ITV to create Pay Per View Channels [Archive]

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 11:31 AM

Lets be honest. If we go down that route Dan then LOADS could be argued from it.

Why should you pay tax for working?
Why should you pay for a pension?
Why should you pay tax for low life's on benefits?
Why should you pay tax for immigrants to be deported?

Non of those are beneficial to you

You should pay lowest possible tax for working to keep the basics of government held up.
You should pay for a pension if you want to eat and have shelter later on in life when you are old.
We should not pay tax for low lifes on benefits.
We should not be paying tax for immigrations to be deported (which they dont anyway) as they shouldnt be here in the first place.

As for television, we are talking about exactly that; television. Not government and its inner workings (which needs to be severly cut anyway as shown by your examples) and the BBC is just another example of the wasteful state we have. We do not have another option of paying tax to somebody else, however we do have the choice between BBC, Sky, ITV and various other networks.

I think if there was to be a national Poll, most people would rather pay the £100 for all BBC services rather than have to pay a separate fee for BBC or have it lose all its top channels and start showing adverts.

Instead of forcing everyone to pay then; just let people choose. As you say, in your words if there was a national poll most people would continue paying so let them - but just stop forcing people who do not want to pay as they do not like the BBC and its programmes to pay aswell.

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 12:33 PM

You should pay lowest possible tax for working to keep the basics of government held up.
You should pay for a pension if you want to eat and have shelter later on in life when you are old.
We should not pay tax for low lifes on benefits.
We should not be paying tax for immigrations to be deported (which they dont anyway) as they shouldnt be here in the first place.

As for television, we are talking about exactly that; television. Not government and its inner workings (which needs to be severly cut anyway as shown by your examples) and the BBC is just another example of the wasteful state we have. We do not have another option of paying tax to somebody else, however we do have the choice between BBC, Sky, ITV and various other networks.

Instead of forcing everyone to pay then; just let people choose. As you say, in your words if there was a national poll most people would continue paying so let them - but just stop forcing people who do not want to pay as they do not like the BBC and its programmes to pay aswell.

Why pay for pension? Just save up... simples.
If the immigrant has no money, how do you expect them to buy a ticket out of here?
Like I said, you pay for a lot of the stuff you dont use. If you go down that route, then lets not pay taxes. I mean some people never use the road, some never use the parks, but their money goes in to it.

Your argument is "if we dont use BBC, why should we pay" argument is flawed.

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 12:53 PM

Why pay for pension? Just save up... simples.
If the immigrant has no money, how do you expect them to buy a ticket out of here?
Like I said, you pay for a lot of the stuff you dont use. If you go down that route, then lets not pay taxes. I mean some people never use the road, some never use the parks, but their money goes in to it.

Your argument is "if we dont use BBC, why should we pay" argument is flawed.

- A pension is saving up for your retirement.
- The immigrant should not be allowed in the country in the first place if they are financially incapable/do not work.

Why is the BBC so different from the brand of bread you buy, the fizzy drinks you buy - its commercial television. If I prefer Sky TV, give me a reason why I should pay for you to watch BBC and for the BBC to waste billions upon billions. Its my money, my choice which broadcaster I wish to watch. Tax is not a choice, television is. We have an enormous range of television these days, and a lot of people feel the BBC is wasteful and does not show programmes that they are interested in;- henceforth why should they pay for something they do not watch when they watch another broadcaster instead?

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 12:55 PM

- A pension is saving up for your retirement.
- The immigrant should not be allowed in the country in the first place if they are financially incapable/do not work.

Why is the BBC so different from the brand of bread you buy, the fizzy drinks you buy - its commercial television. If I prefer Sky TV, give me a reason why I should pay for you to watch BBC and for the BBC to waste billions upon billions. Its my money, my choice which broadcaster I wish to watch. Tax is not a choice, television is. We have an enormous range of television these days, and a lot of people feel the BBC is wasteful and does not show programmes that they are interested in;- henceforth why should they pay for something they do not watch when they watch another broadcaster instead?

No I meant save it up in your own bank.
And why is it different to tax? I dont like paying for war but my money still goes towards it.

We all have to pay for stuff we dont use. If you kill the BBC then I can assure you, most of the country will be pissed off.
Do you watch the BBC?

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 01:04 PM

No I meant save it up in your own bank.
And why is it different to tax? I dont like paying for war but my money still goes towards it.

We all have to pay for stuff we dont use. If you kill the BBC then I can assure you, most of the country will be pissed off.
Do you watch the BBC?

Often people do that nowadays because Gordon Brown spent all the state pensions back when gaining office in 1997 and thus we have an unaffordable pension black hole which is a time bomb waiting to go off (you may think I am over-stating that, but just watch within the next 10-20 years the demographics show we are heading for complete catatrophe). As for comparing war to the BBC - totally flawed. Commercial television and a war (agree with it or not) are totally different although i'd agree that our money should be spent more on what the majority want when concerning central government.

As for the BBC; you say that the majority of the population will be pissed off for killing the BBC - but if its as popular as you suggest, why would it be killed off? - if theres the demand then people will pay for its services.

On the BBC;- yes I do watch some things on it although I far prefer other broadcasters, at the end of the day when I come to pay license fee it should be my choice whether I wish to pay for the BBC or Sky or any other broadcasters. My choice, not the choice of you, Gordon Brown or anyone else. The waste that goes on in the BBC due to it being owned by the state is amazing, even sickening. That (as shown by history) is why the BBC wastes so much;- privatisation would put a firm stop to that as it did with various other industries which were making a loss back until they were privatised in the 1980s.

Catzsy

13-03-2010, 01:11 PM

You should pay lowest possible tax for working to keep the basics of government held up.
You should pay for a pension if you want to eat and have shelter later on in life when you are old.
We should not pay tax for low lifes on benefits.
We should not be paying tax for immigrations to be deported (which they dont anyway) as they shouldnt be here in the first place.

As for television, we are talking about exactly that; television. Not government and its inner workings (which needs to be severly cut anyway as shown by your examples) and the BBC is just another example of the wasteful state we have. We do not have another option of paying tax to somebody else, however we do have the choice between BBC, Sky, ITV and various other networks.

Instead of forcing everyone to pay then; just let people choose. As you say, in your words if there was a national poll most people would continue paying so let them - but just stop forcing people who do not want to pay as they do not like the BBC and its programmes to pay aswell.

Or conversely as it is you that is you that is in the minority not only on this forum but in the country as a whole why should we bow to a minority opinion? Just because people shout louder doesn't mean that they are right.
People who think like this perhaps should consider whether they are in fact living in the right country as the BBC has been with us since 1922 and the welfare state since the 1940s. It is a middle of the road country - full stop not a right wing country and no matter how many threads are turned into a party political discussion UKIP will not be anywhere near getting into power in the next few years and probably never because they are not a party based on facts - they are a party based on rhetoric and words do not run a country.

AgnesIO

13-03-2010, 01:14 PM

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 01:15 PM

Often people do that nowadays because Gordon Brown spent all the state pensions back when gaining office in 1997 and thus we have an unaffordable pension black hole which is a time bomb waiting to go off (you may think I am over-stating that, but just watch within the next 10-20 years the demographics show we are heading for complete catatrophe). As for comparing war to the BBC - totally flawed. Commercial television and a war (agree with it or not) are totally different although i'd agree that our money should be spent more on what the majority want when concerning central government.

As for the BBC; you say that the majority of the population will be pissed off for killing the BBC - but if its as popular as you suggest, why would it be killed off? - if theres the demand then people will pay for its services.

On the BBC;- yes I do watch some things on it although I far prefer other broadcasters, at the end of the day when I come to pay license fee it should be my choice whether I wish to pay for the BBC or Sky or any other broadcasters. My choice, not the choice of you, Gordon Brown or anyone else. The waste that goes on in the BBC due to it being owned by the state is amazing, even sickening. That (as shown by history) is why the BBC wastes so much;- privatisation would put a firm stop to that as it did with various other industries which were making a loss back until they were privatised in the 1980s.

The good thing about BBC is that its there to provide everyone who pays the license fee with GOOD QUALITY TV for everyone. It has shows for everyone. From shows for babies to shows for OAP's. You are also forgetting, if it wasn't for BBC, things such as iPlayer would never have been developed as private firms would have been reluctant to spend so much on it. That has meant other channels have had to develop their own online players.
BBC has so many channels and radio stations. When you look at it overall, its well worth it.

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 01:18 PM

Or conversely as it is you that is you that is in the minority not only on this forum but in the country as a whole why should we bow to a minority opinion? Just because people shout louder doesn't mean that they are right.
People who think like this perhaps should consider whether they are in fact living in the right country as the BBC has been with us since 1922 and the welfare state since the 1940s. It is a middle of the road country - full stop not a right wing country and no matter how many threads are turned into a party political discussion UKIP will not be anywhere near getting into power in the next few years and probably never because they are not a party based on facts - they are a party based on rhetoric and words do not run a country.

Do show how I am the minority opinion;- infact on nearly every single one of my opinions they can be backed up with opinions polls which show the British people are right behind me on the European Union, smaller government, the death penalty, free markets and various other things. It is not me who is the minority, it is you and the left.

As for being left wing the country, England is right wing like it or not. Scotland and Wales are not, i'll give you that however England is. England is the majority and if it wasnt for unfair representation of Scottish seats then Michael Howard (a very right wing politician) would of made the Premiership back in 2005. The BBC has been with us for years, however I could not care less. The mines we had were some of the first mines in the world, the mines down south created something like four fifths of the words tin at one point - did they make a profit in their later days? - no they did not, hence why they closed and rightly so.

UKIP are a party based on facts, they call for referendums which is something you hate and something the main parties cannot stand. You hate the idea of people making their choice, you hate the idea that people should work to better themselves because that ruins the idea of equality. They wont be getting near power anytime soon and I accept that while we have a proportional representation. If you go on ignoring the people then they will eventually turn to the far right, the BNP.

By which, you've signed your own death warrant.

The good thing about BBC is that its there to provide everyone who pays the license fee with GOOD QUALITY TV for everyone. It has shows for
everyone. From shows for babies to shows for OAP's. You are also forgetting, if it wasn't for BBC, things such as iPlayer would never have been developed as private firms would have been reluctant to spend so much on it. That has meant other channels have had to develop their own online players.
BBC has so many channels and radio stations. When you look at it overall, its well worth it.

