday morning. The doctor (not the receptionist) said I don't need to see you and gave her the phone number of a specialist hospital. She phoned the hospital and got an appointment for the next day (Tuesday). They did the biopsy there and then and she got the result (not good) the following day (Wednesday) She was admitted into hospital the following Monday, had the operation on Tuesday, and was home on Friday. The only thing she paid for was the optional extra of a single room. Yep shit private health care." Interesting reading and hope Mrs H is ok. The issue is private healthcare by compulsory premiums is in effect a national health service so all treatments should be available to all patients. They quite simply are not. For a comparison three months ago I was seen by my doctor , had a scan within 10 days and minor op treatment two weeks later. All on the NHS. ( provided by a private hospital bizarrely. ) I have to be honest and say this is the quickest I’ve ever been treated so was amazed. I’ve had the re-assurance of private health care most of my life and I am excluded from one existing complaint because I moved our corporate provider for the staff. The NHS don’t exclude me. My cousin wanted to carry on living in Spain after Brexit. Due to also a bout of breast cancer. There are no Spanish or U.K. insurers willing to insure her with any sensible premium . So now she has to stay a U.K. resident after 15 years of living in Spain. So not all private cover is anywhere near as good as free at source. I’ve never had to use German healthcare so cannot comment on if it’s good bad or varied. If we ring fenced NI it would be a secure way of provision but as with road tax not being spent on the roads we sadly never have honest government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. Do you mean the bits that the last Labour government didn't privatise? 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dump Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opt for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £11 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching approximately £88 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals. PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. 2000 New Labour’s NHS Plan introduces private provision of medical services into the NHS for the first time to ‘modernise’ and ‘reform’ its practices. Routine planned surgery, diagnostic tests and procedures are contracted out to private sector treatment centres at greater cost than the same care on the NHS. 2003 New Labour allows NHS trusts to apply to become Foundation Trusts (FTs), arms-length business entities independent of government control. This further embeds commercial priorities and leadership into the system. 2004 New Labour brings in Payment by Results. Providers are paid a fixed price per unit of completed health care. This helps the private sector to cherry-pick the easiest, most profitable treatments. 2009 Gordon Brown (New Labour) brings in the Unsustainable Provider Regime, the framework for using the PFI hospital debt burden to close and sell off publicly-owned NHS land and property. You’ll note I used the words “full privatisation” Who cares who owns it? As long as it provides top class health care free at the point of use it doesn't matter. At the moment it might be free but top class it certainly isn't. Shropshire is only the tip of the iceberg, and before anyone starts using that to Tory bash most of it was on Labours watch. In private Germany waiting lists are almost unknown and even the very few that exist are short. It is free at the point of use payed for by compulsory health insurance. Unemployed, disabled, and people who for whatever reason cannot pay get their premiums paid by government. Guess what? IT WORKS. The UK NHS is top heavy with overpaid management, hamstrung by PFI and frozen by political correctness, with babies dying as a consequence. It's high time the Labour party stopped using it as a stick to beat the Tories over the head with and actually put forward some concrete ideas as to how it can be reformed, because reformed it must be. Just bleating about more and more money being chucked into a black hole is not the answer. Especially when in the next breath they are moaning about NI increases. The money has to come from somewhere so is it borrowing, higher taxation, or selling off assets? Tax the fat cats in the city is the usual socialist reply. OK fine, how long does anyone think that would last before investment banks started uprooting to relocate in Paris/Frankfurt/Singapore Etc? Not long. Then what? Seems to me everyone wants five star service but no-one wants to pay for it. Or as my mother used to say "Champagne taste and beer money". First of all that NI rise... that is to fill the black hole in Govt accounts caused by Tory corruption and ineptitude during the pandemic. The DHSC have had to write off £8bn in unusable PPE (guess who supplied it at extortionate mark ups) and the HMRC are writing off £4bn in irrecoverable (due to fraud) Covid Support loans etc. Guess how much the NI increase will raise...£12bn Secondly - you cite Germany but you know damn well a Brexit loving Tory Govt will not go down the route of an EU country. They would seek to adopt a USA style model. So good luck with getting all those pre-existing and hereditary conditions covered. I'll concede the ineptitude bit. It seems like panic took over in the early days of the pandemic and they (along with quite a few other European governments) got their arses slapped. As for the German or American system. The left always and without fail flag up the USA as the example, knowing full well that it is probably the worst in the developed world when it comes to universal healthcare. It is nothing more than scaremongering. There is absolutely zero evidence that the UK would go down that route. The many other countries in the world where private providers give first class treatment free at the point of use are never ever mentioned. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that by weaponizing the NHS Labour always has something to crow about. Labour could never reform something that is a major part of its vote harvesting client state. So every time the Tories come up with any kind of reform they will fight it tooth and nail. As for good luck with the pre existing conditions Etc. I would say that without change then good luck when you are faced with a nine month waiting list. Because without reform that will never change. No matter how much money is thrown at it, by any political party.. You seem to have made an assumption I am “of the left” which is wrong. I am most assuredly a Centrist who sees the need for compromise and a marriage of the elements of Capitalism and Socialism but always ultimately for the benefit of society. Profit and healthcare are an oxymoron in my opinion. Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice. A civilised society should do all it can to look after everyone. IMHO there should be more of a discussion about elective surgery and treatment. Cosmetic treatment where there is no mental health impact. Focus on primary care and actual suck people. I also think that everyone entering the UK (who is not a British citizen or a genuine refugee/asylum seeker) should be required by law to have health/travel insurance. In that way resources are better targeted at Brit Citz/tax payers. I love how you hand wave away pre-existing or hereditary conditions as if these don’t matter! Good luck with that and paying a premium/getting cover. As for no evidence re USA style - seriously! Do some research into people like Aaron Banks. Look into what the USA will require for a trade deal. It’s all there! On many things we are on the same page. I didn't say that US company's would not provide care but that doesn't mean a US style system. I'm sure there are US company's involved in Germany and other country's. You said I quote "Sick people are not consumers and do not have choice". On that I totally disagree. Sick people are consumers and should have choice. When I need a hospital in Germany I choose which one I want to go to, and which doctor will treat me. I don't get TOLD where to go. As for refusing cover or hiking premiums for pre exiting complaints that just doesn't happen. The only circumstance that I know of in Germany is when people have opted out of the state partnership insurance to save money when the fixed premiums are cheaper than the percentage taken by the state partners. You cannot just hop back when you feel like it. But it only really affects a few higher earners and there are still safeguards built into that. This myth that is always trumpeted by the left that private automatically means US. is exactly that, a myth. You say you are not from the left but it appears that you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Take a look how others work, you may just get a surprise. Just as an example. When Mrs H felt a lump in her breast a few years ago she phoned the doctor for an appointment on the Monday morning. The doctor (not the receptionist) said I don't need to see you and gave her the phone number of a specialist hospital. She phoned the hospital and got an appointment for the next day (Tuesday). They did the biopsy there and then and she got the result (not good) the following day (Wednesday) She was admitted into hospital the following Monday, had the operation on Tuesday, and was home on Friday. The only thing she paid for was the optional extra of a single room. Yep shit private health care. First and MOST important thing is...I hope Mrs H is ok? I will look into things more as what you describe sounds good. How much do people pay a year in Germany and how does that compare with NI contributions? (Even though we all know the UK Govt does not ringfence NI for healthcare and NI covers social security too!) Yes she is fine thanks 8 years cancer free. The cost in Germany is a fair bit more than in the UK. If you are working you pay 14% employee contribution and the employer pays the same. That is just for healthcare. Pension and unemployment cover are extra. However we do get what we pay for." Good news re Mrs H. No matter how hard we all debate and no matter our ideological differences, we should all have the capacity for compassion for most people (there are some exceptions). That aside, I now feel like I am caught up in a twilight zone type argument. You tell us how much better the German system is (and yes it sounds good) but then hit us with “oh it is a lot more expensive for the citizens”
Obviously you get what you pay for but the whole argument people make against the NHS is that it is too expensive!
But German system is way more expensive!
WTAF | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So have you stopped talking about channel 4 now Mitzi????
Probably the right decision for the sake of sanity… that being ours!!
Nadine did herself no favours in the select committee and the excuse of “being dropped in in the middle of the process “ is not a valid one…
This will end up being dropped because the argument is going to be that it’s a profit making business with a public service remit… it’s a cash grab! and if you sell it you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5!!
Top quality programmes like “Naked Attraction” will be missed! It seriously, the government own channel 4. So let them sell it off!!!
I am going to be pedantic here
The “Government” ie the Executive own NOTHING. Let’s be really clear on this.
C4 is a “State Owned” asset. ie WE own it.
And as already made clear many times on this thread, our ownership of C4 costs the taxpayer absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero! It is totally self funding. However, the state ownership aspect means that alongside programming of a more commercial nature (which they need to generate overseas sales revenue and advertising revenue) they also have a public remit to provide programming that would not otherwise get made (minority groups, educational content etc).
