FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > GB News
GB News
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?" i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres" Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?" That's fantastic news  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. " According to current opinion polls all of the above are losing viewers to gb news, I heard Mr Johnson is joining the channel, the filth won't like that at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. According to current opinion polls all of the above are losing viewers to gb news, I heard Mr Johnson is joining the channel, the filth won't like that at all." Their losses are unsustainable and whatever their “declared” viewing figures might be, advertisers are not paying to advertise either because they don’t believe the viewing figures or they just don’t want to be associated with divisive commentary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. According to current opinion polls all of the above are losing viewers to gb news, I heard Mr Johnson is joining the channel, the filth won't like that at all." Who are ‘the filth’? Assuming not the police as that doesn’t make sense… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. According to current opinion polls all of the above are losing viewers to gb news, I heard Mr Johnson is joining the channel, the filth won't like that at all. Their losses are unsustainable and whatever their “declared” viewing figures might be, advertisers are not paying to advertise either because they don’t believe the viewing figures or they just don’t want to be associated with divisive commentary." I don't know about diversive, the interview with mp Andrea jenkyns last night was something that she had to get off her chest, she held it together quite well considering, commentary that you only get on gb news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?" MURDOCH runs THE SUN at a loss & I suspect that is the case here-the Right Wing has oodles of cash to ram their Dogma,Bigotry,prejudice,division,racism & hatred down the throats of the public & is money well spent for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped? MURDOCH runs THE SUN at a loss & I suspect that is the case here-the Right Wing has oodles of cash to ram their Dogma,Bigotry,prejudice,division,racism & hatred down the throats of the public & is money well spent for them." No mention of antisemitic or islamphobic views, that's one,, two good things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. " Ed Balls is a regular presenter on ITV. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped? MURDOCH runs THE SUN at a loss & I suspect that is the case here-the Right Wing has oodles of cash to ram their Dogma,Bigotry,prejudice,division,racism & hatred down the throats of the public & is money well spent for them." I will give them until after the election and if the Conservatives are destroyed then I would anticipate that GB News will close as having failed miserably in its mission to attract and brainwash the masses to believe in Conservative ideology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. Ed Balls is a regular presenter on ITV." I HATE Ed Balls….he’s the one who set The TORIES onto the Disabled with the WCA….SCUMBAG. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't realise it was still a thing - where even do you find GB news... "Follow the dog whistling then jump down the rabbit hole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't realise it was still a thing - where even do you find GB news... "I believe their office is at the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, located at the Ordenspalais in Berlin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...and Talk TV is closing down - going "online only"..." Still growing their own concrete  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. Ed Balls is a regular presenter on ITV. I HATE Ed Balls….he’s the one who set The TORIES onto the Disabled with the WCA….SCUMBAG." . Your statement is bizarre. Under the current system t over three million people are entitled to PIP which is tax free . Of those claiming it in excess of half a million people have a mobility vehicle. We should all be greatfull of the governments help to the less well off in society | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense." . Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone, by any chance, have a suitable illustration of Andrew Neil 'in vesting' in a worthwhile project?" I see what you did there. :D | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. " Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news " To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly." I wouldn't bother trying to debate with Pat. Still haven't worked out if he's a parody account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly." Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news " . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. " I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. " Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend?" There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC." Do you consider the likes of sky news and BBC news to be as biased as GB News? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. Do you consider the likes of sky news and BBC news to be as biased as GB News?" Absofuckinglutely. The only difference is in the delivery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. Do you consider the likes of sky news and BBC news to be as biased as GB News?" I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. If you are a feminist and you cared about women's rights, this must make you livid. The BBC sacrificed feminism on the altar of Islamism. It's probably far more disgusting than anything that GB News ever did: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet¤tTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. If you are a feminist and you cared about women's rights, this must make you livid. The BBC sacrificed feminism on the altar of Islamism. It's probably far more disgusting than anything that GB News ever did: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet¤tTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet" Perhaps no one is commenting on it because your link doesn't work. I just get a "Something went wrong" error. Wouldn't it be easier to just direct us to the BBC page, so that we can all see how terrible it is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts." So why do so many travel so far to reach the uk if not to enjoy the wealth of benefits afforded to them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. " Here's a link that actually works: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170 There's no 'slut shaming' in that clip. In fact, in that clip, the BBC says nothing about the girl at all. i don't know what it is that you're angry about in that post and the clip it contains, but your message isn't coming across to the rest of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. If you are a feminist and you cared about women's rights, this must make you livid. The BBC sacrificed feminism on the altar of Islamism. It's probably far more disgusting than anything that GB News ever did: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet¤tTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet Perhaps no one is commenting on it because your link doesn't work. I just get a "Something went wrong" error. Wouldn't it be easier to just direct us to the BBC page, so that we can all see how terrible it is?" ignore all the link from media viewer onwards. The BBC seemed to be following up on a court case. In hindsight it was unwise to air any programme with it in, and maybe that's the bias. I've not seen the documentary to see how the accuser was portrayed. How much was it aligned with what was presented and how much was it bbc spin? Don't know. I got little from the clip. The fact he's subsequently been sent down for a similar crime looks might suspicious. However any anger on the court result needs to be at the courts. At the time, the BBC were reporting on an innocent man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts. So why do so many travel so far to reach the uk if not to enjoy the wealth of benefits afforded to them?" The truth is not so many travel to UK. The vast majority of refugees globally – four out of every five – stay in their region of displacement, and consequently are hosted by developing countries. Turkey now hosts the highest number of refugees with 3.7?million, followed by Colombia with 1.7 million. https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC." You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts. So why do so many travel so far to reach the uk if not to enjoy the wealth of benefits afforded to them?" Family connections, that English is their second language? Maybe they still view Britain as a tolerant society where they will finally feel safe? I think sometimes people whose only real concerns are financial, can project those concerns on others who just want to live a normal life free from the threat of death and persecution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?" It will be a shame if it does go. Although I watch and read the BBC more than anything, it is good to vary your consumption to see other stories and points of view. The debates I have seen on GB news are often very good especially as everyone involved gets to say their point without interruption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. Here's