No I am not arguing about the BBC and its programming, if it provides for everyone as you say then why not let everyone choose which TV they wish to pay towards and thus watch?

Forgive me, but maybe its because you know people are pissed off with having to pay near the £150 mark every year for something they may not even watch/like and a corporation which wastes billions every year. Do you get the concept that when something is under the wings of the state that it gets too big, too watseful because of the very reason it thinks it cannot fail?

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 01:22 PM

Do show how I am the minority opinion;- infact on nearly every single one of my opinions they can be backed up with opinions polls which show the British people are right behind me on the European Union, smaller government, the death penalty, free markets and various other things. It is not me who is the minority, it is you and the left.

As for being left wing the country, England is right wing like it or not. Scotland and Wales are not, i'll give you that however England is. England is the majority and if it wasnt for unfair representation of Scottish seats then Michael Howard (a very right wing politician) would of made the Premiership back in 2005. The BBC has been with us for years, however I could not care less. The mines we had were some of the first mines in the world, the mines down south created something like four fifths of the words tin at one point - did they make a profit in their later days? - no they did not, hence why they closed and rightly so.

UKIP are a party based on facts, they call for referendums which is something you hate and something the main parties cannot stand. You hate the idea of people making their choice, you hate the idea that people should work to better themselves because that ruins the idea of equality. They wont be getting near power anytime soon and I accept that while we have a proportional representation. If you go on ignoring the people then they will eventually turn to the far right, the BNP.

By which, you've signed your own death warrant.

Show me where the majority of the British public agree with the death penalty? A reputable source, not crap like the Daily Mirror.

Heyyy we want to plant some new trees on the road. Lets do a referendums. They are an idiotic party. I have said many times, they say what people want to hear because even they know that they will never get in power. This allows them to say whatever as they never have to implement it and even they know its possible.
I feel sorry for those who fall for their tricks.

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 01:27 PM

Show me where the majority of the British public agree with the death penalty? A reputable source, not crap like the Daily Mirror.

Heyyy we want to plant some new trees on the road. Lets do a referendums. They are an idiotic party. I have said many times, they say what people want to hear because even they know that they will never get in power. This allows them to say whatever as they never have to implement it and even they know its possible.
I feel sorry for those who fall for their tricks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies
+countless others, the figure swings from the low 50%+ mark to 70% mark at its highest. Thus I am on the majority side.

Quite frankly what an idiotic example;- referendums would be on a national level on issues such as the European Union, Death Penalty and so on and on a local level they would be on would the local area want a new pool/park and so on. You yourself have said before that you agree with the idea of having referendums and letting the people decide because you have awknowledged that the MPs and politicians do not reflect the views of the people anymore. You are now backtracking on this because it is UKIP, instead of following tribal politics why not think for yourself?

I feel sorry for people like you who have been brought up to vote Labour, I really do.

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 01:34 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies
+countless others, the figure swings from the low 50%+ mark to 70% mark at its highest. Thus I am on the majority side.

Quite frankly what an idiotic example;- referendums would be on a national level on issues such as the European Union, Death Penalty and so on and on a local level they would be on would the local area want a new pool/park and so on. You yourself have said before that you agree with the idea of having referendums and letting the people decide because you have awknowledged that the MPs and politicians do not reflect the views of the people anymore. You are now backtracking on this because it is UKIP, instead of following tribal politics why not think for yourself?

I feel sorry for people like you who have been brought up to vote Labour, I really do.

Where have I said I support referendums? I might have on one or two things which are large scale and affect the whole country. In the last thread, I flamed you for referendums. You want referendums on everything, which means having MPs is useless as they arent making the decisions, all decisions are being made by the public. They are expensive.

The guardian is from 2003 and this is what it states:

Support for the death penalty is strongest among those aged 65+ and lowest among those aged 25-34 . Those who have been a victim of crime are more likely to support capital punishment, but the most striking differences in attitudes are regional ones.

So basically its those who have been a victim of a crime who want it (which isnt surprising ...) and those who are over 65 (and they lived in times of death penalty and back then it was a entertainment).

The 2nd link you provided says:

Support for the death penalty recently declined in both Great Britain and Canada

Please read the links before you link to them before they backfire on you :).

"Brough up to vote labour"

Lol pretending to know about me ... lame.
I was not born in this country and I have formed my own political opinion. I rarely ever talk to my parents about politics so, another fail right there. Feel sorry for you having to pretend to know people.

AgnesIO

13-03-2010, 01:38 PM

Can't believe the Guardian was used as an example. What a ****** paper.

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 01:46 PM

Where have I said I support referendums? I might have on one or two things which are large scale and affect the whole country. In the last thread, I flamed you for referendums. You want referendums on everything, which means having MPs is useless as they arent making the decisions, all decisions are being made by the public. They are expensive.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=632119

You even +repped me for it in agreement.

MPs are expensive, its also expensive having a BBC which spends billions and billions on wasteful projects and its expensive having a parliament for not even 70 million people which has 650 odd MPs when a country the size of the United States doesnt even have that many politicians sitting. We waste so much and the BBC is no exception. If the BBC were to adapt and became privatized, if it controlled its finances like any normal business model would demand;- it would have a bright future. If not, then it deserves to go down the pan just like any other business.

The guardian is from 2003 and this is what it states:

So basically its those who have been a victim of a crime who want it (which isnt surprising ...) and those who are over 65 (and they lived in times of death penalty and back then it was a entertainment).You look yourself, type in on google 'death penalty UK opinion polling' and various sources and results will come up for you. As for the over 65s - what on earth are you talking about? - the death penalty was never a form of entertainment and was done away from the public eyes in the last century, infact I dont even think anyone is even alive who lived in the days where we hung 'witches' for entertainment. You make it up as you go along, but polling aside; do you accept that we should have a referendum on the issue and that the result become the policy of the law?

The 2nd link you provided says:

Please read the links before you link to them before they backfire on you :).It has declined, it doesnt say it has dropped below the 50% mark. I am the majority, it has backfired on you my friend.

"Brough up to vote labour"

Lol pretending to know about me ... lame.
I was not born in this country and I have formed my own political opinion. I rarely ever talk to my parents about politics so, another fail right there. Feel sorry for you having to pretend to know people.You have been brought up to vote for a certain party, I can tell because often you switch totally from the left views to the extreme right (havent you even called for vigilantanism before against criminals?). The fact whenever there is a debate you constantly attack a party because its a party, not something you actually disagree with shows to me that you are into tribal politics and fail to form an opinion of your own. I provide sources (as above) and you totally ignore them. Its a no win situation for me with you.

Can't believe the Guardian was used as an example. What a ****** paper. Indeed, but as the majority of people who disagree with the death penalty are Labour supporters and thus the Guardian is a very left wing Labour paper, I thought it would be appropiate for the Guardian to be used as an example because if I provided sources from the Mail, Times, Telegraph or Sun I would be blasted for providing right wing papers as examples. I'm suprised the Guardian even published them results if i'm quite honest.

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 01:56 PM

I am blind, where did I say in that thread I support all referendums? I will reply in detail tonight, going out now.

-:Undertaker:-

13-03-2010, 02:02 PM

I am blind, where did I say in that thread I support all referendums? I will reply in detail tonight, going out now.

I said;

"The voting point is totally correct aswell and thats another reason why major issues in this country aswell as lower down issues should be decided via referendum and not by the ruling elite, who are totally out of touch as shown by yet another disgusting self-reward they have given themselves."

..to which you replied;

"Sounds about right to me."

You also +repped me for that exact post saying that for once you agreed with me.

Stephen!

13-03-2010, 02:29 PM

If I'm going to pay for a channel, there better be no adverts.

StefanWolves

13-03-2010, 03:53 PM

That's true, like on Sky Box Office when they have the boxing on, you pay like £15 for the fight and are bombarded with tonnes of adverts between rounds, like what the **** I paid for this, why advertise?

Seatherny

13-03-2010, 07:06 PM

I said;

"The voting point is totally correct aswell and thats another reason why major issues in this country aswell as lower down issues should be decided via referendum and not by the ruling elite, who are totally out of touch as shown by yet another disgusting self-reward they have given themselves."

..to which you replied;

"Sounds about right to me."

You also +repped me for that exact post saying that for once you agreed with me.

Anyone who reads my full post will know that line "Sounds about right to me." was NOT about the referendum. It was a sarcasm line about how MPs get paid more than the Police and Firemen. Its obvious :S. Do you not read?

The whole post was:

Firemen and Police put their lives at risk to save others and get paid peanuts. MP's show their faces, get a photo take and have everything paid for them and get a huge salary. I don't think they spend much of their salary as they don't need to.

Sounds about right to me.

-rep for making a blatant lie and trying to show people I posted something about something when I obviously didnt.

Like I said, learn to quote the whole thing :rolleyes:

I gave you +rep for this part of your post which you seem to have left out again ...

The problem is that nowadays we have career politicians who have never done a real days work in their life and only aim to better themselves (the likes of Tony Blair & David Cameron as prime examples).

Anyone with a common sense knows my reply fits in with that line. My post has nothing to do with referendums.

-:Undertaker:-

14-03-2010, 12:45 AM

Anyone who reads my full post will know that line "Sounds about right to me." was NOT about the referendum. It was a sarcasm line about how MPs get paid more than the Police and Firemen. Its obvious :S. Do you not read?

The whole post was:

-rep for making a blatant lie and trying to show people I posted something about something when I obviously didnt.

Like I said, learn to quote the whole thing :rolleyes:

I gave you +rep for this part of your post which you seem to have left out again ...

Anyone with a common sense knows my reply fits in with that line. My post has nothing to do with referendums.

I see what you mean although you replied to my post which suggests you actually did agree with me, otherwise you would not of quoted me. Although having said that, if you are actually truthful in what you are saying I take that back and apoligise. On the issue; you even said you support referendums on large issues which might affect the whole country, and the European Union and the death penalty fall under that banner. I and UKIP itself is not proposing that national referendums are held on pointless things; the idea is simply letting people decide what they want rather than what the politicians want.

You yourself have expressed disgust at the MPs and how they are totally out of touch with reality and public opinion, why not actually honour that opinion with the only solution possible which is to let the people decide and not the ruling elite? - just because its a policy of UKIP does not mean you have to oppose it.