As someone has said, sell it off and we get another C5 and any benefit to the Exchequer will soon be forgotten and swallowed up.
Worse than that. C4 both pays its way, and because of being public owned tends to invest in the creation of a lot of local product. It uses companies that have UK employees and pay UK taxes. The net effect of C4's public ownership is to generate money and jobs in the UK.
If dimwit Dorries is allowed to sell off C4, which is not in the first place owned by the government, it is owned by me and you and every other uk citizen, all of this investment will undoubtedly stop. The company would become foreign owned by some big group that would bleed its finances dry and just broadcast their own cheap content. There would be an instant cash lump income for the government, which would no doubt be just as instantly embezzled by ministers friends and relatives (I'm not saying that this government is corrupt but... well yes, actually they are corrupt), followed by a reduction in both monetary and cultural income for this country.
Anybody that believes selling off C4 (which I reiterate is not the property of the government to be able to morally sell) is a good idea, has to be dimmer than Dorries."Very good point on how C4 invests in domestic product and British companies and talent. That will evaporate. How many British Films (excellent films) have been funded over the years by C4. Say bye to them in future and continued domination by the House of Mouse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? " I'll hazard a guess that it's 'because it should be private'.
Good practice for privatising the BBC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? I'll hazard a guess that it's 'because it should be private'.
Good practice for privatising the BBC "Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? I'll hazard a guess that it's 'because it should be private'.
Good practice for privatising the BBC "Again…. Channel 4 doesn’t cost the taxpayers a single penny… so again, why should it be sold off? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? I'll hazard a guess that it's 'because it should be private'.
Good practice for privatising the BBC
Again…. Channel 4 doesn’t cost the taxpayers a single penny… so again, why should it be sold off?"You’re assuming they read the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? I'll hazard a guess that it's 'because it should be private'.
Good practice for privatising the BBC
Again…. Channel 4 doesn’t cost the taxpayers a single penny… so again, why should it be sold off?"Why shouldn't it be sold off? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why so the Tories want to privatise it? I'll hazard a guess that it's 'because it should be private'.
Good practice for privatising the BBC
Again…. Channel 4 doesn’t cost the taxpayers a single penny… so again, why should it be sold off?
Why shouldn't it be sold off?
"Because it’s a good money making entity that does a brilliant job with its public service remit! If you don’t remove the remit then what’s the point in selling… If you do remove the remit then by Selling it off and you basically turn channel 4 into channel 5… So again, why sell it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny. Channel 4 the publicly owned commercial company. That doesn't cost the taxpayer any money. Hey! Now there is a great model for the BBC. "The bbc is more than just the TV entity… the national and local radio, the website, the world service, iPlayer ect ect… and if you complain because it costs you 40p a day… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny. Channel 4 the publicly owned commercial company. That doesn't cost the taxpayer any money. Hey! Now there is a great model for the BBC.
The bbc is more than just the TV entity… the national and local radio, the website, the world service, iPlayer ect ect… and if you complain because it costs you 40p a day… "And because it costs me - I can complain any time that I like.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You assume that any or all of those remits will be removed. " If they aren’t removing the remits .. then it’s just a government cash grab, if they don’t remove the remit what is the point in selling! You are giving money to the private sector in long returns for money up front now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny. Channel 4 the publicly owned commercial company. That doesn't cost the taxpayer any money. Hey! Now there is a great model for the BBC.
The bbc is more than just the TV entity… the national and local radio, the website, the world service, iPlayer ect ect… and if you complain because it costs you 40p a day…
And because it costs me - I can complain any time that I like.
"You can…. But comparing channel 4 and the bbc in this respect is comparing apples to oranges! The only thing they share is a public service remit that may or may not overlap from time to time.. Channel 4 may be taxpayer owned… but it’s not taxpayer funded | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And because it costs me - I can complain any time that I like.
"So if that is your standard… then Channel 4 have NEVER made a loss in ANY year it has been broadcasting So since it has not cost you a penny…… hmmm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? I'm not a fan of the government (any government) owning anything. We are really in an age where every penny we can recover will help with our recovery. If any of it is spent on domestic energy production in a self sustaining way then I will vote (metaphorically) for the sale without thinking. If any os spent on cancer care then ditto . . . I could go on. " Tax avoidance maybe which because of Brexit is set to continue to grow depriving all health snd social care. Far more damaging than the BBC wouldn’t you agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? I'm not a fan of the government (any government) owning anything. We are really in an age where every penny we can recover will help with our recovery. If any of it is spent on domestic energy production in a self sustaining way then I will vote (metaphorically) for the sale without thinking. If any os spent on cancer care then ditto . . . I could go on. Tax avoidance maybe which because of Brexit is set to continue to grow depriving all health snd social care. Far more damaging than the BBC wouldn’t you agree? " Evening Jackal. Doesn't stop the BBC and C4 being privatised however. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? I'm not a fan of the government (any government) owning anything. We are really in an age where every penny we can recover will help with our recovery. If any of it is spent on domestic energy production in a self sustaining way then I will vote (metaphorically) for the sale without thinking. If any os spent on cancer care then ditto . . . I could go on. Tax avoidance maybe which because of Brexit is set to continue to grow depriving all health snd social care. Far more damaging than the BBC wouldn’t you agree? Evening Jackal. Doesn't stop the BBC and C4 being privatised however. " I’m surprised you think privatising the BBC is a good idea to be honest . Whilst I believe you are a Boris supporter I would think if you are patriotic then you should defend and cherish and independent media . What is a democracy without that independence. . The post above shows you how few hands control our media and therefore the supposed truth. Worrying times when intelligent people think it’s a good idea . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? I'm not a fan of the government (any government) owning anything. We are really in an age where every penny we can recover will help with our recovery. If any of it is spent on domestic energy production in a self sustaining way then I will vote (metaphorically) for the sale without thinking. If any os spent on cancer care then ditto . . . I could go on. Tax avoidance maybe which because of Brexit is set to continue to grow depriving all health snd social care. Far more damaging than the BBC wouldn’t you agree? Evening Jackal. Doesn't stop the BBC and C4 being privatised however. I’m surprised you think privatising the BBC is a good idea to be honest . Whilst I believe you are a Boris supporter I would think if you are patriotic then you should defend and cherish and independent media . What is a democracy without that independence. . The post above shows you how few hands control our media and therefore the supposed truth. Worrying times when intelligent people think it’s a good idea . " Nope. Not a Boris Supporter - and never was - a supporter of democratic governance however. Most would argue and have argued that the BBC is far from independent. Might be a surprise but I don't want to pay for other peoples children either. However I do want to support those who are unable to support themselves. Not a supporter of hysteria either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And? I'm not a fan of the government (any government) owning anything. We are really in an age where every penny we can recover will help with our recovery. If any of it is spent on domestic energy production in a self sustaining way then I will vote (metaphorically) for the sale without thinking. If any os spent on cancer care then ditto . . . I could go on. Tax avoidance maybe which because of Brexit is set to continue to grow depriving all health snd social care. Far more damaging than the BBC wouldn’t you agree? Evening Jackal. Doesn't stop the BBC and C4 being privatised however. I’m surprised you think privatising the BBC is a good idea to be honest . Whilst I believe you are a Boris supporter I would think if you are patriotic then you should defend and cherish and independent media . What is a democracy without that independence. . The post above shows you how few hands control our media and therefore the supposed truth. Worrying times when intelligent people think it’s a good idea . Nope. Not a Boris Supporter - and never was - a supporter of democratic governance however. Most would argue and have argued that the BBC is far from independent. Might be a surprise but I don't want to pay for other peoples children either. However I do want to support those who are unable to support themselves. Not a supporter of hysteria either. " My apologies for assuming you are supporting the conservative mantra of the bbc needing to go. ( they can’t control it is why they attack it) Other people’s children?? As for hysteria . If people are happy to accept that they won’t be told the truth without an agenda then they will have to deal with the consequences and if they regret it sadly it will be too late. Why would anyone champion something against their own interests ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd." . Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. " No wonder your angry at the BBC, you only need one licence, no need for 6 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No wonder your angry at the BBC, you only need one licence, no need for 6" Unless of course you have 6 properties. Then again they’d be a pittance compared to the combined council tax! But I can see for multiple homeowner how it could add up - Whereas the stream service accounts can ‘roam’ with you within the family. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry my reference was a little oblique lol. I was talking about child support - regardless of a persons income - many landed gentry get child support for their little Lords and Ladies. The hysteria reference should have had the word political in front of it. As in 'no rational argument is possible when people add a particular political party into the debate'. They just get off on a right wing left wing rant that is usually devoid of realistic debate. Channel 4 is held back by its current remit - wiki it to find out how so. "Er child support? If one member of the household earns £60k you lose child support entirely. It starts to be reduced from £50k through to £60k. So even if child support is paid to the wife/girlfriend and she earns £0 to £49,999 if her partner earns over £50k that child support is gradually removed. How does that work for the landed gentry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely, with regard to the BBC - if the current government want to sell it off because they can't control it don't they risk it being owned by someone they really can't control? " Who vets the buyer ? I’ll give you one guess! Also I can’t see any small scale independent organisation such as the good law project or Amnesty International raising the cash . The result yet another very wealthy Tory backing group. If you don’t get told about PPE backslapping corruption or rich tax non domicile status you can’t think for yourself and want to stop it. Who controls our media is critical to the truth. With Boris the liar in chief this is more important than ever right now. I say all this as a former Tory voter. The latest incarnation of the Tory party is obscenely corrupt and self serving so I believe my fears of one hundred percent partly bias in our media will come true sadly. We’re 90% of the way now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. " If you are buying 6 TV Licences then you must be running a holiday let business (unless you personally own a lot of homes!) So as a business these TV Licences will be legitimate business costs that are tax deductible. In addition I would assume you are factoring the cost of these into your holiday rental charges anyway. So YOU are not REALLY having to absorb the expense of 6 TV Licences at all are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. " Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch " Same football pitch, same game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch " Sorry I bit on that so added to the distraction! Guilty as charged.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game. "I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4. Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced. That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs. Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK. So lose lose! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose! "Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios. "Nothing stopping them doing that now. In fact they are because they are shifting production of LOTR TV series 2 from NZ to UK. No need to privatise BBC or C4 to achieve that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios. "And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose! "Good post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose! "Oh I see. They will pull all of those things out of thin air if it's sold off. It will be be a 24 hour test card with no output. Now I understand. TY. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Oh I see. They will pull all of those things out of thin air if it's sold off. It will be be a 24 hour test card with no output.