a link that actually works: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170 There's no 'slut shaming' in that clip. In fact, in that clip, the BBC says nothing about the girl at all. i don't know what it is that you're angry about in that post and the clip it contains, but your message isn't coming across to the rest of us." Why do they have to mention that the men were "less sexually experienced" than the girl? What does that have to do in a r*pe case? Why should they even mention it in this video? Not to mention the fact that they immediately zoomed out to "far right" protests. It's slut shaming and a blatant attempt at calling the victim a liar and a racist. In a world where we still have problems with women not coming forward to report sexual assault, this is the last thing we needed. You don't blame the accuser just be because there is no evidence for the crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. If you are a feminist and you cared about women's rights, this must make you livid. The BBC sacrificed feminism on the altar of Islamism. It's probably far more disgusting than anything that GB News ever did: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet¤tTweet=1764769247316603170¤tTweetUser=UnityNewsNet Perhaps no one is commenting on it because your link doesn't work. I just get a "Something went wrong" error. Wouldn't it be easier to just direct us to the BBC page, so that we can all see how terrible it is?ignore all the link from media viewer onwards. The BBC seemed to be following up on a court case. In hindsight it was unwise to air any programme with it in, and maybe that's the bias. I've not seen the documentary to see how the accuser was portrayed. How much was it aligned with what was presented and how much was it bbc spin? Don't know. I got little from the clip. The fact he's subsequently been sent down for a similar crime looks might suspicious. However any anger on the court result needs to be at the courts. At the time, the BBC were reporting on an innocent man. " Even without hindsight, it was a terrible thing. The words used were outright blaming the girl. If the guy was a church priest, progressives would be out there protesting about the content of the video and for the right reason | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/" From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed?" I would suggest you read the link. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link." Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. Here's a link that actually works: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170 There's no 'slut shaming' in that clip. In fact, in that clip, the BBC says nothing about the girl at all. i don't know what it is that you're angry about in that post and the clip it contains, but your message isn't coming across to the rest of us. Why do they have to mention that the men were "less sexually experienced" than the girl? What does that have to do in a r*pe case? Why should they even mention it in this video? Not to mention the fact that they immediately zoomed out to "far right" protests. It's slut shaming and a blatant attempt at calling the victim a liar and a racist. In a world where we still have problems with women not coming forward to report sexual assault, this is the last thing we needed. You don't blame the accuser just be because there is no evidence for the crime. " I can't defend the editorialising here. But it sounds as tho the experience bit came up on court. It seems bbc wee following the family before the allegations. And so were complelled to comment. And at the time the case was pushed by farage. And the case then went to find him innocent. So they are reporting in that bit as well as the case. Perhaps the BBC bias came not from the content, but that angle. They doubled down when attacked. Again, not defending. But I'd say that a 90 second clip may not be giving the full story. Which in a thread about bias is somewhere ironic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. Here's a link that actually works: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170 There's no 'slut shaming' in that clip. In fact, in that clip, the BBC says nothing about the girl at all. i don't know what it is that you're angry about in that post and the clip it contains, but your message isn't coming across to the rest of us. Why do they have to mention that the men were "less sexually experienced" than the girl? What does that have to do in a r*pe case? Why should they even mention it in this video? Not to mention the fact that they immediately zoomed out to "far right" protests. It's slut shaming and a blatant attempt at calling the victim a liar and a racist. In a world where we still have problems with women not coming forward to report sexual assault, this is the last thing we needed. You don't blame the accuser just be because there is no evidence for the crime. I can't defend the editorialising here. But it sounds as tho the experience bit came up on court. It seems bbc wee following the family before the allegations. And so were complelled to comment. And at the time the case was pushed by farage. And the case then went to find him innocent. So they are reporting in that bit as well as the case. Perhaps the BBC bias came not from the content, but that angle. They doubled down when attacked. Again, not defending. But I'd say that a 90 second clip may not be giving the full story. Which in a thread about bias is somewhere ironic. " This might have come up in the court and that's damning too. I don't understand how one's sexual experience would affect the outcome of a r*pe case. And BBC definitely did not have to mention it in this video. I wish to see the whole video. But this clip took an accusatory tone about the girl. Now that we know the guy is indeed a criminal, imagine what the young girl might have felt watching the video when it came out. Imagine other girls who went through the same issue watching this. What would they have thought? If you can't prove the case, you will be slut shamed and called a racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence " I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. Here's a link that actually works: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170 There's no 'slut shaming' in that clip. In fact, in that clip, the BBC says nothing about the girl at all. i don't know what it is that you're angry about in that post and the clip it contains, but your message isn't coming across to the rest of us. Why do they have to mention that the men were "less sexually experienced" than the girl? What does that have to do in a r*pe case? Why should they even mention it in this video? Not to mention the fact that they immediately zoomed out to "far right" protests. It's slut shaming and a blatant attempt at calling the victim a liar and a racist. In a world where we still have problems with women not coming forward to report sexual assault, this is the last thing we needed. You don't blame the accuser just be because there is no evidence for the crime. I can't defend the editorialising here. But it sounds as tho the experience bit came up on court. It seems bbc wee following the family before the allegations. And so were complelled to comment. And at the time the case was pushed by farage. And the case then went to find him innocent. So they are reporting in that bit as well as the case. Perhaps the BBC bias came not from the content, but that angle. They doubled down when attacked. Again, not defending. But I'd say that a 90 second clip may not be giving the full story. Which in a thread about bias is somewhere ironic. This might have come up in the court and that's damning too. I don't understand how one's sexual experience would affect the outcome of a r*pe case. And BBC definitely did not have to mention it in this video. I wish to see the whole video. But this clip took an accusatory tone about the girl. Now that we know the guy is indeed a criminal, imagine what the young girl might have felt watching the video when it came out. Imagine other girls who went through the same issue watching this. What would they have thought? If you can't prove the case, you will be slut shamed and called a racist." that is a wider biy and why I think the bbc shouldn't have taken the stance they did. If the guy wanted this say it was driven my racism, the BBC should have commented if there was any evidence for this. I'm not sure which bit is slut shaming. They said she'd had more experience and he'd never kissed a girl. (Not exact quote so apols if I've missed remembered) But I while heartedly agree that care should be made when presenting on a not guilt rpe case. It's a massively complex issue and you need to balance the rights of the person found NG, with the rights of the accuser (as the NG may have been because there wasn't quite the balance of evidence) and the impact on future cases. They got it wrong imo. Did they get it wrong because of some liberal bias? Or because of an endowment effect bias ? Or because they were being attacked ? Or just they made decisions I wouldnt have made? Given the X was posted as proof of bias, those are the questions I'm asking myself. I'm not seeking to justify their actions but understand of their actions show what the OP intends to show. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling." I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just shared a video above, where just because a r*pe allegation was not proven, the BBC slut shamed a girl. Here's a link that actually works: https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1764769247316603170 There's no 'slut shaming' in that clip. In fact, in that clip, the BBC says nothing about the girl at all. i don't know what it is that you're angry about in that post and the clip it contains, but your message isn't coming across to the rest of us. Why do they have to mention that the men were "less sexually experienced" than the girl? What does that have to do in a r*pe case? Why should they even mention it in this video? Not to mention the fact that they immediately zoomed out to "far right" protests. It's slut shaming and a blatant attempt at calling the victim a liar and a racist. In a world where we still have problems with women not coming forward to report sexual assault, this is the last thing we needed. You don't blame the accuser just be because there is no evidence for the crime. I can't defend the editorialising here. But it sounds as tho the experience bit came up on court. It seems bbc wee following the family before the allegations. And so were complelled to comment. And at the time the case was pushed by farage. And the case then went to find him innocent. So they are reporting in that bit as well as the case. Perhaps the BBC bias came not from the content, but that angle. They doubled down when attacked. Again, not defending. But I'd say that a 90 second clip may not be giving the full story. Which in a thread about bias is somewhere ironic. This might have come up in the court and that's damning too. I don't understand how one's sexual experience would affect the outcome of a r*pe case. And BBC definitely did not have to mention it in this video. I wish to see the whole video. But this clip took an accusatory tone about the girl. Now that we know the guy is indeed a criminal, imagine what the young girl might have felt watching the video when it came out. Imagine other girls who went through the same issue watching this. What would they have thought? If you can't prove the case, you will be slut shamed and called a racist.that is a wider biy and why I think the bbc shouldn't have taken the stance they did. If the guy wanted this say it was driven my racism, the BBC should have commented if there was any evidence for this. I'm not sure which bit is slut shaming. They said she'd had more experience and he'd never kissed a girl. (Not exact quote so apols if I've missed remembered) But I while heartedly agree that care should be made when presenting on a not guilt rpe case. It's a massively complex issue and you need to balance the rights of the person found NG, with the rights of the accuser (as the NG may have been because there wasn't quite the balance of evidence) and the impact on future cases. They got it wrong imo. Did they get it wrong because of some liberal bias? Or because of an endowment effect bias ? Or because they were being attacked ? Or just they made decisions I wouldnt have made? Given the X was posted as proof of bias, those are the questions I'm asking myself. I'm not seeking to justify their actions but understand of their actions show what the OP intends to show. " The right unbiased way to cover this is to just say that the guy was accused but the verdict was not guilty. They need not have mentioned anything about the girl. They could have just told that the guy did not have much sexual experience. Why did they have to compare it with the girl? That's a subtle attempt at slut shaming. People complain about GB News. The BBC isn't any better. Their propaganda is much more subtle than GB News. It's insane that I have been made to pay money for this and people still believe that it's somehow unbiased. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling." . The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence " . Well said. Anyone taking the posters advice is risking a fine or imprisonment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres" or the crap channel 4 put out the above still cant call Hamas for the terrorists that they are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres" or the crap channel 4 put out the above still cant call Hamas for the terrorists that they are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theresor the crap channel 4 put out the above still cant call Hamas for the terrorists that they are" You must think the crap is so bad you posted it twice! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts. So why do so many travel so far to reach the uk if not to enjoy the wealth of benefits afforded to them? Family connections, that English is their second language? Maybe they still view Britain as a tolerant society where they will finally feel safe? I think sometimes people whose only real concerns are financial, can project those concerns on others who just want to live a normal life free from the threat of death and persecution." I understand the persecution part everyone deserves to be safe, but surely you would go to the closest safe country not travel thousands of miles. Not everyone speaks English who comes to the uk lots have no intentions to learn either. We have enough unskilled and criminal natives to pay for already I don’t see why we should pay everyone else’s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling.. The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. " Nope that's not true, that isn't the reality....the reality is your bashing of the BBC is political motivated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence . Well said. Anyone taking the posters advice is risking a fine or imprisonment " From Martin Lewis website... You only need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast or use iPlayer – if you only ever use other catch-up sites, you don't need one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts. So why do so many travel so far to reach the uk if not to enjoy the wealth of benefits afforded to them? Family connections, that English is their second language? Maybe they still view Britain as a tolerant society where they will finally feel safe? I think sometimes people whose only real concerns are financial, can project those concerns on others who just want to live a normal life free from the threat of death and persecution. I understand the persecution part everyone deserves to be safe, but surely you would go to the closest safe country not travel thousands of miles. Not everyone speaks English who comes to the uk lots have no intentions to learn either. We have enough unskilled and criminal natives to pay for already I don’t see why we should pay everyone else’s. " Because people think the UK is safe, and they won’t be persecuted? We k ow it’s not for the benefits as we don’t pay anymore than anywhere else. When people are scared they want to get somewhere they will feel safe. Maybe that’s it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling.. The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. Nope that's not true, that isn't the reality....the reality is your bashing of the BBC is political motivated " What isn't reality about being forced to pay for a licence if you watch ANY live TV? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news To be fair, people were presented with facts and figures, and they were also presented with lies and scary posters about Muslims ‘invading’ in their millions. As we know, emotion trumps reason, the public then voted accordingly. Not targeting any group of people in particular but mass immigration is unsustainable. They all have their hands out because the uk is a well known soft touch. Immigrants all need to be housed, in Plymouth a 3 bedroom terraced house with no garden can cost in excess of £300,000. It’s bonkers, further into Cornwall it’s even worse. I’m not sure you really know what benefits immigrants are entitled to. If you have the right to reside in the UK (I.e. you are a legal immigrant) then you can claim benefits, if you are an illegal immigrant you aren’t entitled to anything. If you are an asylum seeker then you are entitled to approximately £35 per week and will be placed in accommodation that the government deems fit. You hear a lot about asylum seekers being put up in 5 star hotels but in reality they are almost always in cheap, low grade hotels that struggle to fill their rooms otherwise. Benefits paid to immigrants are similar across Europe, and the UK is not an outlier. The idea that the UK is a soft touch seems to be one held by people from the UK, and is not born out by facts. So why do so many travel so far to reach the uk if not to enjoy the wealth of benefits afforded to them? Family connections, that English is their second language? Maybe they still view Britain as a tolerant society where they will finally feel safe? I think sometimes people whose only real concerns are financial, can project those concerns on others who just want to live a normal life free from the threat of death and persecution. I understand the persecution part everyone deserves to be safe, but surely you would go to the closest safe country not travel thousands of miles. Not everyone speaks English who comes to the uk lots have no intentions to learn either. We have enough unskilled and criminal natives to pay for already I don’t see why we should pay everyone else’s. " I will post this again, please read it, what you say is incorrect, the vast majority don't come to the UK, in fact it's very little. Plus why associate refugees with unskilled and criminal natives? how do you know they don't learn to speak English? https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling.. The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. Nope that's not true, that isn't the