The death penalty for instance;- I have proven to you with various polls that the majority of the British people want the death penalty brought back, that is a fact like it or not. Let us allow the British people to decide rather than the politicians. You may be opposed to the death penalty(?) and a referendum could one day come up and pass which I disagree with, although because the majority democratically decided I would accept it. That is democracy. Is it any wonder why people are so fed up with politicians?

The BBC itself has 55 top executives paid more than the British Prime Minister - that is not acceptable, and neither is a £1 billion makeover for the BBC HQ. Neither is a salary for Jonathan Ross which goes into the millions. If the BBC were a private company then fair enough, its their money and its your choice to pay for that service and thus you have to expect that from the service. It is not acceptable that the BBC wastes countless amounts of cash when it is compulsory to purchase the license fee.

You say the BBC is popular and people want to keep paying the license fee;- if that is the case then why are you and the BBC so afraid of it being privatised?

Seatherny

14-03-2010, 10:08 AM

I see what you mean although you replied to my post which suggests you actually did agree with me, otherwise you would not of quoted me. Although having said that, if you are actually truthful in what you are saying I take that back and apoligise. On the issue; you even said you support referendums on large issues which might affect the whole country, and the European Union and the death penalty fall under that banner. I and UKIP itself is not proposing that national referendums are held on pointless things; the idea is simply letting people decide what they want rather than what the politicians want.

You yourself have expressed disgust at the MPs and how they are totally out of touch with reality and public opinion, why not actually honour that opinion with the only solution possible which is to let the people decide and not the ruling elite? - just because its a policy of UKIP does not mean you have to oppose it.

The death penalty for instance;- I have proven to you with various polls that the majority of the British people want the death penalty brought back, that is a fact like it or not. Let us allow the British people to decide rather than the politicians. You may be opposed to the death penalty(?) and a referendum could one day come up and pass which I disagree with, although because the majority democratically decided I would accept it. That is democracy. Is it any wonder why people are so fed up with politicians?

The BBC itself has 55 top executives paid more than the British Prime Minister - that is not acceptable, and neither is a £1 billion makeover for the BBC HQ. Neither is a salary for Jonathan Ross which goes into the millions. If the BBC were a private company then fair enough, its their money and its your choice to pay for that service and thus you have to expect that from the service. It is not acceptable that the BBC wastes countless amounts of cash when it is compulsory to purchase the license fee.

You say the BBC is popular and people want to keep paying the license fee;- if that is the case then why are you and the BBC so afraid of it being privatised?

I quote you as I agreed with the first line of your post and my whole post related to that. Its common sense ... :S You obviously seem to lack the ability to realise which bit of a post relates to which bit of the quote.

You want referendums on everything ... or almost everything. Its very expensive and a waste of money. People vote for their MP so they can make sensible decisions, not ask the public most of the time.
I support referendums for things such as "should there be congestion charge in Manchester" ... which most people in Manchester agree with too.

Yes alot of the MPs are out of touch, but holding thousands of referendums a year isnt the answer. Its cutting down their salaries and making it extremely strict. Right now they live like the Queen.

Death Penalty: You linked to a poll from 2003. Secondly it said most who agree are those whp have been a victim of a crime (so its obvious they want the criminals be heavily punished). Like I said, Death Penalty was a form of public entertainment in alot of the places in UK. If you disagree, it just shows how little you know about it - hence over 65s voted yes.

"The Future" of the country, e.g. people in their 20's voted no.

About BBC: Anyone with a slight clue in business will know that privatising the BBC will have a huge effect on it and it will in no way be able to keep alot of its services. If ITV is struggling now with adverts, BBC will die away. It would mean people wont get quality shows for all ages.

Gibs960

14-03-2010, 11:04 AM

Hardly any one would pay to watch ITV 2, 3 & 4, they're crap as it is so how what difference is us paying gonna make.

Catzsy

14-03-2010, 11:17 AM

I see what you mean although you replied to my post which suggests you actually did agree with me, otherwise you would not of quoted me. Although having said that, if you are actually truthful in what you are saying I take that back and apoligise. On the issue; you even said you support referendums on large issues which might affect the whole country, and the European Union and the death penalty fall under that banner. I and UKIP itself is not proposing that national referendums are held on pointless things; the idea is simply letting people decide what they want rather than what the politicians want.

You yourself have expressed disgust at the MPs and how they are totally out of touch with reality and public opinion, why not actually honour that opinion with the only solution possible which is to let the people decide and not the ruling elite? - just because its a policy of UKIP does not mean you have to oppose it.

The death penalty for instance;- I have proven to you with various polls that the majority of the British people want the death penalty brought back, that is a fact like it or not. Let us allow the British people to decide rather than the politicians. You may be opposed to the death penalty(?) and a referendum could one day come up and pass which I disagree with, although because the majority democratically decided I would accept it. That is democracy. Is it any wonder why people are so fed up with politicians?

The BBC itself has 55 top executives paid more than the British Prime Minister - that is not acceptable, and neither is a £1 billion makeover for the BBC HQ. Neither is a salary for Jonathan Ross which goes into the millions. If the BBC were a private company then fair enough, its their money and its your choice to pay for that service and thus you have to expect that from the service. It is not acceptable that the BBC wastes countless amounts of cash when it is compulsory to purchase the license fee.

You say the BBC is popular and people want to keep paying the license fee;- if that is the case then why are you and the BBC so afraid of it being privatised?

Why would we be afraid of having the BBC privatised - the fact we do not want it privatised has nothing to do with fear. The BCC does need to look at its costs as it is at the moment. Nobody would deny that but privatisation is the the panacea for everything. To sound like a demented parrot I would repeat that the BBC is held is high esteem all over the world and I do believe the majority of the the UK do not mind paying approximately £2.50 a week to see high quality programmes when the vast majority of privatised TV has dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Also you seem to think that referendums are the answer to everything. In that case why not just sack the whole government and have a panel issuing referendums? Yes it is a silly idea. As you yourself said recently in a post.

An excellent post, what the left always ignores is popular opinion but what it also forgets is that in the end the majority opinion always wins because that is democracy.

We will see what that is at the next general election and I cannot for one minute see privatising the BBC on the agenda for the next parliament whoever wins.

Nuxty

14-03-2010, 12:15 PM

This idea is actually terrible. The fact ITV3 & 4 are complete crap makes it a whole lot worse! ITV1 is there, yes for everyone. Then ITV2 was brought in as part of the ITV Digital service which went bust shortly after freeview.

What would be the point in making people pay for ITV2 when the majority of the programmes are American or Repeats?

They would also lose a lot of contracts with shows such as What Katie Did Next, The Xtra Factor (People wouldn't pay to see these, so the creators would pull out) which are ITV2 favourites. I feel this idea hasn't been thought through and their best bet would be just to leave things as it is and negotiate with the BBC on a bigger cut from the TV License.

They would also need to sort out the quality of their shows if they were to make people pay.

If they did make people pay for the additional ITV Channels and it didn't work they lose a whole lot of money. Seriously the people running these channels need a slap. Good old BBC is still up there.

Well anyway, that’s my opinion.

StefanWolves

14-03-2010, 01:01 PM

you have only focused on one aspect that I listed.... go read the opening post again.

the one option is very viable for ITV and makes sense, however I do agree with what you have said above about itv 2-4.

Black_Apalachi

15-03-2010, 05:45 AM

At the end of the day, it is clear that ITV are ******. We already knew that they pretty much depend on the X-Factor and nobody even likes that any more. They don't even have the F1 any more either. This is a blatant act of desperation and it's never going to work. If I was to give them any advice, I'd tell them to sack off ITV2/3/4 etc and just focus on ITV1. Their other channels are dire anyway. Even Channel Five is better than ITV at the moment; at least they have some football rights and they're always showing films with the occasional decent action movie.

-:Undertaker:-

15-03-2010, 08:26 PM

I quote you as I agreed with the first line of your post and my whole post related to that. Its common sense ... :S You obviously seem to lack the ability to realise which bit of a post relates to which bit of the quote.

No, you seperated it from the other part of the quote in reply to the second part of my reply which called for referendums to be held. But have it your way if it makes you happy.

You want referendums on everything ... or almost everything. Its very expensive and a waste of money. People vote for their MP so they can make sensible decisions, not ask the public most of the time.
I support referendums for things such as "should there be congestion charge in Manchester" ... which most people in Manchester agree with too.

It is not very expensive at all, most would be made to coincide with local elections thus costing very little extra ontop of the elections. I do not want referendums on everything, infact it would be up to the British people which referendums they wanted (the Swiss system) where once a certain percent call for a referendum (say 5%) then one if granted on a national scale, same way at local levels. You support a referendum on congestion charging yet you say they are a waste of money - the death penalty and the European Union are one billion times more important than a congestion charge although I agree the idea of congestion charging should also be put to referendum where it is proposed.

Yes alot of the MPs are out of touch, but holding thousands of referendums a year isnt the answer. Its cutting down their salaries and making it extremely strict. Right now they live like the Queen.

If they are out of touch (as you have admitted) then the only way to get them to represent us properly is by using referendums. For years now the British state has acted against the will of the people and continues to do so. You tell me what is so wrong about people having a say over how their country is run? - because that is democracy and Switzerland has the same system that is very successful.

Death Penalty: You linked to a poll from 2003. Secondly it said most who agree are those whp have been a victim of a crime (so its obvious they want the criminals be heavily punished). Like I said, Death Penalty was a form of public entertainment in alot of the places in UK. If you disagree, it just shows how little you know about it - hence over 65s voted yes.

"The Future" of the country, e.g. people in their 20's voted no.

Well i'm sorry if I cannot find anymore recent polls through no fault of my own although admittely support has dropped in recent years anyway. Although as I have said before; it ranges from the 50% mark upwards. The death penalty was not a form of public entertainment in Britain i'm sorry but you are totally making this up out of thin air. The over 65s support it more than the younger generations because its a well known fact that students are far more left wing and gradually most people become more to the right as they age. Of course you will dispute this, but even look at the famous Winston Churchill quote on it. The 'future of the country' as you put it do not rule this country i'm afraid, the majority is supposed to rule the country.

Do you agree we should hold a referendum on it though just to settle the issue once and for all?

That is democracy (the majority decides).. get it?