Now I understand. TY.
"No it probably won't be. But it may just be bland programming, commissioned and produced else where rather than here. Designed to appeal to a global market, rather than the interesting niche British markets that C4 currently supports. It doesn't need to grow, or compete outside of what it already does. It does it well, makes a profit that is pumped back into our TV/Film industry rather than going into the pockets of already rich owners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
If you look at C4's production company partners (available online) many of them are already outside of the UK or have subsidiaries here in the UK so that they can produce for C4. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Oh I see. They will pull all of those things out of thin air if it's sold off. It will be be a 24 hour test card with no output.
Now I understand. TY.
"What a silly response | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. ". What Amazon does is provide a top quality service to the consumer. Their service is probably 100 times better that that of the BBC. Amazon are providing a service to the people. . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. . What Amazon does is provide a top quality service to the consumer. Their service is probably 100 times better that that of the BBC. Amazon are providing a service to the people. . "What a completely subjective opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. ". Maybe the start up costs for Amazon are very high and profits low hence they are insufficient for Corporation Tax to be charged. You cannot just shift profits around to avoid tax. Rules have to be followed . Amazon's low profits are of considerable benefit to the UK consumer . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? " If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. .
Maybe the start up costs for Amazon are very high and profits low hence they are insufficient for Corporation Tax to be charged. You cannot just shift profits around to avoid tax. Rules have to be followed . Amazon's low profits are of considerable benefit to the UK consumer . "Amazons low prices which are due to low cost distribution without retail space and not paying any tax. They are great for cheap buys but they destroy retail jobs at the rate if 5 to one. Retail generally pays tax. Starbucks being a notable avoider. So you have cheap goods causing job loses and you have loss of revenue to HMRC . Long term it is nothing but damaging to the U.K. economy. It won’t stop but tax should be paid in the country of profit and it is not. Amazon is not a start up by any stretch. It is a top ten world company. You are incorrect regarding rules. The rules are followed as the rules allow transfers. Ireland’s GDP is at leat twice what is my should be due to Amazon and Google basing their tax regime there. You can move money ( profits ) at will you just create and send an invoice . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. " The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. .
Maybe the start up costs for Amazon are very high and profits low hence they are insufficient for Corporation Tax to be charged. You cannot just shift profits around to avoid tax. Rules have to be followed . Amazon's low profits are of considerable benefit to the UK consumer .
Amazons low prices which are due to low cost distribution without retail space and not paying any tax. They are great for cheap buys but they destroy retail jobs at the rate if 5 to one. Retail generally pays tax. Starbucks being a notable avoider.
So you have cheap goods causing job loses and you have loss of revenue to HMRC . Long term it is nothing but damaging to the U.K. economy. It won’t stop but tax should be paid in the country of profit and it is not.
Amazon is not a start up by any stretch. It is a top ten world company.
You are incorrect regarding rules.
The rules are followed as the rules allow transfers.
Ireland’s GDP is at leat twice what is my should be due to Amazon and Google basing their tax regime there. You can move money ( profits ) at will you just create and send an invoice . "Exactly! Many of these big corps have holding companies based in low tax regimes (Ireland, Luxembourg or tax havens) that UK operations have to pay IP and royalty fees that effectively wipes out all profits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. " . It is difficult to see how anyone can claim that the BBC is independent if they were to analyse the tweets of various employees. Like it or not the licence fee as paid by every TV owner simply pays for a vast publicly funded bureaucracy which is of little benefit to anyone. There are numerous TV channels that I can watch in addition to local radio. It is very unfair that commercially funded organisations should have to compete against the BBC . If the BBC closed to morrow it would make no difference to most peoples lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. .
Maybe the start up costs for Amazon are very high and profits low hence they are insufficient for Corporation Tax to be charged. You cannot just shift profits around to avoid tax. Rules have to be followed . Amazon's low profits are of considerable benefit to the UK consumer .
Amazons low prices which are due to low cost distribution without retail space and not paying any tax. They are great for cheap buys but they destroy retail jobs at the rate if 5 to one. Retail generally pays tax. Starbucks being a notable avoider.
So you have cheap goods causing job loses and you have loss of revenue to HMRC . Long term it is nothing but damaging to the U.K. economy. It won’t stop but tax should be paid in the country of profit and it is not.
Amazon is not a start up by any stretch. It is a top ten world company.
You are incorrect regarding rules.
The rules are followed as the rules allow transfers.
Ireland’s GDP is at leat twice what is my should be due to Amazon and Google basing their tax regime there. You can move money ( profits ) at will you just create and send an invoice . ". However you cannot just create an invoice to move profits . There are rules to be followed and HMRC tend to look very closely at transactions of this nature. If they are excessive or wrong they are disallowed for the purposes of calculating Corporation Tax . It looks like some people would prefer to drive companies out of this country and lose the tax that we already collect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. .
Maybe the start up costs for Amazon are very high and profits low hence they are insufficient for Corporation Tax to be charged. You cannot just shift profits around to avoid tax. Rules have to be followed . Amazon's low profits are of considerable benefit to the UK consumer .
Amazons low prices which are due to low cost distribution without retail space and not paying any tax. They are great for cheap buys but they destroy retail jobs at the rate if 5 to one. Retail generally pays tax. Starbucks being a notable avoider.
So you have cheap goods causing job loses and you have loss of revenue to HMRC . Long term it is nothing but damaging to the U.K. economy. It won’t stop but tax should be paid in the country of profit and it is not.
Amazon is not a start up by any stretch. It is a top ten world company.
You are incorrect regarding rules.
The rules are followed as the rules allow transfers.
Ireland’s GDP is at leat twice what is my should be due to Amazon and Google basing their tax regime there. You can move money ( profits ) at will you just create and send an invoice . . However you cannot just create an invoice to move profits . There are rules to be followed and HMRC tend to look very closely at transactions of this nature. If they are excessive or wrong they are disallowed for the purposes of calculating Corporation Tax . It looks like some people would prefer to drive companies out of this country and lose the tax that we already collect "Having been involved in business on a large scale I can confirm it happens with the approval of HMRC. It’s called “Inversion Tax”. If it’s too blatant HMRC can reject it but it’s extremely difficult for them to prove. So please tell me , why do the EU keep trying to stop it if it doesn’t happen. Why is Ireland trying to hold up the proposed rules written up by the EU. The major companies are trading here in the U.K. for sales but not for tax. They will still be here for sales and pay due tax as they will still make a profit, They will just pay a higher rate on that tax. To avoid the tax they can invest more to offset the liability. They still pay tax it’s just less and in another country. They will not leave to avoid due tax. Remember you only pay tax on profits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. . It is difficult to see how anyone can claim that the BBC is independent if they were to analyse the tweets of various employees. Like it or not the licence fee as paid by every TV owner simply pays for a vast publicly funded bureaucracy which is of little benefit to anyone. There are numerous TV channels that I can watch in addition to local radio. It is very unfair that commercially funded organisations should have to compete against the BBC . If the BBC closed to morrow it would make no difference to most peoples lives. " You need to look further into the structure of the bbc and see it’s huge range of services that are not mass population services. To take some private tweets as you argument to abolish the only media unable to be bullied or coerced by vested political parties is a pretty feeble case. No one forces commercial companies to start up in business so unfair is irrelevant. Also those poor global media businesses dwarf the bbc so I’m not shedding too many tears. Closing the bbc would affect millions of peoples lives in this country and abroad. Maybe not yours but maybe you’re an X factor and married at first sight devotee. The local radio and local news output alone would be a loss to millions. And for all those so called patriotic citizens who want it abolished, the BBC is bar far the biggest exponent of soft power this country has ever had. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. " Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. .