reality....the reality is your bashing of the BBC is political motivated What isn't reality about being forced to pay for a licence if you watch ANY live TV? " That's already been explained and is in the Martin Lewis article | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling.. The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. Nope that's not true, that isn't the reality....the reality is your bashing of the BBC is political motivated What isn't reality about being forced to pay for a licence if you watch ANY live TV? That's already been explained and is in the Martin Lewis article " "You only need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast or use iPlayer" Which is forcing you to pay for a TV licence even if you don't watch BBC. Tell me you don't understand what you're saying without actually telling me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling.. The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. Nope that's not true, that isn't the reality....the reality is your bashing of the BBC is political motivated What isn't reality about being forced to pay for a licence if you watch ANY live TV? That's already been explained and is in the Martin Lewis article "You only need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast or use iPlayer" Which is forcing you to pay for a TV licence even if you don't watch BBC. Tell me you don't understand what you're saying without actually telling me "Nope what you say is wrong, read the article. From the Martin Lewis article; You used to need a TV licence merely for having a telly, but now you can get away without paying the £159 annual fee – rising to £169.50 from April 2024 – if you only watch certain channels on catch-up. If you watch BBC iPlayer, you'll need a licence, but you won't for other channels' catch-up services. Confused? Don't be – this guide will take you through whether you should be paying or not, regardless of the device you watch on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence." So if you watch ANY live TV you are forced to buy a licence... Why are you arguing against your own facts? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence." We all know this. Not sure why you are wasting our time repeating it. My concern is simple. I watch live sports on Sky. I pay Sky for that privilege. Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling.. The reality is that anyone with a TV is forced to buy a licence . It removes freedom of choice. The BBC should become a pay to view channel and then there is a level playing field to compete against other channels. Unfair competition. Nope that's not true, that isn't the reality....the reality is your bashing of the BBC is political motivated What isn't reality about being forced to pay for a licence if you watch ANY live TV? That's already been explained and is in the Martin Lewis article " . The reality is if you have a TV and watch any live TV you need a licence . Only a small number of people are stupid enough not to buy a licence and risk prosecution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence. We all know this. Not sure why you are wasting our time repeating it. My concern is simple. I watch live sports on Sky. I pay Sky for that privilege. Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it?" The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence. We all know this. Not sure why you are wasting our time repeating it. My concern is simple. I watch live sports on Sky. I pay Sky for that privilege. Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. " It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence. We all know this. Not sure why you are wasting our time repeating it. My concern is simple. I watch live sports on Sky. I pay Sky for that privilege. Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. " That’s just your opinion, which doesn’t outweigh the law, whether you think it’s valid or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence. We all know this. Not sure why you are wasting our time repeating it. My concern is simple. I watch live sports on Sky. I pay Sky for that privilege. Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. That’s just your opinion, which doesn’t outweigh the law, whether you think it’s valid or not. " Laws can be changed. It's a stupid law to begin with and I have the right to criticise it and hope to change it. That's just democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go this explains it... The TV Licensing website says you DO need a TV licence if: You watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV, on any channel. For example, when watching or recording an episode of The Chase on your TV, on ITV. You watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service, such as ITVX, Now or YouTube. For example, when watching an episode of The Chase via ITVX the same time as it's broadcast on ITV. You watch or download any programmes on BBC iPlayer. This applies to all channels (including, say, +1 channels) on any mainstream TV platform, including Freeview, Sky or Virgin. It also applies to watching 'live TV' via internet-only services such as Amazon Prime Video and Now, but only if you watch content that's simultaneously being shown on a TV channel or is actually being broadcast live, for example a Premier League football match. But if you only use online services to watch content on demand, such as cat videos on YouTube or The Crown on Netflix, you don't need a TV licence. We all know this. Not sure why you are wasting our time repeating it. My concern is simple. I watch live sports on Sky. I pay Sky for that privilege. Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. That’s just your opinion, which doesn’t outweigh the law, whether you think it’s valid or not. Laws can be changed. It's a stupid law to begin with and I have the right to criticise it and hope to change it. That's just democracy." Of course you do. I wish you all the best with that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?" Gang Bang News? There, I said it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately, large volumes of wealth have been amassed, much squeezed out of the majority of the population, by right wingers. They won't be in any hurry to relinquish much control, taking their time to continue ramping up of the money extraction from the state and the masses. There's plenty of money swilling around the wealthy. Their goals and tactics don't need to change much over decades. GB 'news' will likely continue, alongside other profitable endeavours of wealth extraction. Feeling objectively significantly wealthier since 2010? " And you think left wing politicians are poor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. That’s just your opinion, which doesn’t outweigh the law, whether you think it’s valid or not. Laws can be changed. It's a stupid law to begin with and I have the right to criticise it and hope to change it. That's just democracy. Of course you do. I wish you all the best with that "Don't forget that 'people power' got rid of the TV licence in Australia. That was a democracy when I last checked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. That’s just your opinion, which doesn’t outweigh the law, whether you think it’s valid or not. Laws can be changed. It's a stupid law to begin with and I have the right to criticise it and hope to change it. That's just democracy. Of course you do. I wish you all the best with that
Don't forget that 'people power' got rid of the TV licence in Australia. That was a democracy when I last checked."Recently Milei got rid of Argentina's largest state new agency. Also a democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Why the fuck should I pay BBC if I am not watching it? The Martin Lewis article explains why. Have a lovely weekend. It doesn't. No valid reason. The BBC has to compete with other services with a subscription service. I should not be paying for it just because I watch live TV elsewhere. That’s just your opinion, which doesn’t outweigh the law, whether you think it’s valid or not. Laws can be changed. It's a stupid law to begin with and I have the right to criticise it and hope to change it. That's just democracy. Of course you do. I wish you all the best with that