About BBC: Anyone with a slight clue in business will know that privatising the BBC will have a huge effect on it and it will in no way be able to keep alot of its services. If ITV is struggling now with adverts, BBC will die away. It would mean people wont get quality shows for all ages.

What can you not grasp about the concept of 'I do not want a service' or 'I do not watch the BBC' or even 'I think the BBC has poor quality shows that I am not interetsed in' - you keep saying the BBC is so fantastic and that people would truly miss it, well anyone with a grasp of business in them (to lend a phrase) would know that if the BBC is indeed that popular and worthwhile - it wouldnt fail to attract customers. Now either you can accept that some people do not want to pay the license fee and have no interest in the BBC and thus should not pay for it or you can believe that the BBC is really popular, in which case what is the problem with it being privatised?

ITV is struggling because of the grip the BBC has on the market due to it having endless funds (as was the case in the 1970s with a wasteful public sector including British Telecom and the mines) & so is Channel 4 for that matter. You say again that it would mean an end to quality shows yet you paint this picture of the BBC being ever-so popular and wanted that it would be truly terrible if it was privatised despite the fact that if it was so good as you say it is then it would have no issue with funding itself like any other business. Which is it?

Why would we be afraid of having the BBC privatised - the fact we do not want it privatised has nothing to do with fear. The BCC does need to look at its costs as it is at the moment. Nobody would deny that but privatisation is the the panacea for everything. To sound like a demented parrot I would repeat that the BBC is held is high esteem all over the world and I do believe the majority of the the UK do not mind paying approximately £2.50 a week to see high quality programmes when the vast majority of privatised TV has dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Also you seem to think that referendums are the answer to everything. In that case why not just sack the whole government and have a panel issuing referendums? Yes it is a silly idea. As you yourself said recently in a post.

We will see what that is at the next general election and I cannot for one minute see privatising the BBC on the agenda for the next parliament whoever wins.

In answer to the bold part; so what is the problem with it being privatised? - because if it is as you say it is, it would still retain customers (like any other business manages to do) and business thus making hardly any difference just releasing the corporation from the grip of the government and thus by making it private, it would also mean the BBC would have to be a lot more careful with how and where it spends its money (as you said, part of the problem at the moment).

To the referendums part; I dont recall saying we should scrap government and that we should introduce a panel which sets out referendums because that is totally unworkable (although i'd be grateful for somebody to point out where I made this suggestion!). The concept is pretty simple; issues which have a demand to be put to a referendum are put to a referendum and thus remove that decison making from parliament which is obsessed with party whipping and party politics. The only people who have to fear referendums are those who are against majority opinion (namely the left). The concept of democracy is rather pretty plain and straight-forward; the majority decide.

Government is there to run things it should run and can run to the best of its ability, it is not there to interfere, it is not there to dictate to the majority and it is not there to hamper and pamper people. The privatisation of the BBC is not on the agenda for our politicians at the moment you are right, neither is the issue of the European Union (costs billiions and dictates the majority of our laws), neither is crime and punishment (murderers and scum walking free), neither is the deficeit (Labour refuses to cut while the Tories are the same and want higher taxation which stifles growth).

So no, you are right these sort of issues are not on the agenda of the out of touch politicians and they haven't been for a long time.

Seatherny

15-03-2010, 09:20 PM

No, you seperated it from the other part of the quote in reply to the second part of my reply which called for referendums to be held. But have it your way if it makes you happy.

It is not very expensive at all, most would be made to coincide with local elections thus costing very little extra ontop of the elections. I do not want referendums on everything, infact it would be up to the British people which referendums they wanted (the Swiss system) where once a certain percent call for a referendum (say 5%) then one if granted on a national scale, same way at local levels. You support a referendum on congestion charging yet you say they are a waste of money - the death penalty and the European Union are one billion times more important than a congestion charge although I agree the idea of congestion charging should also be put to referendum where it is proposed.

If they are out of touch (as you have admitted) then the only way to get them to represent us properly is by using referendums. For years now the British state has acted against the will of the people and continues to do so. You tell me what is so wrong about people having a say over how their country is run? - because that is democracy and Switzerland has the same system that is very successful.

Well i'm sorry if I cannot find anymore recent polls through no fault of my own although admittely support has dropped in recent years anyway. Although as I have said before; it ranges from the 50% mark upwards. The death penalty was not a form of public entertainment in Britain i'm sorry but you are totally making this up out of thin air. The over 65s support it more than the younger generations because its a well known fact that students are far more left wing and gradually most people become more to the right as they age. Of course you will dispute this, but even look at the famous Winston Churchill quote on it. The 'future of the country' as you put it do not rule this country i'm afraid, the majority is supposed to rule the country.

Do you agree we should hold a referendum on it though just to settle the issue once and for all?

That is democracy (the majority decides).. get it?

What can you not grasp about the concept of 'I do not want a service' or 'I do not watch the BBC' or even 'I think the BBC has poor quality shows that I am not interetsed in' - you keep saying the BBC is so fantastic and that people would truly miss it, well anyone with a grasp of business in them (to lend a phrase) would know that if the BBC is indeed that popular and worthwhile - it wouldnt fail to attract customers. Now either you can accept that some people do not want to pay the license fee and have no interest in the BBC and thus should not pay for it or you can believe that the BBC is really popular, in which case what is the problem with it being privatised?

ITV is struggling because of the grip the BBC has on the market due to it having endless funds (as was the case in the 1970s with a wasteful public sector including British Telecom and the mines) & so is Channel 4 for that matter. You say again that it would mean an end to quality shows yet you paint this picture of the BBC being ever-so popular and wanted that it would be truly terrible if it was privatised despite the fact that if it was so good as you say it is then it would have no issue with funding itself like any other business. Which is it?

In answer to the bold part; so what is the problem with it being privatised? - because if it is as you say it is, it would still retain customers (like any other business manages to do) and business thus making hardly any difference just releasing the corporation from the grip of the government and thus by making it private, it would also mean the BBC would have to be a lot more careful with how and where it spends its money (as you said, part of the problem at the moment).

To the referendums part; I dont recall saying we should scrap government and that we should introduce a panel which sets out referendums because that is totally unworkable (although i'd be grateful for somebody to point out where I made this suggestion!). The concept is pretty simple; issues which have a demand to be put to a referendum are put to a referendum and thus remove that decison making from parliament which is obsessed with party whipping and party politics. The only people who have to fear referendums are those who are against majority opinion (namely the left). The concept of democracy is rather pretty plain and straight-forward; the majority decide.

Government is there to run things it should run and can run to the best of its ability, it is not there to interfere, it is not there to dictate to the majority and it is not there to hamper and pamper people. The privatisation of the BBC is not on the agenda for our politicians at the moment you are right, neither is the issue of the European Union (costs billiions and dictates the majority of our laws), neither is crime and punishment (murderers and scum walking free), neither is the deficeit (Labour refuses to cut while the Tories are the same and want higher taxation which stifles growth).

So no, you are right these sort of issues are not on the agenda of the out of touch politicians and they haven't been for a long time.

I made a huge reply but my browser closed :@ argh, so let me start again:

What did I seperate? I didnt seperate anything :S You just cant admit being wrong. Anyone with even 0.0000001% common sense will know my post linked to the second part of your post. I mean I didnt even talk about referendums. Your eyes seem to see something else from the whole world. My second line was a sarcastic line at my whole post as it was saying MPs do nothing and get more than firemen and that sounds about right <----- sarcasm. It seems that you are not familiar with what sarcasm is. If you were, you would have understood my post, but seeing as you failed to understand it, the only conclusion I can come up with is that either you are lying as you can never admit being wrong or you dont know what sarcasm is. Tbh I think its both.

Because I am nice, heres what sarcasm means: http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=sarcasm

So now you are saying we should bombard people with referendums during elections? Thats useless. Heyyy lets have a referendum during elections. Are you being serious here?

The MPs are bloody out of touch as they get paid so much, thats all they care about now. People only want to be MPs now (most of them) for the money. Lower their salary and only those who want to help will become a MP.

It was a form of entertainment (Death Penalty). Like I said, you seem to know very little about your own countries history. Stop disagreeing as all you are doing is making yourself look silly.
If you had done history or read certain books, you would know about this in more detail.
Like I said, dont argue about things you have little clue about e.g. university students and now this.

You also seem to lack business knowledge. You seem to think its simple. I guess you would as you are only a teenager. BBC is huge with ALOT of services. It cannot survive if it was privatised and it depended on subscriptions. Again, stop arguing about things you have little knowledge about. Fine give a bit of money to ITV and make BBC's spending strict, but privatising it will kill it.

-:Undertaker:-

15-03-2010, 09:37 PM

I made a huge reply but my browser closed :@ argh, so let me start again:

What did I seperate? I didnt seperate anything :S You just cant admit being wrong. Anyone with even 0.0000001% common sense will know my post linked to the second part of your post. I mean I didnt even talk about referendums. Your eyes seem to see something else from the whole world. My second line was a sarcastic line at my whole post as it was saying MPs do nothing and get more than firemen and that sounds about right <----- sarcasm. It seems that you are not familiar with what sarcasm is. If you were, you would have understood my post, but seeing as you failed to understand it, the only conclusion I can come up with is that either you are lying as you can never admit being wrong or you dont know what sarcasm is. Tbh I think its both.

Because I am nice, heres what sarcasm means: http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=sarcasm (http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&q=sarcasm)Oh i'm very aware what sarcasm is and it doesnt suit you.

So now you are saying we should bombard people with referendums during elections? Thats useless. Heyyy lets have a referendum during elections. Are you being serious here?I never said we should 'bombard' people with referendums, at the end of the day it'd be peoples choice to take part in them just as its peoples choice whether or not to go and vote at the polling booth. Why is it useless? - why is democracy and the concept of people deciding useless? - I am being serious yes, infact the very party you support (Labour) is proposing to have a referendum at the same time at this up and coming election on whether to move from the FPTP system to the PR system. Ontop of this, Switzerland also has this method and it works very well. If you are not familiar with it then go and read it up.

The MPs are bloody out of touch as they get paid so much, thats all they care about now. People only want to be MPs now (most of them) for the money. Lower their salary and only those who want to help will become a MP.Why not allow people to make their own decisions on issues such as the death penalty? - what is so terrible about that simply concept?

Could it be that perhaps you wouldnt get the outcome that you and the politicians wanted!? (SHOCK HORROR!!)