Maybe the start up costs for Amazon are very high and profits low hence they are insufficient for Corporation Tax to be charged. You cannot just shift profits around to avoid tax. Rules have to be followed . Amazon's low profits are of considerable benefit to the UK consumer .
Amazons low prices which are due to low cost distribution without retail space and not paying any tax. They are great for cheap buys but they destroy retail jobs at the rate if 5 to one. Retail generally pays tax. Starbucks being a notable avoider.
So you have cheap goods causing job loses and you have loss of revenue to HMRC . Long term it is nothing but damaging to the U.K. economy. It won’t stop but tax should be paid in the country of profit and it is not.
Amazon is not a start up by any stretch. It is a top ten world company.
You are incorrect regarding rules.
The rules are followed as the rules allow transfers.
Ireland’s GDP is at leat twice what is my should be due to Amazon and Google basing their tax regime there. You can move money ( profits ) at will you just create and send an invoice . . However you cannot just create an invoice to move profits . There are rules to be followed and HMRC tend to look very closely at transactions of this nature. If they are excessive or wrong they are disallowed for the purposes of calculating Corporation Tax . It looks like some people would prefer to drive companies out of this country and lose the tax that we already collect
Having been involved in business on a large scale I can confirm it happens with the approval of HMRC. It’s called “Inversion Tax”. If it’s too blatant HMRC can reject it but it’s extremely difficult for them to prove.
So please tell me , why do the EU keep trying to stop it if it doesn’t happen. Why is Ireland trying to hold up the proposed rules written up by the EU.
The major companies are trading here in the U.K. for sales but not for tax. They will still be here for sales and pay due tax as they will still make a profit, They will just pay a higher rate on that tax. To avoid the tax they can invest more to offset the liability. They still pay tax it’s just less and in another country. They will not leave to avoid due tax. Remember you only pay tax on profits. "What ever happened to the proposed online sales tax that was talked about last year. I thought that was to try and address the situation of companies moving profits to a low tax country. Although it would not stop them doing the profits move it did mean they have to pay tax where the sale was made. Seemed like a good idea assuming these companies don't just increase their prices to the consumer to cover the extra tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”" . It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. " We're forced to buy a TV licence? Absolutely shocking news (if true). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
What a silly thing to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that the argument has gone from privatising channel 4 which they don’t really have a leg to stand on…. To privatising the BBC… More bait and switch Same football pitch, same game.
I don’t think you quite understand the impact on the wider “supply chain” of privatisation of either the BBC or C4.
Their public remit means they are required to invest heavily in domestic product, sometimes for niche audiences that would otherwise not be serviced.
That means pumping money into UK based production companies, editing and post production houses, equipment rental, scriptwriters, crew and cast. Basically a shit load of jobs.
Privatisation will almost certainly lead to foreign ownership, asset stripping and cost cutting and a move away from domestic product and production. Basically the loss of a shit load of jobs and taxable revenue within the UK.
So lose lose!
Or what might happen companies like amazon might make multi million pounds deals to lease space at Shepperton Studios.
And they might not where as the bbc do invest in the U.K. Also the fact Amazon doesn’t pay corporation tax means whatever service you pay for the profit leaves the U.K. . What Amazon does is provide a top quality service to the consumer. Their service is probably 100 times better that that of the BBC. Amazon are providing a service to the people. . "Really how’s their local radio and news programming coming along? They sell the same bland shit as Netflix etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. " If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The sky is falling the sky is falling. Channel 4 will be sold off - whether or not you like it. So it's probably best searching for the best way to do it with the best outcome. The sale will go to the treasury . (ie. Us the taxpayers). Whatever form it takes after that is called 'capitalism at work'. The NHS will NOT be totally privatised if you vote conservative in 2024
What a silly thing to say."Do you believe in capitalism at the expense of all is the way forward? You claim the next Tory government won’t sell off the nhs as if doing so is a bad thing. What are your boundaries not to sell in relation to our society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The sky is falling the sky is falling. Channel 4 will be sold off - whether or not you like it. So it's probably best searching for the best way to do it with the best outcome. The sale will go to the treasury . (ie. Us the taxpayers). Whatever form it takes after that is called 'capitalism at work'. The NHS will NOT be totally privatised if you vote conservative in 2024
What a silly thing to say.
"" Do you believe in capitalism at the expense of all is the way forward? " This sentence has no semantic? In terms of a question it is actually just a sentence!? " You claim the next Tory government won’t sell off the nhs as if doing so is a bad thing. " Do I? How so? " What are your boundaries not to sell in relation to our society? " In relationship to what particularly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They sell the same bland shit as Netflix etc " So what all this 'super shit' they do better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. " Just like Brexit eh! Now how well is that working out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. Just like Brexit eh! Now how well is that working out? " No body knows yet because the EU will just not let go  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nadine's appearance at the Select Committee is a must watch ,, she informs MPs that Channel4 receives tax payers money , Her fellow Conservative MP ,Damian Green , informs her that it doesn't , Nadine's reply ,,, ,,, " and so. eractually yeah. and. but " " . ,, ,,, ,,, ,,, Conservative MP Ben Bradley has also mentioned that Channel 4 receives tax payers money,but before saying ,in the words of Nadine "" and ,,,,so,,,,er,,actually,,,,yeah,,,,,and,,,,but "" he deleted his tweet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The sky is falling the sky is falling. Channel 4 will be sold off - whether or not you like it. So it's probably best searching for the best way to do it with the best outcome. The sale will go to the treasury . (ie. Us the taxpayers). Whatever form it takes after that is called 'capitalism at work'. The NHS will NOT be totally privatised if you vote conservative in 2024
What a silly thing to say.
Do you believe in capitalism at the expense of all is the way forward? This sentence has no semantic? In terms of a question it is actually just a sentence!?
You claim the next Tory government won’t sell off the nhs as if doing so is a bad thing. Do I? How so?
What are your boundaries not to sell in relation to our society? In relationship to what particularly?