Don't forget that 'people power' got rid of the TV licence in Australia. That was a democracy when I last checked."Wasn’t that in the 70’s? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that?" In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history." That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Don't forget that 'people power' got rid of the TV licence in Australia. That was a democracy when I last checked. Wasn’t that in the 70’s?" Yes it was in the 70s. The dropping of the licence, not when I checked. I haven't really checked if Australia is still a democracy. You can usually get away on here with sounding knowledgeable! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service." If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service. If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. " Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football. I understand a government taxing extra for smoking products to protect people from bad health effects. But taxing people for watching live TV is lame tbh. It indirectly hits the ad revenue of the telecaster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service. If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football. I understand a government taxing extra for smoking products to protect people from bad health effects. But taxing people for watching live TV is lame tbh. It indirectly hits the ad revenue of the telecaster " Mobile networks, radio networks all pay for the use of frequencies. They are literally paying to use thin air, Like I said, I can see the good the BBC delivers and I can see how it is funded, I’m easily convinced to step one side of the fence or the other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service. If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football. I understand a government taxing extra for smoking products to protect people from bad health effects. But taxing people for watching live TV is lame tbh. It indirectly hits the ad revenue of the telecaster Mobile networks, radio networks all pay for the use of frequencies. They are literally paying to use thin air, Like I said, I can see the good the BBC delivers and I can see how it is funded, I’m easily convinced to step one side of the fence or the other" Yes, mobile networks pay for it and I pay the mobile networks and also a VAT over it. Hence my concerns over extra tax for watching Live TV. But if you see value in BBC, I can see why you aren't bothered with the TV licence. It's because I don't see value in it, I find the TV licence needless. That's where our disagreement lies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service. If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. " Netflix is moving into live though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GB News - where fascists and weirdos gather to counter and attack everything they consider "woke". If you consider the pernicious influence and anti-democratic effect of Fox in USA, it would be unwise to laugh off the potential for extreme right-wing media outlets to achieve similar results here, in time. Through the propaganda power of their print titles, a few wealthy individuals and their well-rewarded scribblers swung it for brexit, against predictions and common sense.. Maybe time for a reality check. Prior to the Brexit vote every household was presented with facts and figures and there were endless discussions in the media . The public then voted accordingly. Facts and figures....try Googling... Brexit fake news . Why would anyone do that It would simply direct you to a biased source which hardly makes sense. Is there an unbiased source you would recommend? There is none. That raises the question of why people specifically target GB News. I personally never watched it. But then I am not forced to pay for it, unlike BBC. You are not forced to pay for it, you pay for it if you watch it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/ From what I know, if I watch live TV, I am supposed to pay TV licence fee. Has that rule changed? I would suggest you read the link. Thanks for wasting my time by making me read an article that says exactly what I said. If I watch live TV, I have to pay for TV licence I am happy for you that the article confirms what you thought.... you are not forced to pay for a TV licence, you pay for it because you watch live TV, that is the service the TV licence provides, if you don't want to pay for it don't watch live TV....it's no different from apple, prime, netflix you pay for their service. It's a bit like should I take the bus (pay) or walk (free).....Some people bash the BBC because of it's licence but really it's politically motivated.....dare I say it again; dog whistling. I pay to sky to watch live sports. Why should I pay BBC for that? In theory you aren’t.. you are paying a tax to own a device that can receive live broadcasts, the government chooses to give money to the BBC from that tax. I can see both sides of the coin and if the BBC allow standards to slip or presenters to begin changing the face of the organisation, the tax will surely become history. That's an interesting way to see this. In that case, it becomes a matter of why should I pay tax to watch live TV while I already paid tax to buy TV, internet and the broadcast service. If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. Netflix is moving into live though" That will close down some peoples arguments for not paying the tax. I’m not convinced how effective the enforcement of the fee is, it feels as though it will end, when is the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example." "Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football." The TV licence only applies to BBC content, and broadcast TV, i.e. signals received via an aerial. Amazon is not broadcast, so you don't need a licence for it, wether it's showing live footage or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m not convinced how effective the enforcement of the fee is, it feels as though it will end, when is the question " It will end when the government brings in mobile phone and internet licences! No licence no connection! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped? Gang Bang News? There, I said it." It would have a lot more viewers and probably be in profit! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football. The TV licence only applies to BBC content, and broadcast TV, i.e. signals received via an aerial. Amazon is not broadcast, so you don't need a licence for it, wether it's showing live footage or not." https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ33 It says "You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch live on streaming services - such as ITVX, Channel 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now, Sky Go." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example." "Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football." "The TV licence only applies to BBC content, and broadcast TV, i.e. signals received via an aerial." "Amazon is not broadcast, so you don't need a licence for it, wether it's showing live footage or not. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ33 It says "You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch live on streaming services - such as ITVX, Channel 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now, Sky Go."" Does Amazon Prime stream broadcast channels? Yes, you do need a licence to watch live streams of broadcast channels. I was making the assumption that the football being watched was something only available on Amazon Prime. If it's a re-stream of Sky, then you'll need a licence. Sorry for being unclear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you watch no live broadcast you are not liable for tax. Netflix, doesn’t broadcast live as an example. Yes but Amazon Prime does and I watch live football. The TV licence only applies to BBC content, and broadcast TV, i.e. signals received via an aerial. Amazon is not broadcast, so you don't need a licence for it, wether it's showing live footage or not. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ33 It says "You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch live on streaming services - such as ITVX, Channel 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now, Sky Go." Does Amazon Prime stream broadcast channels? Yes, you do need a licence to watch live streams of broadcast channels. I was making the assumption that the football being watched was something only available on Amazon Prime. If it's a re-stream of Sky, then you'll need a licence. Sorry for being unclear." Amazon Prime stream exclusive live coverage at times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m not convinced how effective the enforcement of the fee is, it feels as though it will end, when is the question It will end when the government brings in mobile phone and internet licences! No licence no connection!" The internet is FREE….I’d like to see them try. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Amazon Prime stream exclusive live coverage at times." Thanks for that. Since Amazon Prime isn't a broadcast channel, it's not classed as "television" under the relevant law, so you don't need a licence to watch its own live coverage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m not convinced how effective the enforcement of the fee is, it feels as though it will end, when is the question It will end when the government brings in mobile phone and internet licences! No licence no connection!" They already have in a way, ofcom spectrum auction, is basically a license to operators | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Amazon Prime stream exclusive live coverage at times. Thanks for that. Since Amazon Prime isn't a broadcast channel, it's not classed as "television" under the relevant law, so you don't need a licence to watch its own live coverage." It just got too complex when I started reading about it