It was a form of entertainment (Death Penalty). Like I said, you seem to know very little about your own countries history. Stop disagreeing as all you are doing is making yourself look silly.
If you had done history or read certain books, you would know about this in more detail.
Like I said, dont argue about things you have little clue about e.g. university students and now this.Oh I know a lot on the history of this country and thats why I am telling you and have told you numerous times that you are wrong. The death penalty was a form of entertainment maybe a 100+ years ago but not in its last 50 to 100 years in use so thus the generations you refer to as 'using it as entertainment' did not use it as entertainment as they were not alive then. You make it up as you go along mate. Anyway just like you asked me to provide some sources for the death penalty figures (which you rejected anyway) its your turn now so i'd like you to provide some evidence that the death penalty was used here as a form of entertainment.

You also seem to lack business knowledge. You seem to think its simple. I guess you would as you are only a teenager. BBC is huge with ALOT of services. It cannot survive if it was privatised and it depended on subscriptions. Again, stop arguing about things you have little knowledge about. Fine give a bit of money to ITV and make BBC's spending strict, but privatising it will kill it.Then it needs to cut the services it does not need/are of no use to it or its majority of customers. You can have a go at me being a teenager, but referring to past posts in other threads i'd like to remind you (the adult?) that I wasnt the one who avoided a question over 12 times and still never answered it in the end anyway. It does depend on subscriptions and customers you are correct, and so does any other company (here your business knowledge should be kicking in!). Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

You cannot have it both ways, so do answer it. Either the BBC is very popular (in which case it would do very well as a private business and would not have to make cuts) or that the BBC is rather not that popular (in which case it has to depend on the state to fund it because if it went private like any other business it would lose its customers due to customer dissatisfaction).

Which one?

Seatherny

15-03-2010, 09:45 PM

I am not going to bother answering the majority of the post as I might aswell just copy and past my old posts. You seem to repeat yourself over and over and over *falls asleep* .... again.

But I will reply to a new point you made:

Why not allow people to make their own decisions on issues such as the death penalty? - what is so terrible about that simply concept?

Could it be that perhaps you wouldnt get the outcome that you and the politicians wanted!? (SHOCK HORROR!!)

Where did I say I was against a referendum for the death penalty? If they were seriously considering it (which they aren't), I would definitely want a referendum on it as its huge...
Like I said, you see something else from the rest of the world. I never said I dont want a referendum on it but your stubborn brain thinks I did. :rolleyes:

I am against referendums on small things which you seem to want. Like Catzsy said, whats the point in a government then if you are going to let the public decide most things in the name of democracy? And elections arent every month, :rolleyes: and you want referendums on alot of the things, so yes, people will be bombarded with them during elections which is silly.

Referendums are not cheap, against backing my point that you know very little about any of this. You are like the UKIP leaders, you talk big, but nothing realistic.

Please link to the post I didn't reply to, I will reply to it via PM if its over 14 days old.

-:Undertaker:-

15-03-2010, 10:18 PM

I am not going to bother answering the majority of the post as I might aswell just copy and past my old posts. You seem to repeat yourself over and over and over *falls asleep* .... again.

But I will reply to a new point you made:

Where did I say I was against a referendum for the death penalty? If they were seriously considering it (which they aren't), I would definitely want a referendum on it as its huge...
Like I said, you see something else from the rest of the world. I never said I dont want a referendum on it but your stubborn brain thinks I did. :rolleyes:Well I didnt expect a proper reply as usual, but dont worry because I still want a reply to my question which is very simple to answer and I have kindly copied and pasted it for you near the end of my reply. The death penalty;- if their is sufficent polling which shows that it could change the law (which there is) then I am glad you agree with the idea of referendums on issues such as that. I dont see anything else different, infact I only used the death penalty as an example. A wide range of issues and topics should come under the umbrella of referendums at election time, yet you seem to think they are a waste of time anyway. You soon changed your tune when I pointed out that Labour are also going to hold a referendum on election day 2010.

I am against referendums on small things which you seem to want. Like Catzsy said, whats the point in a government then if you are going to let the public decide most things in the name of democracy? And elections arent every month, :rolleyes: and you want referendums on alot of the things, so yes, people will be bombarded with them during elections which is silly.They will not be bombarded with referendums, again please do actually read my posts as I have already addressed this point. They would be held on election day which occurs every year if i'm correct (could be every 2 years if i'm wrong). I also addressed the point about government; government is there to make democracy work and not to create democracy in its own warped view, government is there to protect and serve rather than to dictate and tell. That is government and the fact is that government in this country is too big and too powerful over even the smallest of issues. Relieve government of that and let the people decide, as you say; in the name of democracy.

Thats what we are supposed to live in isnt it?

Referendums are not cheap, against backing my point that you know very little about any of this. You are like the UKIP leaders, you talk big, but nothing realistic.Referendums are cheap so stop pretending they are not. They add very little cost and infact save on the immense cost of constant government debate and analysis of the issue. I would again ask you to look at the Swiss system which is a beacon to democracy and works very well indeed. Of course you most likely wont because it'll prove your point wrong, but oh well.

Answer my question now please (which i'm putting to you for the second time) about the actual central issue concerning the BBC which are seem to be very muddled over; Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

Please link to the post I didn't reply to, I will reply to it via PM if its over 14 days old.http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=628508&page=5

Seatherny

15-03-2010, 10:29 PM

I didnt even read the bit where you said Labour are doing a referendum on election day? I didnt even know. What are they doing it on?

nvm just re read it:

I am being serious yes, infact the very party you support (Labour) is proposing to have a referendum at the same time at this up and coming election on whether to move from the FPTP system to the PR system.

Atleast they dont do a referendum on how often the PM should change his clothes. UKIP want to be a government which wants the public to decide everything.

And your post has clearly demonstrated that you never read my posts. I have never said I am against referendums. I am against referendums on small things which you love.
I am going to stop replying to your pathetic post as tbh its a waste of my time. Most people have already stopped replying to you as you make crap up, pretend to know what you are on about, pretend to know what the other person is thinking and then twist things. All you do is patronise people. You should be lucky I am still replying. But theres a limit when a person thinks "**** it, replying to this guy is a waste of time as he clearly has no idea what he is on about". Watching a film atm, so I will reply to the link later.

Now you are going to think people stop replying cos you are right. LOL. Keep dreaming.

Catzsy

15-03-2010, 10:35 PM

Undertaker Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want.

This is rediculous - you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up this statement. It's just as if because you think it - the whole world must automatically agree with you.

Seatherny

15-03-2010, 10:37 PM

This is rediculous - you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up this statement. It's just as if because you think it - the whole world must automatically agree with you.

Like I said, he has very little knowledge on most things he debates about. He just does it for the sake of it. He has very clearly demonstrated he has zero clue about business and BBC tonight.

-:Undertaker:-

15-03-2010, 11:21 PM

I didnt even read the bit where you said Labour are doing a referendum on election day? I didnt even know. What are they doing it on?

nvm just re read it:

Atleast they dont do a referendum on how often the PM should change his clothes. UKIP want to be a government which wants the public to decide everything.So it just goes to show you dont actually know what you are talking about, proven more by the point by your suggestion that UKIP would hold a referendum on the Prime Ministers choice of clothing. You really dont back anything up do you, infact just like when I asked you to prove that the death penalty was used as a form of entertainment (your words not mine) you skimmed right past that didnt you.

And your post has clearly demonstrated that you never read my posts. I have never said I am against referendums. I am against referendums on small things which you love.

I am going to stop replying to your pathetic post as tbh its a waste of my time. Most people have already stopped replying to you as you make crap up, pretend to know what you are on about, pretend to know what the other person is thinking and then twist things. All you do is patronise people. You should be lucky I am still replying. But theres a limit when a person thinks "**** it, replying to this guy is a waste of time as he clearly has no idea what he is on about". Watching a film atm, so I will reply to the link later.I rea dall of your posts, and I said how referendums can solve the problem that MPs simply do not represent the people anymore, I used the death penalty as an example which I said in my previous post (again, shows you are either blind or do not actually read my posts). I dont twist anything, I have put a simply question to you now which is based on the point I have been making throughout this thread and you dont seem to be able to answer it, just like you couldnt answer the question that I had to ask you over 12 times to answer in the link provided (I do hope you keep your word this time and actually answer it).

I'll ask the question again regarding this thread anyway because its central to the debate and as I said before, it seems yet again you are refusing to answer a simple question. I couldnt care less if you think that I think I have 'won' - the fact is that its a vcitory for me in the sense that I think I have actually now got you to see the flaw in your side of the argument over the privatisation and you know yourself you are incapable of answering it now. Here it is anyway (3rd time); Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

This is rediculous - you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up this statement. It's just as if because you think it - the whole world must automatically agree with you.

Its not a statement Rosie, its a question. A question neither you nor Saurav seem to have any answer to. That question is based on what you have both been arguing; you have both been arguing that the BBC is popular yet at the same time you say it would not survive without public funding - that does not make economical sense. A business that is popular would have customers to support it due to its services being popular, if this is not the case and the service is unpopular then the business would close.

The question may seem biased, but he and you(?) have both said that if the BBC were privatised then it would be cut and perhaps even close. That condratics your own claims of the BBC being a popular business because i'll repeat what I have been saying throughout this debate; if it were popular then it would not lose revenue and thus privatisation would do it very little harm indeed.

Which one is it?

Like I said, he has very little knowledge on most things he debates about. He just does it for the sake of it. He has very clearly demonstrated he has zero clue about business and BBC tonight.

You clearly cannot answer a simple question which is a model of the simplest economics you can even think of. Let me put it clearly;

A business that is popular creates this; +£££ (a profit)
A business that is unpopular creates this; -£££ (a loss)

Now both you and Rosie argue that the BBC is a popular service that most people would want to continue paying towards. If that is the case then the company would not make a loss if it went private. So my question is; what is the big problem with such a 'popular' and 'in demand' service such as the BBC being privatised?

Please do answer that, because the only solution I can find is that perhaps the BBC is not the green option but is the red option. Your choice.

StefanWolves

15-03-2010, 11:25 PM

So it just goes to show you dont actually know what you are talking about, proven more by the point by your suggestion that UKIP would hold a referendum on the Prime Ministers choice of clothing. You really dont back anything up do you.