"1. Do you believe capitalism should be left to act without controls from the state? 2. You inferred that to sell off the NHS is a bad thing and by saying it won’t be, soothes their fears. Referring to the above point that you believe capitalism should run free of restraint would suggest you support the privatisation of the NHS. Capitalism at work . Either you believe in total free market or you don’t. 3. In relations to core services such as NHS, gas, Electric, Water, Social care, defence , Government policy?? What’s off and what on the table in relation to capitalism at work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC " . I think you might find that all newspapers are governed by various press regulatory bodies . I do not think that the Daily Mail is so powerful that it has any real influence on public opinion. The influence is only at the margin. The immediate benefit of selling off the BBC is that no one is required to buy a license and it then creates a level playing field for other competitors Most people prefer to choose how to spend their money . There is no necessity to have the government dictating which channels we watch. I fail to see what real influence a newspaper can have. There are so many other sources available. Blaming the Daily Mail is a measure of last resort for some posters on here - they hsve simply hit the bottom of the barrel . Do you actually buy and read the Daily Mail or have you simply made assumptions about its influence. ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!!" Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I think you might find that all newspapers are governed by various press regulatory bodies . I do not think that the Daily Mail is so powerful that it has any real influence on public opinion. The influence is only at the margin. The immediate benefit of selling off the BBC is that no one is required to buy a license and it then creates a level playing field for other competitors Most people prefer to choose how to spend their money . There is no necessity to have the government dictating which channels we watch. I fail to see what real influence a newspaper can have. There are so many other sources available. Blaming the Daily Mail is a measure of last resort for some posters on here - they hsve simply hit the bottom of the barrel . Do you actually buy and read the Daily Mail or have you simply made assumptions about its influence. ? " Just a little addition to Birdln reply The Mail online has 190m individual online readers globally so is the largest online news outlet in the world. The owner has vehemently voiced his opposition to the EU through his newspaper. The owner whilst being born in the U.K. and living in the U.K. oh and working in the U.K. claims non domicile status to avoid tax as his father lived in Paris . His father was also born in the U.K. The owner’s income is paid into the Daily Mail and General Trust which is registered in the Caribean. The sole beneficiary of that trust is the owner of the Daily Mail. The EU wants to stop tax avoidance such as that offshore trust. Can you join up the dots? To answer your question. With the news media I make point of reading various politically leaning newspapers, which is why I can easily recognise the obscene bias, the ridiculously misleading articles and basically untrue comments in The Daily Mail. Look up how many times the daily Mail has been found to be making stuff up. It’s a world leader in that too. Do you read anything except the Daily Mail which you seem to vehemently defend? Maybe you should watch the documentary about Rupert Murdoch being the king maker. Tony Blair knew and openly admitted if he didn’t have the kingmaker on his side he would never win an election. The BBC should not compete in the market as it’s remit is not just entertainment as other independent channels are. Why can’t you seem to grasp its remit is the truthful unbiased reporting of news followed by education and lastly to entertain. It’s not and never should be a competitor to Netflix. If you don’t understand the basic roles required of the BBC then you have no place complaining about it until you do. You’re argumentbif I don’t want to pay the licence fee is not an informed view for discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I think you might find that all newspapers are governed by various press regulatory bodies . I do not think that the Daily Mail is so powerful that it has any real influence on public opinion. The influence is only at the margin. The immediate benefit of selling off the BBC is that no one is required to buy a license and it then creates a level playing field for other competitors Most people prefer to choose how to spend their money . There is no necessity to have the government dictating which channels we watch. I fail to see what real influence a newspaper can have. There are so many other sources available. Blaming the Daily Mail is a measure of last resort for some posters on here - they hsve simply hit the bottom of the barrel . Do you actually buy and read the Daily Mail or have you simply made assumptions about its influence. ? " Balderdash! The Daily Mail is a corrosive influence on this land as you should be well aware! They make up stories and tell lies repeatedly and unfortunately a lot of people find their spin appealing….I imagine Nadine Dorries is a regular reader judging by her lack of research and hopeless misunderstanding of how C4 is funded but that is the trouble with this government - led by a poor quality ex-journalist who surrounds himself with privileged yes men and women! I wonder if you recognise any of that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??" . ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,, ,,, what is incredible is that at least 2 Conservative MPs ( Nadine Dorries & Ben Bradley ) both think the tax payer gives money to Channel 4 ,one of these being the Minister for Media , , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??. ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,, ,,, what is incredible is that at least 2 Conservative MPs ( Nadine Dorries & Ben Bradley ) both think the tax payer gives money to Channel 4 ,one of these being the Minister for Media , , " Astonishing isn’t it….anyone would think these people are thick, incompetent or liars | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??. ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,, ,,, what is incredible is that at least 2 Conservative MPs ( Nadine Dorries & Ben Bradley ) both think the tax payer gives money to Channel 4 ,one of these being the Minister for Media , , Astonishing isn’t it….anyone would think these people are thick, incompetent or liars "Did you mean “and” rather than “or” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??" Unfortunately it is the latter, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??. ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,, ,,, what is incredible is that at least 2 Conservative MPs ( Nadine Dorries & Ben Bradley ) both think the tax payer gives money to Channel 4 ,one of these being the Minister for Media , , Astonishing isn’t it….anyone would think these people are thick, incompetent or liars
Did you mean “and” rather than “or” "I think we all know the answer to that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??. ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,, ,,, what is incredible is that at least 2 Conservative MPs ( Nadine Dorries & Ben Bradley ) both think the tax payer gives money to Channel 4 ,one of these being the Minister for Media , , " . Surely the key point is whether or not the government should be running a TV channel . Channel 4 though privately funded still utilises the admin time of the civil service . I cannot see many members of the public shredding too many tears if it is sold off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Waste of tax payers money!!! Not sure if this is a joke or ignorance. Tax payers pay exactly £0 for channe! 4. Your vote,incredibly, is worth the same as mine??. ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,, ,,, what is incredible is that at least 2 Conservative MPs ( Nadine Dorries & Ben Bradley ) both think the tax payer gives money to Channel 4 ,one of these being the Minister for Media , , . Surely the key point is whether or not the government should be running a TV channel . Channel 4 though privately funded still utilises the admin time of the civil service . I cannot see many members of the public shredding too many tears if it is sold off. " The government doesn’t run it the executives do. With a £74m surplus that will more than cover a few board meeting involving civil service oversight and some number checking by a few accountants. Would probably leave at least £73.5m | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I think you might find that all newspapers are governed by various press regulatory bodies . I do not think that the Daily Mail is so powerful that it has any real influence on public opinion. The influence is only at the margin. The immediate benefit of selling off the BBC is that no one is required to buy a license and it then creates a level playing field for other competitors Most people prefer to choose how to spend their money . There is no necessity to have the government dictating which channels we watch. I fail to see what real influence a newspaper can have. There are so many other sources available. Blaming the Daily Mail is a measure of last resort for some posters on here - they hsve simply hit the bottom of the barrel . Do you actually buy and read the Daily Mail or have you simply made assumptions about its influence. ? Just a little addition to Birdln reply The Mail online has 190m individual online readers globally so is the largest online news outlet in the world. The owner has vehemently voiced his opposition to the EU through his newspaper. The owner whilst being born in the U.K. and living in the U.K. oh and working in the U.K. claims non domicile status to avoid tax as his father lived in Paris . His father was also born in the U.K. The owner’s income is paid into the Daily Mail and General Trust which is registered in the Caribean. The sole beneficiary of that trust is the owner of the Daily Mail. The EU wants to stop tax avoidance such as that offshore trust. Can you join up the dots? To answer your question. With the news media I make point of reading various politically leaning newspapers, which is why I can easily recognise the obscene bias, the ridiculously misleading articles and basically untrue comments in The Daily Mail. Look up how many times the daily Mail has been found to be making stuff up. It’s a world leader in that too. Do you read anything except the Daily Mail which you seem to vehemently defend? Maybe you should watch the documentary about Rupert Murdoch being the king maker. Tony Blair knew and openly admitted if he didn’t have the kingmaker on his side he would never win an election. The BBC should not compete in the market as it’s remit is not just entertainment as other independent channels are. Why can’t you seem to grasp its remit is the truthful unbiased reporting of news followed by education and lastly to entertain. It’s not and never should be a competitor to Netflix. If you don’t understand the basic roles required of the BBC then you have no place complaining about it until you do. You’re argumentbif I don’t want to pay the licence fee is not an informed view for discussion. " . If you were to analyse the tweets by some senior BBC employees it provides more than enough evidence that they are not unbiased. In any event who is too judge what is unbiased. Most people are more than capable of making their own judgement of what is unbiased. Why would they want to BBC to do it for them. The concept of the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Life has moved on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I think you might find that all newspapers are governed by various press regulatory bodies . I do not think that the Daily Mail is so powerful that it has any real influence on public opinion. The influence is only at the margin. The immediate benefit of selling off the BBC is that no one is required to buy a license and it then creates a level playing field for other competitors Most people prefer to choose how to spend their money . There is no necessity to have the government dictating which channels we watch. I fail to see what real influence a newspaper can have. There are so many other sources available. Blaming the Daily Mail is a measure of last resort for some posters on here - they hsve simply hit the bottom of the barrel . Do you actually buy and read the Daily Mail or have you simply made