I anyway planned to watch live sports on Sky too and ended up paying for the license. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem… or more accurately… the misunderstanding that most people have is that certain broadcasters have to abide by certain rules… For example, free to air broadcasters , bbc itv and channel 4, are governed by OFCOMs rules on impartiality… where you are supposed to where possible give political parties equal time… that’s why on question you always have a person from the government, and a couple from opposition parties, on the Sunday shows… government and opposition, party political broadcasts… same length, 4 days in a row, same time… ect ect! Satellite tv companies are not actually bound by the same rules, there’s are a lot more relaxed! Although sky news actually voluntarily plays by the much stricter rules GB news and Talk TV still have to be some sort of impartial… you are not going to get that if a conservative mp is interviewing their own ministers…. Or the then Conservative Party chairman is interviewing the prime minister who appointed him! If they can’t even get impartiality right from a journalism standpoint, then I have no sympathy for them being pulled up again and again and again by ofcom So when Dan Wootton rather than taking the OFCOM slap on the wrist, basically decided to take his ball home with him… complaining about people denying him freedom of speech, then don’t try and claim you are an impartiality and objective journalist! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem… or more accurately… the misunderstanding that most people have is that certain broadcasters have to abide by certain rules… For example, free to air broadcasters , bbc itv and channel 4, are governed by OFCOMs rules on impartiality… where you are supposed to where possible give political parties equal time… that’s why on question you always have a person from the government, and a couple from opposition parties, on the Sunday shows… government and opposition, party political broadcasts… same length, 4 days in a row, same time… ect ect! Satellite tv companies are not actually bound by the same rules, there’s are a lot more relaxed! Although sky news actually voluntarily plays by the much stricter rules GB news and Talk TV still have to be some sort of impartial… you are not going to get that if a conservative mp is interviewing their own ministers…. Or the then Conservative Party chairman is interviewing the prime minister who appointed him! If they can’t even get impartiality right from a journalism standpoint, then I have no sympathy for them being pulled up again and again and again by ofcom So when Dan Wootton rather than taking the OFCOM slap on the wrist, basically decided to take his ball home with him… complaining about people denying him freedom of speech, then don’t try and claim you are an impartiality and objective journalist! " Pretty much every debate i have seen on GB news has people from all sides of the topic and all get to say their opinion without being interrupted. The one on one interviews I have seen have mostly been with those who hold the opposite view to the interviewer. I should say that when watching it it tends to be JRM, sometimes a bit of Farage. Ironically I have heard more anti government arguments on there than any other channel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The trouble is that all they get from Ofcom is a slap on the wrist. I'd say the regulator needs more teeth, but then I look at Ofwat, Ofgem and such like and see how much goes unpunished in those industries..." Actually OFCOM have the power to take away a channels tv licence to broadcast… it what they were going to do with RT before the EU bailed them out of making that decision (because the English language RT version came through satellites based out of Luxembourg when the EU sanctions went on it was taken out of their hands) Rumour was that the then murdoch owned Fox News license was about to be pulled by OFCOM because of the amount of fines and decisions that went against them on impartiality… but sky pulled it themselves because they said it wasn’t reaching targets on audiences | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem… or more accurately… the misunderstanding that most people have is that certain broadcasters have to abide by certain rules… For example, free to air broadcasters , bbc itv and channel 4, are governed by OFCOMs rules on impartiality… where you are supposed to where possible give political parties equal time… that’s why on question you always have a person from the government, and a couple from opposition parties, on the Sunday shows… government and opposition, party political broadcasts… same length, 4 days in a row, same time… ect ect! Satellite tv companies are not actually bound by the same rules, there’s are a lot more relaxed! Although sky news actually voluntarily plays by the much stricter rules GB news and Talk TV still have to be some sort of impartial… you are not going to get that if a conservative mp is interviewing their own ministers…. Or the then Conservative Party chairman is interviewing the prime minister who appointed him! If they can’t even get impartiality right from a journalism standpoint, then I have no sympathy for them being pulled up again and again and again by ofcom So when Dan Wootton rather than taking the OFCOM slap on the wrist, basically decided to take his ball home with him… complaining about people denying him freedom of speech, then don’t try and claim you are an impartiality and objective journalist! Pretty much every debate i have seen on GB news has people from all sides of the topic and all get to say their opinion without being interrupted. The one on one interviews I have seen have mostly been with those who hold the opposite view to the interviewer. I should say that when watching it it tends to be JRM, sometimes a bit of Farage. Ironically I have heard more anti government arguments on there than any other channel" Of course they are anti government that is the whole point, dictatorship, think fox news and trump, GB news and jrm, farage.... All champions of everyday people whilst telling you they are not the establishment....truth is they are the establishment and would have all of us back up chimneys or in a work house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem… or more accurately… the misunderstanding that most people have is that certain broadcasters have to abide by certain rules… For example, free to air broadcasters , bbc itv and channel 4, are governed by OFCOMs rules on impartiality… where you are supposed to where possible give political parties equal time… that’s why on question you always have a person from the government, and a couple from opposition parties, on the Sunday shows… government and opposition, party political broadcasts… same length, 4 days in a row, same time… ect ect! Satellite tv companies are not actually bound by the same rules, there’s are a lot more relaxed! Although sky news actually voluntarily plays by the much stricter rules GB news and Talk TV still have to be some sort of impartial… you are not going to get that if a conservative mp is interviewing their own ministers…. Or the then Conservative Party chairman is interviewing the prime minister who appointed him! If they can’t even get impartiality right from a journalism standpoint, then I have no sympathy for them being pulled up again and again and again by ofcom So when Dan Wootton rather than taking the OFCOM slap on the wrist, basically decided to take his ball home with him… complaining about people denying him freedom of speech, then don’t try and claim you are an impartiality and objective journalist! Pretty much every debate i have seen on GB news has people from all sides of the topic and all get to say their opinion without being interrupted. The one on one interviews I have seen have mostly been with those who hold the opposite view to the interviewer. I should say that when watching it it tends to be JRM, sometimes a bit of Farage. Ironically I have heard more anti government arguments on there than any other channel Of course they are anti government that is the whole point, dictatorship, think fox news and trump, GB news and jrm, farage.... All champions of everyday people whilst telling you they are not the establishment....truth is they are the establishment and would have all of us back up chimneys or in a work house." My note about them being very anti government was more a reflection on what another poster suggested that their will be no impartiality if it's a party chairman interviewing the PM. If anything the opposite is true on this channel as they regularly have people with very opposing views. Don't know about talk tv as hardly ever seen it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem… or more accurately… the misunderstanding that most people have is that certain broadcasters have to abide by certain rules… For example, free to air broadcasters , bbc itv and channel 4, are governed by OFCOMs rules on impartiality… where you are supposed to where possible give political parties equal time… that’s why on question you always have a person from the government, and a couple from opposition parties, on the Sunday shows… government and opposition, party political broadcasts… same length, 4 days in a row, same time… ect ect! Satellite tv companies are not actually bound by the same rules, there’s are a lot more relaxed! Although sky news actually voluntarily plays by the much stricter rules GB news and Talk TV still have to be some sort of impartial… you are not going to get that if a conservative mp is interviewing their own ministers…. Or the then Conservative Party chairman is interviewing the prime minister who appointed him! If they can’t even get impartiality right from a journalism standpoint, then I have no sympathy for them being pulled up again and again and again by ofcom So when Dan Wootton rather than taking the OFCOM slap on the wrist, basically decided to take his ball home with him… complaining about people denying him freedom of speech, then don’t try and claim you are an impartiality and objective journalist! Pretty much every debate i have seen on GB news has people from all sides of the topic and all get to say their opinion without being interrupted. The one on one interviews I have seen have mostly been with those who hold the opposite view to the interviewer. I should say that when watching it it tends to be JRM, sometimes a bit of Farage. Ironically I have heard more anti government arguments on there than any other channel Of