I rea dall of your posts, and I said how referendums can solve the problem that MPs simply do not represent the people anymore, I used the death penalty as an example which I said in my previous post (again, shows you are either blind or do not actually read my posts). I dont twist anything, I have put a simply question to you now which is based on the point I have been making throughout this thread and you dont seem to be able to answer it, just like you couldnt answer the question that I had to ask you over 12 times to answer in the link provided (I do hope you keep your word this time and actually answer it).

I'll ask the question again regarding this thread anyway because its central to the debate and as I said before, it seems yet again you are refusing to answer a simple question. I couldnt care less if you think that I think I have 'won' - the fact is that its a vcitory for me in the sense that I think I have actually now got you to see the flaw in your side of the argument over the privatisation and you know yourself you are incapable of answering it now. Here it is anyway (3rd time); Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

Its not a statement Rosie, its a question. A question neither you nor Saurav seem to have any answer to. That question is based on what you have both been arguing; you have both been arguing that the BBC is popular yet at the same time you say it would not survive without public funding - that does not make economical sense. A business that is popular would have customers to support it due to its services being popular, if this is not the case and the service is unpopular then the business would close.

The question may seem biased, but he and you(?) have both said that if the BBC were privatised then it would be cut and perhaps even close. That condratics your own claims of the BBC being a popular business because i'll repeat what I have been saying throughout this debate; if it were popular then it would not lose revenue and thus privatisation would do it very little harm indeed.

Which one is it?

You clearly cannot answer a simple question which is a model of the simplest economics you can even think of. Let me put it clearly;

A business that is popular creates this; +£££ (a profit)
A business that is unpopular creates this; -£££ (a loss)

Now both you and Rosie argue that the BBC is a popular service that most people would want to continue paying towards. If that is the case then the company would not make a loss if it went private. So my question is; what is the big problem with such a 'popular' and 'in demand' service such as the BBC being privatised?

Please do answer that, because the only solution I can find is that perhaps the BBC is not the green option but is the red option. Your choice.

Please, you are not in Parliament, you are not running for Prime Minister, so be quiet!!!!!!! :l

-:Undertaker:-

15-03-2010, 11:29 PM

Please, you are not in Parliament, you are not running for Prime Minister, so be quiet!!!!!!! :l

And you are not a moderator my friend. Although if you disagree with me, please do put your point across.

StefanWolves

15-03-2010, 11:51 PM

-:Undertaker:-

15-03-2010, 11:56 PM

I don't know what the hell you are talking apart, you're speaking absolute gruel. I am not a moderator, no. But you have turned this thread from about ITV creating PPV channels, to an argument for and against privatizing the BBC. I have already given my view on it, if you can find it after all this arguing.

I'm only repeating what you said about me being a MP/PM, infact it was your brainchild. Back to the topic itself;

The moves made by ITV are very closely linked with the BBC;- Channel 4 and ITV were close to collapse only a few months ago because of the stranglehold the BBC has on the market. If ITV and Channel 4 are to survive as competitive channels then they will have to privatise the BBC. ITV has tried and attempted many schemes such as this and buyouts many of which have ended in disaster (did they not buy out cable a while ago?) and this could be another one of them. ITV has managed to stay afloat like any other business by cutting back on its waste and spending, meanwhile the BBC spends millions on executives, non-jobs and total waste of money. If the main issue isnt sorted out then you will eventually see ITV go under along with Channel 4 (which would be a great shame especially with Channel 4 and its E4 channels).

Seatherny

16-03-2010, 12:02 AM

I'm only repeating what you said about me being a MP/PM, infact it was your brainchild. Back to the topic itself;

The moves made by ITV are very closely linked with the BBC;- Channel 4 and ITV were close to collapse only a few months ago because of the stranglehold the BBC has on the market. If ITV and Channel 4 are to survive as competitive channels then they will have to privatise the BBC. ITV has tried and attempted many schemes such as this and buyouts many of which have ended in disaster (did they not buy out cable a while ago?) and this could be another one of them. ITV has managed to stay afloat like any other business by cutting back on its waste and spending, meanwhile the BBC spends millions on executives, non-jobs and total waste of money. If the main issue isnt sorted out then you will eventually see ITV go under along with Channel 4 (which would be a great shame especially with Channel 4 and its E4 channels).

Please privatise the Royal Mail. Please privatise the NHS. Please privatise everything so other companies can survive. Who gives a **** about quality, its all about having crap.

NOTE: THE ABOVE IS SARCASM. PLEASE DON'T MISTAKE IT FOR ME AGREEING WITH YOU.

So it just goes to show you dont actually know what you are talking about, proven more by the point by your suggestion that UKIP would hold a referendum on the Prime Ministers choice of clothing. You really dont back anything up do you, infact just like when I asked you to prove that the death penalty was used as a form of entertainment (your words not mine) you skimmed right past that didnt you.

I rea dall of your posts, and I said how referendums can solve the problem that MPs simply do not represent the people anymore, I used the death penalty as an example which I said in my previous post (again, shows you are either blind or do not actually read my posts). I dont twist anything, I have put a simply question to you now which is based on the point I have been making throughout this thread and you dont seem to be able to answer it, just like you couldnt answer the question that I had to ask you over 12 times to answer in the link provided (I do hope you keep your word this time and actually answer it).

I'll ask the question again regarding this thread anyway because its central to the debate and as I said before, it seems yet again you are refusing to answer a simple question. I couldnt care less if you think that I think I have 'won' - the fact is that its a vcitory for me in the sense that I think I have actually now got you to see the flaw in your side of the argument over the privatisation and you know yourself you are incapable of answering it now. Here it is anyway (3rd time); Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

Its not a statement Rosie, its a question. A question neither you nor Saurav seem to have any answer to. That question is based on what you have both been arguing; you have both been arguing that the BBC is popular yet at the same time you say it would not survive without public funding - that does not make economical sense. A business that is popular would have customers to support it due to its services being popular, if this is not the case and the service is unpopular then the business would close.

The question may seem biased, but he and you(?) have both said that if the BBC were privatised then it would be cut and perhaps even close. That condratics your own claims of the BBC being a popular business because i'll repeat what I have been saying throughout this debate; if it were popular then it would not lose revenue and thus privatisation would do it very little harm indeed.

Which one is it?

You clearly cannot answer a simple question which is a model of the simplest economics you can even think of. Let me put it clearly;

A business that is popular creates this; +£££ (a profit)
A business that is unpopular creates this; -£££ (a loss)

Now both you and Rosie argue that the BBC is a popular service that most people would want to continue paying towards. If that is the case then the company would not make a loss if it went private. So my question is; what is the big problem with such a 'popular' and 'in demand' service such as the BBC being privatised?

Please do answer that, because the only solution I can find is that perhaps the BBC is not the green option but is the red option. Your choice.

Here it is anyway (3rd time); Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

The bit above, I didnt even know it was a question to me.

Like I said, you are a brainwashed teenager who has zero clue about how to run a business.
How many times have I said that BBC has ALOT of services. Privatise it, no matter what, it cant survive. I wont repeat myself again, you have no idea about business, and I may sound arrogant or I LOVE MYSELF type, but I do considering I run one and considering I am doing a ******* degree on business.

NOTE: THE ABOVE IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

A business that is popular creates this; +£££ (a profit)
A business that is unpopular creates this; -£££ (a loss)

Not always. I don't expect you to understand. You have already agreed you are clueless when it comes to finances. :)

-:Undertaker:-

16-03-2010, 12:25 AM

Please privatise the Royal Mail. Please privatise the NHS. Please privatise everything so other companies can survive. Who gives a **** about quality, its all about having crap.

Quality comes when you have demand, if there is no demand then it creates taxation by stealth and thus makes families poorer and worse off. That is the license fee mate and if you cannot see it then you really have your head buried in the sand;- its a stealth tax.

Here it is anyway (3rd time); Do you now detract your statement that the BBC is very popular and admit that a lot of people do not want to be forced into paying for a service they do not want?

The bit above, I didnt even know it was a question to me.

Like I said, you are a brainwashed teenager who has zero clue about how to run a business.
How many times have I said that BBC has ALOT of services. Privatise it, no matter what, it cant survive. I wont repeat myself again, you have no idea about business, and I may sound arrogant or I LOVE MYSELF type, but I do considering I run one and considering I am doing a ******* degree on business.

Then now you know its a question you can surely answer it? - come on mate, answer something for once.

A brainwashed teenager? - no actually I used to be i'll accept that when I was younger and naive and hence why i've gone from right to left back to right. I actually look things up for myself and look at it using both history and politics as well as economics. You do sound arrogant yes, because qualifications and being a so-called 'expert' does not make you right on everything. If you cannot justify your points or even answer simple questions regarding the subject when they are put to you then your degrees are worthless. Lenin could of had a degree in history, it doesnt make his opinion worth more than mine and it doesnt make his opinion right either.

Finally we got there, so personal digs aside; the BBC can survive Saurav if it just stopped wasting so much. I now presume you also agree that the BBC is all not that popular as well(?) because if it was actually popular as you have earlier suggested then it would have little effect on the BBC (privatisation) which brings me to the bigger point; why should somebody have to pay for a television service they do not watch or want when their are (in their opinion) better and cheaper deals which suit them better than that of the BBC package?

Not always. I don't expect you to understand. You have already agreed you are clueless when it comes to finances.

Actually we havent agreed, although i'm sure we've agreed on your behalf by now that it takes a damn long time to get answers out of you. See my reply above for the financial issue of the BBC. Actually saying that we have agreed on one thing that you have conceded finally, that if the license fee was optional the BBC would lose a lot of business because it is not very popular - you admitted this just above when you said the BBC could not run itself to the same extent anymore which goes to show, the BBC isnt as popular as you might like to think.

Seatherny

16-03-2010, 01:01 AM

Quality comes when you have demand, if there is no demand then it creates taxation by stealth and thus makes families poorer and worse off. That is the license fee mate and if you cannot see it then you really have your head buried in the sand;- its a stealth tax.

Then now you know its a question you can surely answer it? - come on mate, answer something for once.

A brainwashed teenager? - no actually I used to be i'll accept that when I was younger and naive and hence why i've gone from right to left back to right. I actually look things up for myself and look at it using both history and politics as well as economics. You do sound arrogant yes, because qualifications and being a so-called 'expert' does not make you right on everything. If you cannot justify your points or even answer simple questions regarding the subject when they are put to you then your degrees are worthless. Lenin could of had a degree in history, it doesnt make his opinion worth more than mine and it doesnt make his opinion right either.