assumptions about its influence. ? Just a little addition to Birdln reply The Mail online has 190m individual online readers globally so is the largest online news outlet in the world. The owner has vehemently voiced his opposition to the EU through his newspaper. The owner whilst being born in the U.K. and living in the U.K. oh and working in the U.K. claims non domicile status to avoid tax as his father lived in Paris . His father was also born in the U.K. The owner’s income is paid into the Daily Mail and General Trust which is registered in the Caribean. The sole beneficiary of that trust is the owner of the Daily Mail. The EU wants to stop tax avoidance such as that offshore trust. Can you join up the dots? To answer your question. With the news media I make point of reading various politically leaning newspapers, which is why I can easily recognise the obscene bias, the ridiculously misleading articles and basically untrue comments in The Daily Mail. Look up how many times the daily Mail has been found to be making stuff up. It’s a world leader in that too. Do you read anything except the Daily Mail which you seem to vehemently defend? Maybe you should watch the documentary about Rupert Murdoch being the king maker. Tony Blair knew and openly admitted if he didn’t have the kingmaker on his side he would never win an election. The BBC should not compete in the market as it’s remit is not just entertainment as other independent channels are. Why can’t you seem to grasp its remit is the truthful unbiased reporting of news followed by education and lastly to entertain. It’s not and never should be a competitor to Netflix. If you don’t understand the basic roles required of the BBC then you have no place complaining about it until you do. You’re argumentbif I don’t want to pay the licence fee is not an informed view for discussion. . If you were to analyse the tweets by some senior BBC employees it provides more than enough evidence that they are not unbiased. In any event who is too judge what is unbiased. Most people are more than capable of making their own judgement of what is unbiased. Why would they want to BBC to do it for them. The concept of the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Life has moved on. " Wow! How wrong headed can one be? The BBC has a charter in which it is not allowed to show bias unlike say the Daily Mail which does what it likes and occasionally prints a retraction in the middle of the paper when it’s been caught out but no that’s not bias is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC " . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . " 1. You are wrong about the editorial direction of The Mail. The proprietor very much sets the direction and employs editorial staff to ensure it always stays on message. You are either naive or are pushing some kind of misinformation agenda (a bit like The Mail ironically). 2. The Mail frequently publishes stories that are wrong or misleading but people love sensationalist rubbish and lap it up in their droves. The Mail has deep pockets to fight libel cases which it has done frequently. 3. You dismiss the public remit of the BBC because you don’t use it in the same way on another thread you advocate taxation based purely on usage of public services. A completely approach that shows you have no interest on contributing to society or supporting those who for whatever reason have needs you do not. Quite an abysmal attitude. 4. Based on your ideology why don’t you move to live in a tax haven. I’m sure you’d be most welcome. Isle of Man or Channel Islands are very nice!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . " Truly ignorant of any comprehension of what the bbc provides wow. One bbc tv programme alone which is just for children has had a huge influence on all tv production. That is Newsround. Here see if you can stomach reading something positive on it. https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/apr/04/krishnan-guru-murthy-lizo-mzimba-newsround-50 People won’t buy the daily Mail if it doesn’t tell the truth . Have you bothered to read up on their reputation for telling lies or publishing misleading information. I bet you haven’t as you are too blinkered to accept you may be mislead. It’s a bit like the film The sixth sense. The dead don’t know their dead. You won’t accept you could be wrong. You won’t read the list of breaches of regulations they have committed. It’s because the Mail publish what you think is the truth or what your preconceived version of the world looks like. The tories rely on you believing the nonsense to keep your vote and you never question anything. Bizarre. The slavish devotees of some to the Tory mantra despite all the evidence reminds me of a Ricky Gervais quote. . “I’m not afraid of death as I won’t know I’m dead and the pain will only be felt by other people.. It’s the same principal for stupid people really.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . 1. You are wrong about the editorial direction of The Mail. The proprietor very much sets the direction and employs editorial staff to ensure it always stays on message. You are either naive or are pushing some kind of misinformation agenda (a bit like The Mail ironically). 2. The Mail frequently publishes stories that are wrong or misleading but people love sensationalist rubbish and lap it up in their droves. The Mail has deep pockets to fight libel cases which it has done frequently. 3. You dismiss the public remit of the BBC because you don’t use it in the same way on another thread you advocate taxation based purely on usage of public services. A completely approach that shows you have no interest on contributing to society or supporting those who for whatever reason have needs you do not. Quite an abysmal attitude. 4. Based on your ideology why don’t you move to live in a tax haven. I’m sure you’d be most welcome. Isle of Man or Channel Islands are very nice!!!" Because basically he can’t afford to but still thinks the Tory party has his interests at heart. Despite decades of them being in government and him still being no better off. Yet if he looked he will see the size of the U.K. economy has doubled in 40 years. He will never ask where is all that money? It’s the EU or Labour’s fault. That’s what the Tory party tell him so he believes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . " Are you equating the BBC with a dictatorship? How does that stack up? Perhaps you would rather be watching Russia Today or Fox News as they both have their editorial direction dictated to them by their masters. If your major objection to the bbc is that you have to contribute to it as a public service organisation perhaps you have no regard for the millions of people who do support it and rely on it for all manner of information from news to comedy, documentaries to children's programming. Let me give you a metaphor which is that of an old and venerated oak tree with all the biodiversity it brings and that yes it might block the light a bit or get in the way sometimes but it is a part of what makes this land and once you have removed it all you will be left with is a windswept plain where young saplings will struggle to grow and that ecosystem will be damaged. Change is not always good and the revolution you appear to desire, where selfishness is more important than any benefit to society as a whole is a dangerous path especially when so many lies are spread by those who would benefit from the destruction - but then disaster capitalism is your preference I suppose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . 1. You are wrong about the editorial direction of The Mail. The proprietor very much sets the direction and employs editorial staff to ensure it always stays on message. You are either naive or are pushing some kind of misinformation agenda (a bit like The Mail ironically). 2. The Mail frequently publishes stories that are wrong or misleading but people love sensationalist rubbish and lap it up in their droves. The Mail has deep pockets to fight libel cases which it has done frequently. 3. You dismiss the public remit of the BBC because you don’t use it in the same way on another thread you advocate taxation based purely on usage of public services. A completely approach that shows you have no interest on contributing to society or supporting those who for whatever reason have needs you do not. Quite an abysmal attitude. 4. Based on your ideology why don’t you move to live in a tax haven. I’m sure you’d be most welcome. Isle of Man or Channel Islands are very nice!!! Because basically he can’t afford to but still thinks the Tory party has his interests at heart. Despite decades of them being in government and him still being no better off. Yet if he looked he will see the size of the U.K. economy has doubled in 40 years. He will never ask where is all that money? It’s the EU or Labour’s fault. That’s what the Tory party tell him so he believes. " How would you know whether a person would be better or worse off under a particular government without knowing a person's circumstances. ? Not everyone wants to be better off or for that matter measures everything in monetary terms. Items such as morals , family values and freedom come into the equation as does the control of trade unions . Maybe instead of constantly criticising the government and those who support them you should post some evidence as to how any other party could do any better . At least I know that the party and ideas that I support represent those of majority ( or should you wish to be pedantic the party that represents more of the public than any other party ) . That is probably as good a check as you can get and gives a degree of satisfaction as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . Truly ignorant of any comprehension of what the bbc provides wow. One bbc tv programme alone which is just for children has had a huge influence on all tv production. That is Newsround. Here see if you can stomach reading something positive on it. https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/apr/04/krishnan-guru-murthy-lizo-mzimba-newsround-50 People won’t buy the daily Mail if it doesn’t tell the truth . Have you bothered to read up on their reputation for telling lies or publishing misleading information. I bet you haven’t as you are too blinkered to accept you may be mislead. It’s a bit like the film The sixth sense. The dead don’t know their dead. You won’t accept you could be wrong. You won’t read the list of breaches of regulations they have committed. It’s because the Mail publish what you think is the truth or what your preconceived version of the world looks like. The tories rely on you believing the nonsense to keep your vote and you never question anything. Bizarre. The slavish devotees of some to the Tory mantra despite all the evidence reminds me of a Ricky Gervais quote. . “I’m not afraid of death as I won’t know I’m dead and the pain will only be felt by other people.. It’s the same principal for stupid people really.” " Maybe you need to do a little further research. Unlike the Internet where you can publish anything you like all newspapers are accountable to the various press regulatory bodies. The Daily Mail are not exempt from the rules and are probably subject to more scrutiny than most due the a very vocal minority of Daily Mail haters. Do you believe in freedom of speech or would you like it banned. How would you know how much research I have done into the Daily Mail ? Like many people I believe times have moved on and the BBC is totally unnecessary. In common with a lot of people I believe it is only fair that companies compete on a level playing field. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . Truly ignorant of any comprehension of what the bbc provides wow. One bbc tv programme alone which is just for children has had a huge influence on all tv production. That is Newsround. Here see if you can stomach reading something positive on it. https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/apr/04/krishnan-guru-murthy-lizo-mzimba-newsround-50 People won’t buy the daily Mail if it doesn’t tell the truth . Have you bothered to read up on their reputation for telling lies or publishing misleading information. I bet you haven’t as you are too blinkered to accept you may be mislead. It’s a bit like the film The sixth sense. The dead don’t know their dead. You won’t accept you could be wrong. You won’t read the list of breaches of regulations they have committed. It’s because the Mail publish what you think is the truth or what your preconceived version of the world looks like. The tories rely on you believing the nonsense to keep your vote and you never question anything. Bizarre. The slavish devotees of some to the Tory mantra despite all the evidence reminds me of a Ricky Gervais quote. . “I’m not afraid of death as I won’t know I’m dead and the pain will only be felt by other people.. It’s the same principal for stupid people really.” Maybe you need to do a little further research. Unlike the Internet where you can publish anything you like all newspapers are accountable to the various press regulatory bodies. The Daily Mail are not exempt from the rules and are probably subject to more scrutiny than most due the a very vocal minority of Daily Mail haters. Do you believe in freedom of speech or would you like it banned. How would you know how much research I have done into the Daily Mail ? Like many people I believe times have moved on and the BBC is totally unnecessary. In common with a lot of people I believe it is only fair that companies compete on a level playing field. " What don’t you understand about the bbc isn’t a company in a particular media field?? Look up it’s remit and look into what it dies rather than what you think it does. Freedom of speech is absolutely an important thing but so is telling the truth. Again look up the amount of tines the Daily Nail has broken those rules you claim it adheres to. It’s financial power frightens off those who challenge as they will bankrupt you before you get to court, Again do sone homework on what your claiming . I have . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters??? God no… you would have no local programming or news because it doesn’t make money… there should be some public service remitJust as we have local newspapers private companies would provide a similar service. Cutting out waste should be a priority. . I feel very guilty picking on you again so please accept my apology in advance. It’s just you keep spouting blue rinse brigade nonsense. I’m beginning to wonder about something. Do you actually live in the U.K. or are you reading all about it from a 1950s history book? How can you be so out of touch with reality. Please please read something that isn’t pro Tory if you can. 90% of the national media in this country is owned by three companies. 65% of local news is owned by three companies . Channel 4 and the BBC are the only true independent media outlets apart from a few very small local papers. The fact the BBC upsets both labour and the Tories is a good thing and it is the last bastion of a truly free press away from rich owners influence. The breakdown of the media . Reach is the only group with smaller shareholders. But has major owners of shares still. They are all wealthy private equity investors. National Newspaper/ Media owners . DMG Media: DMG Media, a subsidiary of the multinational company Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), owns the Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and i News as well as their respective websites, accounting for 38.26% of weekly newspaper circulation, the most of any company. News UK: News UK comes second in its share of weekly newspaper circulation with 32.16%. The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times are amongst their publications. News UK belongs to News Corp, which used to be part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corporation. This company has ventured into radio stations, and television channels as well. Reach: Coming third with 19.42%, Reach owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror, the Sunday People, the Daily and Sunday Express and the Daily and Sunday Star newspapers, amongst others. Local Newspaper / media owners. Newsquest: Newsquest owns 23.2%, which is around one-fifth of local newspapers in the UK, thereby leading the top three companies. Reach Plc: Reach doesn’t only own national newspapers, it owns 20.7% of local newspapers, so also around a fifth of the market. JPI Media: Coming third in the highest share of local titles, JPI Media has an 18.0% share, again one-fifth of the market. These top three dominate the market, accounting for a total of 61.9% of local news across the UK. Besides these three companies, three others, Tindle Newspapers, Archant and Cliffe media have a share of around 7% of the local newspaper market, and the remaining 50 publishers together own less than one fifth, 16.3% to be exact, showing the stark contrast in ownership. So we do not have an independent thinking or competing media. We have mostly Tory supporting media and privatising Channel 4 or the BBC will make that bias virtually 100%. That’s how Putin keeps control. FOOTNOTE : The top ten owners of Reach - M&G Investment Management Ltd. Aberforth Partners LLP. JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd. Premier Fund Managers Ltd. Majedie Asset Management Ltd. Schroder Investment Management Ltd.. Abrdn Investment Management Ltd. . Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. Canaccord Genuity Wealth Ltd. Miton Asset Management Ltd.. Maybe the reality is that some people bitterly resent having to pay for a TV licence. It is a complete waste of money. I prefer to choose to which organisation I pay my hard earned cash to. I buy six TV licences annually and it is simply flushing money down the toilet. There are plenty of other organisations that can provide a much better service. I would not worry to much about the blue rinse brigade or being out of touch with reality. Maybe some people realise that times have moved on and the BBC belongs to a bygone era. Some of us lime to move forward , not backwards . We have no need to worry about private owned broadcasting being biased . Most people can check the information that they receive against numerous different sources and form their own judgement on its accuracy. If the information that they were receiving was in any way mis accurate they would simply cancel their subscription . Sadly the public are deprived of that opportunity with the BBC. If you fail to purchase a licence you end up with a criminal record . I would have a lot more faith in the various fund managers to which you refer. They have to be successfull to survive. Relying on tax payer funding is a far from admirable attribute. I cannot see many people apart from the middle class elite having any regrets if the BBC is privatised. Feel free to tell me where you check for independent news and views. Lots of choices obviously as 90% of the media is controlled by a handful of organisations as above. The bbc radio national and local is worth the fee alone. The elderly unlike todays social media addicts want human interaction. The world service is an amazing set up. Maybe have a look at the local tv and need they provide? I pay for multiple licences . If you can’t afford them then offload your property. I think it’s the least of your worries if you’re struggling to pay for your houses. As for the fund managers yes they do very well with other people’s money. They have especially done well out of the banks being bailed out by the tax payer. All you have to do is bet on the FTSE 100 and you will make good money. The skill is on gambling a small percent. It’s also easy to make more money if you manage it through an offshore account as you don’t pay any tax. I bought Asda at 7p before having to sell to Walmart for £3.50. Does that qualify me to be director general? If you analyse some of the tweets posted by BBC employees it is apparent that they are far from being impartial. The BBC can hardly be considered to be independent. Information provided by private media is far more likely to be impartial that that of the BBC. If you are dissatisfied with most services you can simply cancel your subscription. Unfortunately you cannot do that with the BBC which in turn prevents the public expressing their dissatisfaction in a tangible way. If the service provided by the BBC is as great as people claim there no no reason why they should not be privatised and made to stand on their own two feet . People would be queueing up to by a licence and everyone would be a winner . Those like yourself can continue to watch and admire it and people with a similar opinion to mine can take their businness elsewhere. You can hardly get a fairer scenario. The bbc is CV owned by the shine country so mystcservicectgecshoke country. If it’s privatised it will report the news with the bias or narrative being set by the owner. The guy who owns the daily Mail is a strong dupirter of the Tory party . Their comments snd news view reflect that bias. The BBC should always remain in public ownership. It is the last bastion of an independent media. Democracy depends on the truth . Btw I’ve never worked for the BBC just for the record. Sorry for the typos I’m travelling. “The BBC is owned by the whole population of this country and it’s remit is to provide for the who,e range of tastes no matter how small.” “The Daily Mail owner is a strong supporter of the Tory party. The paper’s comments and News reflect that political bias.”. It is difficult to see what possible relevance the Daily Mail has to the privatisation of the BBC . People are forced to buy a TV licence , no one is forced to purchase the Daily Mail. Last time I checked both the Guardian and Daily Mirror supported different parties to that currently in power . We have nothing to lose by privatising the BBC and everything to gain. If you don’t see the relevance of the daily Mail point then you must struggle to understand a lot in life. If one person owns something he chooses the direction and content of that organisation. He only answers to him or her self. If many people own something it has to take account of many different views and act accordingly. Your stating it’s ok to have a dictatorship rather than democracy as it’s the same thing!!! Good grief. This is a prime example of why education is so important in this country and also why the education remit the BBC has needs to protected and encouraged. Feel feee to list the gains of selling off the BBC . I would be very surprised if the owner of the Daily Mail had either the time or inclination to either check or dictate to his editorial team what they can publish. Unlike the BBC the Daily Mail has full accountability. Were the Daily Mail to publish misleading or incorrect information the public would simply stop buying it. They would also be in trouble with the various press regulatory authorities. Unfortunately with the BBC you cannot decide not to buy a licence , you have no choice. Maybe you have your statement about dictatorships the wrong way round. I cannot see many people relying on the BBC for their education. Should I need education in a particular skill I will either purchase a course of online learning or go to evening classes. I am unlikely to be watching the BBC in order to pick up additional skills . There are at least two hundred other channels available so most people are not dependent on anything that the BBC provides . 1. You are wrong about the editorial direction of The Mail. The proprietor very much sets the direction and employs editorial staff to ensure it always stays on message. You are either naive or are pushing some kind of misinformation agenda (a bit like The Mail ironically). 2. The Mail frequently publishes stories that are wrong or misleading but people love sensationalist rubbish and lap it up in their droves. The Mail has deep pockets to fight libel cases which it has done frequently. 3. You dismiss the public remit of the BBC because you don’t use it in the same way on another thread you advocate taxation based purely on usage of public services. A completely approach that shows you have no interest on contributing to society or supporting those who for whatever reason have needs you do not. Quite an abysmal attitude. 