course they are anti government that is the whole point, dictatorship, think fox news and trump, GB news and jrm, farage.... All champions of everyday people whilst telling you they are not the establishment....truth is they are the establishment and would have all of us back up chimneys or in a work house. My note about them being very anti government was more a reflection on what another poster suggested that their will be no impartiality if it's a party chairman interviewing the PM. If anything the opposite is true on this channel as they regularly have people with very opposing views. Don't know about talk tv as hardly ever seen it" Not to sure about that they seem to get told off a lot for telling porkys | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My note about them being very anti government was more a reflection on what another poster suggested that there will be no impartiality if it's a party chairman interviewing the PM. If anything the opposite is true on this channel as they regularly have people with very opposing views. Don't know about talk tv as hardly ever seen it" It was the Lee Anderson (then Conservative Party chairman) doing the “interview” with rishi (the person who appointed Anderson to the position literally a month before) that caused all the complaints to come into OFCOM in the first place…. Question…. Have you seen the actual interview? Because I’ll then ask what part of the OFCOM ruling in which the complaints were upheld you thought were objectively wrong! If you want to place the interview online there is nothing stopping people from doing that…. But to objectively put it on a “news channel” and claim it’s impartial… that is a bit of a stretch! GB news and Talk TV don’t have to/need to give equal time …. All they have to do is show some part of truthful and impartial reporting ! It’s the lowest bar in the UK a channel describing itself as a news channel for their licensing agreement has to hit… If they can’t hit that… I have zero sympathy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My note about them being very anti government was more a reflection on what another poster suggested that there will be no impartiality if it's a party chairman interviewing the PM. If anything the opposite is true on this channel as they regularly have people with very opposing views. Don't know about talk tv as hardly ever seen it It was the Lee Anderson (then Conservative Party chairman) doing the “interview” with rishi (the person who appointed Anderson to the position literally a month before) that caused all the complaints to come into OFCOM in the first place…. Question…. Have you seen the actual interview? Because I’ll then ask what part of the OFCOM ruling in which the complaints were upheld you thought were objectively wrong! If you want to place the interview online there is nothing stopping people from doing that…. But to objectively put it on a “news channel” and claim it’s impartial… that is a bit of a stretch! GB news and Talk TV don’t have to/need to give equal time …. All they have to do is show some part of truthful and impartial reporting ! It’s the lowest bar in the UK a channel describing itself as a news channel for their licensing agreement has to hit… If they can’t hit that… I have zero sympathy " I have not seen the interview you mention so can't comment on it though agree that if it breaks rules then there should be consequences. I have however seen a fair few interviews and debates and none have been like that. In fact they were the opposite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
You can't make it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up."And the only ones that don't watch it seem to be the only ones that know so much about it, lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up."Like me, with sport, then. People are hardly likely to complain about something they enjoy watching, are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up.
Like me, with sport, then.
People are hardly likely to complain about something they enjoy watching, are they?
"Ya' Think? I have a friend who watches every terrestrial soap on TV, and she complains about all of them none stop! When I tell here they are not real, she says, that's not the point! I enjoy shouting at them! Much like when we switch on talk radio in the car - once my hubby and I shouted at the radio for two hours from Midlands to Kent. We had a great time. Then we got into France and shouted at the radio for 12 hours listening to rFI. Best 14 hours in a car yet, lol  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up."Most of us think it's a subject of ridicule. You don't need to watch every second of it to know what a massive pile of bias horse shit it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up.
Most of us think it's a subject of ridicule. You don't need to watch every second of it to know what a massive pile of bias horse shit it is."Circle jerk posts always make me giggle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?i imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actuall news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres Last i looked, neither BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News or ITV News employed former and current Conservative politicians to "interview" former and current Conservative politicians with zero pushback on policy statements. Ergo - the aforementioned news channels are (on the whole) significantly less partisan than GB News and GB News needed people to be influenced by their content - but not enough people are interested in Conservative ideology - see current opinion polls. According to current opinion polls all of the above are losing viewers to gb news, I heard Mr Johnson is joining the channel, the filth won't like that at all." I have never watched GB news and knowing Johnson is going to be on there. Definatly not going to be watching it now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up.
Most of us think it's a subject of ridicule. You don't need to watch every second of it to know what a massive pile of bias horse shit it is."But don't people only call 'Bias' when it's not their 'Bias'?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up.
Most of us think it's a subject of ridicule. You don't need to watch every second of it to know what a massive pile of bias horse shit it is."I've got used to Johnnie's posts normally being spot on, so methinks there might be something in this angle. I wouldn't know, myself, as I've never watched it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only people who complain are the ones who do not watch it.
You can't make it up.
Most of us think it's a subject of ridicule. You don't need to watch every second of it to know what a massive pile of bias horse shit it is.
I've got used to Johnnie's posts normally being spot on, so methinks there might be something in this angle.
I wouldn't know, myself, as I've never watched it."Conservative MPs interviewing other Conservative MPs. Equal weighting given to "both sides" in such topics as climate science and virology. Some lunatic they found off Facebook, and actual real life scientists. It's basically the TV version of the Beano. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I imagine no more gullible than those who watch the beeb or sky, none of them are actual news there just selling you there opinion, and people will watch whatever opinion matches theres" This is exactly what I always say, weather you get your news from a paper, a TV channel, YouTube or where ever. It’s all about people pushing their own agenda. Personally, I won’t miss GB News, I hate visiting my parents when my dads been watching it and having to listen to him bang on about immigrants in boats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reporting losses of £75 million. According to Andrew Neil the plan was for GB News to be loss adjusting in year two and breaking even by year three, but in fact year two losses were greater than year one losses. Are we about to see GB News disappear? Andrew Neil doesn’t think the channel is sustainable and the owners will only pay so much to try to influence people before calling it a day. Maybe most British people aren’t quite as gullible as the channel owners had hoped?" Yay! That’s the best news I’ve heard in ages | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quick,in a free country with a free media let's close down a news channel we don't like(and judging by some of the posts have never watched) because we don't want adults to be exposed to views and ideas we don't like.Next let's burn books and art whilst shouting 'Seig Heil' for the same reason.When you stop someone from speaking you are not showing the world they are wrong or a liar,just that you are terrified of the truth they may speak.Its such a racist /right wing channel they have black,left wing,Jewish and Muslim presenters and regular guests.All regulated by OFFCOM who have found no racism or biased reporting.Steyn(heart attack)Robinson,Wooton quit before they were booted and Fox was booted by the channel not OFFCOM.Unlike the bias and imbalance of the BBC OFFCOM ruled (Brexit many times,COVID stats by the NHS which forced an apology/government intervention) but Sshhh don't mention that.I am sure you will all find your singular mindset echo chamber in the TV news output of Russia,China,Iran and North Korea.Always sobering to see so many people still the victims of social and cultural conditioning,incapable of any respect or tolerance (that they love to preach AT others),especially towards their parents.Oppression and tyranny