Finally we got there, so personal digs aside; the BBC can survive Saurav if it just stopped wasting so much. I now presume you also agree that the BBC is all not that popular as well(?) because if it was actually popular as you have earlier suggested then it would have little effect on the BBC (privatisation) which brings me to the bigger point; why should somebody have to pay for a television service they do not watch or want when their are (in their opinion) better and cheaper deals which suit them better than that of the BBC package?

Actually we havent agreed, although i'm sure we've agreed on your behalf by now that it takes a damn long time to get answers out of you. See my reply above for the financial issue of the BBC. Actually saying that we have agreed on one thing that you have conceded finally, that if the license fee was optional the BBC would lose a lot of business because it is not very popular - you admitted this just above when you said the BBC could not run itself to the same extent anymore which goes to show, the BBC isnt as popular as you might like to think.

I now presume you also agree that the BBC is all not that popular as well(?)

Do you not read what I said? BBC is popular but because it has so many services, its impossible for all its services to exist if it was privatised. Sometimes it feels like I am arguing with a wall.

And no, you look at what UKIP want in future and bark that at people. You are more naive than before.

Richie

16-03-2010, 03:29 AM

I like quality ad-free TV, so I like BBC.

I don't, I like to pee.

I don't care if they introduce pay per view on a new itv channel, I won't be paying.

Catzsy

16-03-2010, 06:46 PM

Quality comes when you have demand, if there is no demand then it creates taxation by stealth and thus makes families poorer and worse off. That is the license fee mate and if you cannot see it then you really have your head buried in the sand;- its a stealth tax.

Then now you know its a question you can surely answer it? - come on mate, answer something for once.

A brainwashed teenager? - no actually I used to be i'll accept that when I was younger and naive and hence why i've gone from right to left back to right. I actually look things up for myself and look at it using both history and politics as well as economics. You do sound arrogant yes, because qualifications and being a so-called 'expert' does not make you right on everything. If you cannot justify your points or even answer simple questions regarding the subject when they are put to you then your degrees are worthless. Lenin could of had a degree in history, it doesnt make his opinion worth more than mine and it doesnt make his opinion right either.

Finally we got there, so personal digs aside; the BBC can survive Saurav if it just stopped wasting so much. I now presume you also agree that the BBC is all not that popular as well(?) because if it was actually popular as you have earlier suggested then it would have little effect on the BBC (privatisation) which brings me to the bigger point; why should somebody have to pay for a television service they do not watch or want when their are (in their opinion) better and cheaper deals which suit them better than that of the BBC package?

Actually we havent agreed, although i'm sure we've agreed on your behalf by now that it takes a damn long time to get answers out of you. See my reply above for the financial issue of the BBC. Actually saying that we have agreed on one thing that you have conceded finally, that if the license fee was optional the BBC would lose a lot of business because it is not very popular - you admitted this just above when you said the BBC could not run itself to the same extent anymore which goes to show, the BBC isnt as popular as you might like to think.

Well I do think you are in the minority here according to an ICM poll conducted in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/04/bbc-icm-poll-james-murdoch

An exerpt supporting this:

An overwhelming majority, 77%, think the BBC is an institution people should be proud of – up from 68% in an equivalent ICM poll carried out five years ago. Most, 63%, also think it provides good value for money – up from 59% in 2004.

Since the previous poll the BBC has come under fire for the standards of its journalism, after the Hutton inquiry and during the scandal involving fake phone-in competitions on high-profile programmes and wrongly edited footage of the Queen.

But public confidence in the corporation's output has grown. Asked if the BBC is trustworthy, 69% now say yes, against 60% in 2004. Only 26% disagree.

I don't suggest that they couldn't spend the money wiser and be more accountable but this is not
a reason to privatise it. All that would happen is that all TV would be dumbed down even more and end up costing a whole lot more than the licence fee. It is the BBC that keeps the fees of it's competitors down and long may it last.

alexxxxx

16-03-2010, 07:26 PM

Well I do think you are in the minority here according to an ICM poll conducted in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/04/bbc-icm-poll-james-murdoch

An exerpt supporting this:

I don't suggest that they couldn't spend the money wiser and be more accountable but this is not
a reason to privatise it. All that would happen is that all TV would be dumbed down even more and end up costing a whole lot more than the licence fee. It is the BBC that keeps the fees of it's competitors down and long may it last.

the guardian lets stalin live on, i shouldn't think he'd take much notice from a communist nuliarbore rag :rolleyes:

Catzsy

16-03-2010, 07:39 PM

the guardian lets stalin live on, i shouldn't think he'd take much notice from a communist nuliarbore rag :rolleyes:

Well that might be so but it's an ICM poll so the figures can't be argued upon just the interpretation.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/

alexxxxx

16-03-2010, 09:10 PM

Well that might be so but it's an ICM poll so the figures can't be argued upon just the interpretation.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/

it's a socialist conspiracy to put us all into poverty :D seriously............................... i'm sure of it. the mail said so.

-:Undertaker:-

16-03-2010, 09:35 PM

Do you not read what I said? BBC is popular but because it has so many services, its impossible for all its services to exist if it was privatised. Sometimes it feels like I am arguing with a wall.

And no, you look at what UKIP want in future and bark that at people. You are more naive than before.

I did read what you said, you should be asking yourself 'do I understand his very simple points, especially as I claim to be a guru at business' - so let me explain. If the BBC is genuinely (as you say) offering so many popular services then why would it not make a profit. Could it perhaps be the fact that a lot of its services have little demand and and/are a total waste of money?

No I dont look at what UKIP want or what the Labour Party says in your case, I think for myself thank you very much.

Well I do think you are in the minority here according to an ICM poll conducted in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/04/bbc-icm-poll-james-murdoch

An exerpt supporting this:

I don't suggest that they couldn't spend the money wiser and be more accountable but this is not
a reason to privatise it. All that would happen is that all TV would be dumbed down even more and end up costing a whole lot more than the licence fee. It is the BBC that keeps the fees of it's competitors down and long may it last.

Indeed I could be the minority indeed, however issues such as commercial television should not be decided by the majority as they should be decided by the individual. Now you may want to jump on and say 'HYPOCRITE' but its not;- commercial television is differenet from the government and law making/legislation. As for the BBC keeping costs down/being sensible - quite frankly we had this debate from the 1950s to 1979 and history had shown by that time and it certainly tells us by now that a company which has bottomless pockets due to being backed by the Treasury will not be sensible with money, its just a fact of life.

Just tell me what is wrong with allowing people to choose which television broadcaster they want to watch?

it's a socialist conspiracy to put us all into poverty :D seriously............................... i'm sure of it. the mail said so...the person who thinks the British people actually want a federal Europe despite the fact every opinion poll shows the opposite is trying to paint me as naive? - oh the irony!

alexxxxx

16-03-2010, 10:01 PM

well the BBC has done alot for broadcasting across the globe, CEEFAX/teletext was created by the BBC and it was also the first UK to have a truly on demand on line content delivery system (iPlayer), which independent TV had to keep up. The BBC continues to innovate and force through technological change which eventually makes independent television have to improve their game.

AgnesIO

17-03-2010, 08:03 AM

Why are we fighting over a £100 tax, that if it wasn't for the BBC we would get charged for something else?

£100 is nothing guys

Catzsy

18-03-2010, 10:01 AM

I did read what you said, you should be asking yourself 'do I understand his very simple points, especially as I claim to be a guru at business' - so let me explain. If the BBC is genuinely (as you say) offering so many popular services then why would it not make a profit. Could it perhaps be the fact that a lot of its services have little demand and and/are a total waste of money?

No I dont look at what UKIP want or what the Labour Party says in your case, I think for myself thank you very much.

Indeed I could be the minority indeed, however issues such as commercial television should not be decided by the majority as they should be decided by the individual. Now you may want to jump on and say 'HYPOCRITE' but its not;- commercial television is differenet from the government and law making/legislation. As for the BBC keeping costs down/being sensible - quite frankly we had this debate from the 1950s to 1979 and history had shown by that time and it certainly tells us by now that a company which has bottomless pockets due to being backed by the Treasury will not be sensible with money, its just a fact of life.

Just tell me what is wrong with allowing people to choose which television broadcaster they want to watch?

..the person who thinks the British people actually want a federal Europe despite the fact every opinion poll shows the opposite is trying to paint me as naive? - oh the irony!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as the person doesn't promote is as being the 'majority' when it clearly is not. All opinions that shape this country probably were a minority once but were promoted in a calm and realistic way - it's called lobbying which is a great deal more successful that hyped propaganda. =]

-:Undertaker:-

19-03-2010, 05:10 PM

Why are we fighting over a £100 tax, that if it wasn't for the BBC we would get charged for something else?

£100 is nothing guys

We shouldnt be charged for the BBC and we shouldnt be charged for something else. Let people decide what they spend the majority of their money on, not the government.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as the person doesn't promote is as being the 'majority' when it clearly is not. All opinions that shape this country probably were a minority once but were promoted in a calm and realistic way - it's called lobbying which is a great deal more successful that hyped propaganda. =]

It is the majority.

The opinion I hold on the European Union is the majority.
The opinion I hold on the death penalty is the majority.

I dont know how many polls you need slapped down infront of you before you get these messages that; a) people want the death penalty back by a majority and that b) people want to withdraw from the European Union by a majority but it is the majority. So please do now tell me why if the BBC is so popular it wouldnt be able to function and would close, because common business tack says that if a service is popular then it would survive anyway because people will pay to watch a service they want.

Speaking of hyped propaganda, that reminds me of the BBC regarding climate change who seem to take it as solid fact and dont allow any sceptics to get a say.

AgnesIO

19-03-2010, 07:54 PM

We shouldnt be charged for the BBC and we shouldnt be charged for something else. Let people decide what they spend the majority of their money on, not the government.

If we did that we could go bankrupt.

-:Undertaker:-

19-03-2010, 09:11 PM

If we did that we could go bankrupt.