4. Based on your ideology why don’t you move to live in a tax haven. I’m sure you’d be most welcome. Isle of Man or Channel Islands are very nice!!! Because basically he can’t afford to but still thinks the Tory party has his interests at heart. Despite decades of them being in government and him still being no better off. Yet if he looked he will see the size of the U.K. economy has doubled in 40 years. He will never ask where is all that money? It’s the EU or Labour’s fault. That’s what the Tory party tell him so he believes. How would you know whether a person would be better or worse off under a particular government without knowing a person's circumstances. ? Not everyone wants to be better off or for that matter measures everything in monetary terms. Items such as morals , family values and freedom come into the equation as does the control of trade unions . Maybe instead of constantly criticising the government and those who support them you should post some evidence as to how any other party could do any better . At least I know that the party and ideas that I support represent those of majority ( or should you wish to be pedantic the party that represents more of the public than any other party ) . That is probably as good a check as you can get and gives a degree of satisfaction as well. " So sone people are happy in poverty well that’s a new one. Do you read this nonsense before you post? Working people are in poverty in this country . Remember we are one of the richest countries in the world apparently. Trade unions were out in their place by mrs thatcher and I supported that so old news which is not relevant and we have sone of the strictest union controls in the world so please know your facts . The fact that most people vote against the Tory party tells you that you are in the minority. The fact we don’t gave PR is what slows a minority vote to control our country. Tax avoidance is rampant in snd through the U.K. . Tell me how exactly that helps the population? Taxes are higher also not good. GDP fallen by 4% since Brexit so again this sits at the feet of Boris. You voted to make most people worse off apart from the very rich elite who just get richer. With the Tory party controlling 90% of the media you don’t get to read anyone else’s thoughts on running the country but that doesn’t bother you as your will have you fingers in your ears singing la la la. You haven’t looked up the amount of times the Daily Mail has lied or mislead have you because if you had you would have gone quiet. Most people are happy is your claim.. ha ha if you say so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. " And you know what, unfortunately the british public will vote them back in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cos they are running out of state assets to sell off on the cheap to help enrich themselves and cronies even further. If you vote Tory in 2024 you are voting for the full privatisation of the NHS. And you know what, unfortunately the british public will vote them back in." Indeed they will with FPTP, boundary changes favouring the Tories and requirement for photo ID disenfranchising the poorest in society (and least likely to vote Tory). This country needs Proportional Representation more than ever! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All TV channels should either be paid for by advertising or subscription . Why should we waste tax payers money on it - especially the £million salaries for its presenters???" It is free of charge and not publicly funded. It is a great source of employment and investment in the UK, including local investment. The cons are against it, due to its commitment to due impartiality, instead of being a Con propaganda vehicle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a lot of people are wary of PR but I genuinely believe it will result in better accountable government which truly reflects the wishes of the people. It will stop extremism on both sides. So no Len McCluskey types and no Reece Mogg types. It will also stop the elite entitled path from Eton to PM. You will become PM by ability and that’s it. Channel four is hated by the establishment because it doesn’t answer to anyone . If it isn’t broken who is there a need to fix it? " double | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Channel four is hated by the establishment because it doesn’t answer to anyone . If it isn’t broken who is there a need to fix it? " Yes. It does. It answers to OFCOM. Ofcom (the Office of Communications) regulates most content on television (excluding content broadcast during a commercial break) and UK video on demand services. Channel 4, like other commercial broadcasters, is licensed by Ofcom to broadcast, subject to compliance with its codes. The main code applying to the content of television programmes and on-demand content which broadcasters must comply with is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code ('the Code'). Accordingly, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Code and the Handbook. The Code acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression but points out that with those rights come responsibilities. The Code has 9 key sections containing "Principles" and "Rules": Section 1: Protecting the under-eighteen's; Section 2: Harm and offence; Section 3: Crime; Section 4: Religion; Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy; Section 6: Elections and referendums; Section 7: Fairness; Section 8: Privacy; Section 9: Commercial references in TV programming; and On Demand Programme Service Rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Channel four is hated by the establishment because it doesn’t answer to anyone . If it isn’t broken who is there a need to fix it? Yes. It does. It answers to OFCOM. Ofcom (the Office of Communications) regulates most content on television (excluding content broadcast during a commercial break) and UK video on demand services. Channel 4, like other commercial broadcasters, is licensed by Ofcom to broadcast, subject to compliance with its codes. The main code applying to the content of television programmes and on-demand content which broadcasters must comply with is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code ('the Code'). Accordingly, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Code and the Handbook. The Code acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression but points out that with those rights come responsibilities. The Code has 9 key sections containing "Principles" and "Rules": Section 1: Protecting the under-eighteen's; Section 2: Harm and offence; Section 3: Crime; Section 4: Religion; Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy; Section 6: Elections and referendums; Section 7: Fairness; Section 8: Privacy; Section 9: Commercial references in TV programming; and On Demand Programme Service Rules. " Not sure that’s what was meant. OFCOM regulate (sometimes weakly) but the point here is that C4’s impartial and factual news reporting is critical of the government (and with THIS one there is a wealth of riches to criticise) and Johnson et al do not like it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Channel four is hated by the establishment because it doesn’t answer to anyone . If it isn’t broken who is there a need to fix it? Yes. It does. It answers to OFCOM. Ofcom (the Office of Communications) regulates most content on television (excluding content broadcast during a commercial break) and UK video on demand services. Channel 4, like other commercial broadcasters, is licensed by Ofcom to broadcast, subject to compliance with its codes. The main code applying to the content of television programmes and on-demand content which broadcasters must comply with is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code ('the Code'). Accordingly, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Code and the Handbook. The Code acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression but points out that with those rights come responsibilities. The Code has 9 key sections containing "Principles" and "Rules": Section 1: Protecting the under-eighteen's; Section 2: Harm and offence; Section 3: Crime; Section 4: Religion; Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy; Section 6: Elections and referendums; Section 7: Fairness; Section 8: Privacy; Section 9: Commercial references in TV programming; and On Demand Programme Service Rules. " Yes very good cat My point was it doesn’t answer to anyone politically or is owned by an individual who can influence content to reflect a political bias. Like I said and obviously due to lack of any regular criticism OFCOM agree it isn’t broken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Channel four is hated by the establishment because it doesn’t answer to anyone . If it isn’t broken who is there a need to fix it? Yes. It does. It answers to OFCOM. Ofcom (the Office of Communications) regulates most content on television (excluding content broadcast during a commercial break) and UK video on demand services. Channel 4, like other commercial broadcasters, is licensed by Ofcom to broadcast, subject to compliance with its codes. The main code applying to the content of television programmes and on-demand content which broadcasters must comply with is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code ('the Code'). Accordingly, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Code and the Handbook. The Code acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression but points out that with those rights come responsibilities. The Code has 9 key sections containing "Principles" and "Rules": Section 1: Protecting the under-eighteen's; Section 2: Harm and offence; Section 3: Crime; Section 4: Religion; Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy; Section 6: Elections and referendums; Section 7: Fairness; Section 8: Privacy; Section 9: Commercial references in TV programming; and On Demand Programme Service Rules. Not sure that’s what was meant. OFCOM regulate (sometimes weakly) but the point here is that C4’s impartial and factual news reporting is critical of the government (and with THIS one there is a wealth of riches to criticise) and Johnson et al do not like it." OfCom is the umbrella for all TV stations, and Section 5. Covers that for us the viewers . . . 'Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy' If C4 or any other TV output breached that in any serious way they would be warned, fined and ultimately shut down if they didn't comply. vis-a-vi RT recently as proof perfect of that. So. Perhaps it's more 'your perception' of not hearing both sides while you watch its programming. If you feel that there is a breach of Section 5. Write to OfCom. Many people do every single week. Plus. Once sold. C4 could be bought by anyone and change hands many times. How do the government control political bias then? Well actually they wouldn't need to - co's that's OfCom's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Channel four is hated by the establishment because it doesn’t answer to anyone . If it isn’t broken who is there a need to fix it? Yes. It does. It answers to OFCOM. Ofcom (the Office of Communications) regulates most content on television (excluding content broadcast during a commercial break) and UK video on demand services. Channel 4, like other commercial broadcasters, is licensed by Ofcom to broadcast, subject to compliance with its codes. The main code applying to the content of television programmes and on-demand content which broadcasters must comply with is the Ofcom Broadcasting Code ('the Code'). Accordingly, independent production companies and programme-makers have contractual obligations to comply with the Code and the Handbook. The Code acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression but points out that with those rights come responsibilities. The Code has 9 key sections containing "Principles" and "Rules": Section 1: Protecting the under-eighteen's; Section 2: Harm and offence; Section 3: Crime; Section 4: Religion; Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy; Section 6: Elections and referendums; Section 7: Fairness; Section 8: Privacy; Section 9: Commercial references in TV programming; and On Demand Programme Service Rules. Not sure that’s what was meant. OFCOM regulate (sometimes weakly) but the point here is that C4’s impartial and factual news reporting is critical of the government (and with THIS one there is a wealth of riches to criticise) and Johnson et al do not like it. OfCom is the umbrella for all TV stations, and Section 5. Covers that for us the viewers . . . 'Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy' If C4 or any other TV output breached that in any serious way they would be warned, fined and ultimately shut down if they didn't comply. vis-a-vi RT recently as proof perfect of that. So. Perhaps it's more 'your perception' of not hearing both sides while you watch its programming. If you feel that there is a breach of Section 5. Write to OfCom. Many people do every single week. Plus. Once sold. C4 could be bought by anyone and change hands many times. How do the government control political bias then? Well actually they wouldn't need to - co's that's OfCom's "I am failing to see your point though? What has OFCOM got to do with whether it is a good, or indeed necessary, thing to privatise C4? Who benefits? We established way up this thread that it would be very detrimental to the UK supply chain. We also established that, once in private ownership, the public remit would go (or be watered down massively). Re news coverage. C4 isn’t bias. It is factual. Problem is those facts are critical of current Govt so right wingers see bias that actually isn’t there! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