isn't being silenced,it's being silenced in case you might offend someone else.If a TV station disturbs you so much you have no weapons of reason left in your armoury,just the tactic of shouting down, shouting louder and continual interruption,all that is left for those who are out of ammo.Joining a crowd,saying something trendy to appear relevant just shows how irrelevant you are." So by that virtue, you'd have been happy for no one to have shut down the National Socialist German Workers' Party in the early 1930's then ? Right...gotcha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quick,in a free country with a free media let's close down a news channel we don't like(and judging by some of the posts have never watched) because we don't want adults to be exposed to views and ideas we don't like.Next let's burn books and art whilst shouting 'Seig Heil' for the same reason.When you stop someone from speaking you are not showing the world they are wrong or a liar,just that you are terrified of the truth they may speak.Its such a racist /right wing channel they have black,left wing,Jewish and Muslim presenters and regular guests.All regulated by OFFCOM who have found no racism or biased reporting.Steyn(heart attack)Robinson,Wooton quit before they were booted and Fox was booted by the channel not OFFCOM.Unlike the bias and imbalance of the BBC OFFCOM ruled (Brexit many times,COVID stats by the NHS which forced an apology/government intervention) but Sshhh don't mention that.I am sure you will all find your singular mindset echo chamber in the TV news output of Russia,China,Iran and North Korea.Always sobering to see so many people still the victims of social and cultural conditioning,incapable of any respect or tolerance (that they love to preach AT others),especially towards their parents.Oppression and tyranny isn't being silenced,it's being silenced in case you might offend someone else.If a TV station disturbs you so much you have no weapons of reason left in your armoury,just the tactic of shouting down, shouting louder and continual interruption,all that is left for those who are out of ammo.Joining a crowd,saying something trendy to appear relevant just shows how irrelevant you are." It’s not a news channel, let’s face it. It’s a propaganda outlet for the Reform party and their colleagues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……." How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site?" The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought." Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. " What are they selling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling" Whatever it is, they’re not selling enough of it. Losses in every year so far, increasing substantially. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Whatever it is, they’re not selling enough of it. Losses in every year so far, increasing substantially. " Loss leader | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Whatever it is, they’re not selling enough of it. Losses in every year so far, increasing substantially. Loss leader" At what point does one give up on a loss leader? We’re not talking small change losses here, but tens of millions annually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling" Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. " Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m?" Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. " No but you can see their figures and costs here: https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/gb-news-results-2023-losses/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. No but you can see their figures and costs here: https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/gb-news-results-2023-losses/ " And? For all we know, the budget could be £1b. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. No but you can see their figures and costs here: https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/gb-news-results-2023-losses/ And? For all we know, the budget could be £1b." How about “thanks for sharing the info but I was making a different point” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. " Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme)." monthly share of all views. Only BBC News channel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not a news channel, let’s face it. It’s a propaganda outlet for the Reform party and their colleagues. " I'm all in favour of anything which might split the Tory vote! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme)." Those figures are from BARB. They are monthly % share of all channels. Of course BBC One News is going to be the highest viewed news programme, its free to air. Let's not compare apples and oranges on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme). Those figures are from BARB. They are monthly % share of all channels. Of course BBC One News is going to be the highest viewed news programme, its free to air. Let's not compare apples and oranges on this. " do you have to pay for GB News ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme). Those figures are from BARB. They are monthly % share of all channels. Of course BBC One News is going to be the highest viewed news programme, its free to air. Let's not compare apples and oranges on this. do you have to pay for GB News ? " It's not on terrestrial (is that even a thing anymore). The only one which is, is BBC One and their news segment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme). Those figures are from BARB. They are monthly % share of all channels. Of course BBC One News is going to be the highest viewed news programme, its free to air. Let's not compare apples and oranges on this. do you have to pay for GB News ? It's not on terrestrial (is that even a thing anymore). The only one which is, is BBC One and their news segment. " gotcha. Although if terrestrial isn't a thing, does that get us closer to apples with apples ? I get what you mean tho. Bbc one news is sandwiched between non news programmes so more accessible. Tho gb news and BBC news channels aren't really like for like on model. Bbc news is the same content rolled. Gb news has an larger entertainment angle with different presenters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme). Those figures are from BARB. They are monthly % share of all channels. Of course BBC One News is going to be the highest viewed news programme, its free to air. Let's not compare apples and oranges on this. do you have to pay for GB News ? It's not on terrestrial (is that even a thing anymore). The only one which is, is BBC One and their news segment. gotcha. Although if terrestrial isn't a thing, does that get us closer to apples with apples ? I get what you mean tho. Bbc one news is sandwiched between non news programmes so more accessible. Tho gb news and BBC news channels aren't really like for like on model. Bbc news is the same content rolled. Gb news has an larger entertainment angle with different presenters. " I don't think we are getting closer. BBC One News could be sandwiched between 2 programmes which someone watches and they get up to do something when the news is on. There is no way to know. We can compare figures for BBC News and GB News because they are dedicated channels even if the models for News are different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme)." Do you think a news channel is going to generate a lot of advertising revenue, why would it? How much does influence cost, enough for investors to back it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I owned GB news and I read this thread, I think I would be feeling rather pleased……. How could any business lose that amount of money and then feel pleased by reading a few comments on a swingers site? The reach is wide, even amongst those that don’t watch it, dream situation I would have thought. Reach is only good if it delivers brand value that translates into sales. What are they selling Advertising revenue. The cost of an ad slot being dictated by the size of the audience. Oh before any of our resident pedants drop by, GB News wants to sell advertising space that generates advertising revenue for GB News. The point on Loss Leader. Yep for sure as long as the owners admit GB News is a propaganda channel rather than impartial news channel and business. If it delivers on the aims and objectives of its owners then the cost could be put down to their “marketing budget”. Legatum and others may indeed be happy with that, though I suspect they’d want better reach than 2.7m? Monthly Share: BBC News 1.05% Sky News 0.78% GB News 0.56% Given how established those other 2 channels are I'd say their share of viewing figures isn't too bad at all. Everyone who despises GB News will of course look at the headline figure but really it means fuck all because we don't know their budget or forecasts. Those stats do not tally with various sources I have seen. Not saying they are wrong (although a % is meaningless in terms of advertising revenue as they need viewing figures and demographics to determine ad slot cost) so what is your source? What are they a % of? Total TV viewing figures for the month? Or % of news channel viewers? When you say BBC News you mean the dedicated channel but that discounts broadcast, ie BBC One News (by far the highest viewed news programme). Do you think a news channel is going to generate a lot of advertising revenue, why would it? How much does influence cost, enough for investors to back it. " Do you have a list of the investors who back gb news ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