Wrong, its a simple concept that occured in the 1980s and could of went even futher I believe. The idea of Thatcherite economics aka the free market is that the government is small and does only what it needs to do. Government would then waste less and the economy would be in better shape because there would be more money being spent in the economy. If you have higher taxes then you leave people with less and thus that means the economy does not grow/even slows. That is what we faced in the 1970s, I believe at one point one tax (cant remember whether it was business or income over a certain band) was at 80% and people just moved away.

If you tax business to the hilt then business moves/cannot expand, that then creates unemployment which means more people rely on the ever-growing state which means that to fund that ever growing pile the government must tax more to create more revenue to sustain these people who cannot find work and thus the cycle continues down that road. We need very low taxes for things such as roads and infastruture, as well as keeping the basic principle of government and rule of law in place but we do not need government to dictate to us which commercial broadcaster we watch as well as a massive pile of other expenditures that this government does.

We are heading for a 1970s moment again, I believe the Express said the other day that something like 200 new public sector non-jobs are created every week by the government. It happens under every Labour government - it gains them votes and keeps a cap on the unemployment when in reality it isnt affordable and doesnt benefit anyone. You only have to look in the jobs pages of the Guardian (which is funded by the government through job adverts) for jobs with titles such as 'Bootle Community Cohesion Officer' and the salary is something like £50k a year. Enough is enough; http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/77787

alexxxxx

19-03-2010, 09:19 PM

Wrong, its a simple concept that occured in the 1980s and could of went even futher I believe. The idea of Thatcherite economics aka the free market is that the government is small and does only what it needs to do. Government would then waste less and the economy would be in better shape because there would be more money being spent in the economy. If you have higher taxes then you leave people with less and thus that means the economy does not grow/even slows. That is what we faced in the 1970s, I believe at one point one tax (cant remember whether it was business or income over a certain band) was at 80% and people just moved away.

thatcher also had no idea how to control the economy with crippling interest rates, joining ERM at stupid levels, producing a very one dimensional economy leading to us having a stupidly large balance of payments and still not being able to deal with inflation.

-:Undertaker:-

19-03-2010, 10:26 PM

thatcher also had no idea how to control the economy with crippling interest rates, joining ERM at stupid levels, producing a very one dimensional economy leading to us having a stupidly large balance of payments and still not being able to deal with inflation.

Would you like to tell me how she created a 'one dimensional economy' - the economy was in turmoil because she was sorting out the exact problem that Labour and your Union friends had created. It is just like now; if a government got in with any clue of how to run an economy they would severly cut back the state - yes unemployment would rapidly rise but unemployment figures are not everything. You can throw billions and billions at non-jobs and you will lower unemployment but you only make the problem worse. Infact my Dad just told me that interest rates were only at their peak for a matter of days during the 1980s and i'm trying to find a chart which showed that the interest rates were actually higher under the previous socialist government and started declining and going down in the 1980s under Thatcher.

Do you not understand the financial mess the country was in during the 1970s or do you like to ignore that? - you know when we had blackouts, the 3 day week, high taxes and little business, strike after strike and the unions in control? When the Uniuted Kingdom had to go to the IMF for an emergency bailout and it got that bad that the army was considering a military coup?

As for the ERM - terrible mistake and no economy should ever be bound to any European project which removes sovereignty. Although in regard to the Germans at present in regards to the euro they are still always one step ahead because it was revealed that instead of smelting and buring their currency, they have it all stored up for when the euro does collapse (which it will). So yes, criticise Jonh Major and the rest of the europhiles but do not criticise somebody who saved this country from the socialist hell that the Eastern Europeans were suffering and the North Koreans suffer now.

If you like socialism so much and the idea of 'wealth re-distribution' aka state theft, then please by all means move to a socialist country. My city was ruined by people such as you who care for nothing but more money to spend which is not your own. You hate the idea of somebody bettering themselves. I think I know what you mean now by the term 'one dimensional economy' - does it mean closing subsidised businesses that were crippling the government?

If so, you're a lonely solider on that cliff.

alexxxxx

20-03-2010, 08:46 AM

Would you like to tell me how she created a 'one dimensional economy' - the economy was in turmoil because she was sorting out the exact problem that Labour and your Union friends had created. It is just like now; if a government got in with any clue of how to run an economy they would severly cut back the state - yes unemployment would rapidly rise but unemployment figures are not everything. You can throw billions and billions at non-jobs and you will lower unemployment but you only make the problem worse. Infact my Dad just told me that interest rates were only at their peak for a matter of days during the 1980s and i'm trying to find a chart which showed that the interest rates were actually higher under the previous socialist government and started declining and going down in the 1980s under Thatcher.

Do you think that 15% interest rates are a good idea? That's what thatcher thought. All that does is destroy demand for our own goods and artificially increases our exchange rate, destroying jobs here for increasing imports. Unemployment was increasing at some points at 100 000 a month, and provisions for these people to re train and new industries coming to the area has destroyed areas which have never recovered (ex-mining towns for an example), leading to many of the social ills you cry about all the time.

Do you not understand the financial mess the country was in during the 1970s or do you like to ignore that? - you know when we had blackouts, the 3 day week, high taxes and little business, strike after strike and the unions in control? When the Uniuted Kingdom had to go to the IMF for an emergency bailout and it got that bad that the army was considering a military coup?

there was undeniably a fiscal problem, yes and it had to be sorted out. However the way that it was handled was frankly stupid. the working class in this country hit the floor in the country with the largest thud for a long time.

As for the ERM - terrible mistake and no economy should ever be bound to any European project which removes sovereignty. Although in regard to the Germans at present in regards to the euro they are still always one step ahead because it was revealed that instead of smelting and buring their currency, they have it all stored up for when the euro does collapse (which it will). So yes, criticise Jonh Major and the rest of the europhiles but do not criticise somebody who saved this country from the socialist hell that the Eastern Europeans were suffering and the North Koreans suffer now.

An ERM isn't actually a stupid idea as it guarantees and stablises exchange rates which CAN help businesses effectively plan their futures. When you try to cheat and enter in at a high level, you will be punished, which is what happened. I doubt the euro will fail.

If you like socialism so much and the idea of 'wealth re-distribution' aka state theft, then please by all means move to a socialist country. My city was ruined by people such as you who care for nothing but more money to spend which is not your own. You hate the idea of somebody bettering themselves. I think I know what you mean now by the term 'one dimensional economy' - does it mean closing subsidised businesses that were crippling the government?

No by a 1D economy i mean that our government has not encouraged enough manufacturing in this country and soley focussed on the service sector, which are generally hard to export apart from finacial services, which means we get a stupidly large trade defecit. If these businesses had been sold off, with subsidies on building new capital we'd be able to compete for alot longer. There isn't enough capital investment in the economy - see mainland europe for examples.

I think people should be able to better themselves, but i don't think they should have to take on £30k of university debt, nor should people have to work 3 jobs to be able to afford to send their kids to school, nor should we have to pay monopolies stupid amounts of money for healthcare (see the USA) to do so.

Catzsy

20-03-2010, 10:29 AM

We shouldnt be charged for the BBC and we shouldnt be charged for something else. Let people decide what they spend the majority of their money on, not the government.

It is the majority.

The opinion I hold on the European Union is the majority.
The opinion I hold on the death penalty is the majority.

I dont know how many polls you need slapped down infront of you before you get these messages that; a) people want the death penalty back by a majority and that b) people want to withdraw from the European Union by a majority but it is the majority. So please do now tell me why if the BBC is so popular it wouldnt be able to function and would close, because common business tack says that if a service is popular then it would survive anyway because people will pay to watch a service they want.

Speaking of hyped propaganda, that reminds me of the BBC regarding climate change who seem to take it as solid fact and dont allow any sceptics to get a say.

This post was about TV license fee/BBC which the majority of the UK population support. It would be nice if you could stay on track occasionally as all the threads turn into the same subject when you are posting which is UKIP & the European Union.

Bewilcorp

20-03-2010, 10:36 AM

You say no one will pay. But I reckon they will. If they are changing to pay per view they won't charge lots. Maybe a few quid a month. They will have to introduce more interesting programs but I'm sure they will turn it into a good plan!

Even though I watch ITV2 most of the time i see this being a good idea. ITV are in ALOTTTTT of debt anyway. If this plan don't work or they don't do anything soon, bye bye itv!

-:Undertaker:-

20-03-2010, 02:17 PM

Do you think that 15% interest rates are a good idea? That's what thatcher thought. All that does is destroy demand for our own goods and artificially increases our exchange rate, destroying jobs here for increasing imports. Unemployment was increasing at some points at 100 000 a month, and provisions for these people to re train and new industries coming to the area has destroyed areas which have never recovered (ex-mining towns for an example), leading to many of the social ills you cry about all the time.Yes I do, because the fact is that the previous socialist government which also had high interest rates tried to keep them low by flooding the economy with money thus devaluing the pound sterling (much like this government is doing now) now if you had any idea why that is a bad thing you would learn from history with the prime examples being the Weimar Republic and the Russian Empire. Unemployment did rise yes, and if it rose right now I would be fully behind it. Employment isnt everything; if somebody with an ounce of common sense got into power right now in this country I could gurantee that unemployment would rise because we have a state which is expanding daily with non-jobs and back then we had both that and old industry which was worthless.

You say social ills, of course a mining town will never be the same again. There is nothing a government can do about that. The choice was clear; continue down the road of bankruptcy by keeping the mines and other useless subsidised industry open or close them and pull the rest of the country out of increasing poverty compared to other leading nations. You cannot accept the fact that they were totally and utterly spent and useless. If China is selling coal for £1 a tonne and Britain for £10 a tonne, who is the rest of the world going to buy from?

there was undeniably a fiscal problem, yes and it had to be sorted out. However the way that it was handled was frankly stupid. the working class in this country hit the floor in the country with the largest thud for a long time.What would you like us to do then? - its either cut them or keep them which would result in the crisis continuing. You are living on another planet if you think the mines/other awful industry could of been saved or salvaged because it was ruined. Any assets that could of been saved or sold where destroyed anyway because of the Unions and their militant behaviour. My teachers father I found out just the other week was just one example of the 'scab' culture where people who wanted to work where beaten up by socialist thugs who were determined to cause anarchy.

An ERM isn't actually a stupid idea as it guarantees and stablises exchange rates which CAN help businesses effectively plan their futures. When you try to cheat and enter in at a high level, you will be punished, which is what happened. I doubt the euro will fail.The pound fell mainly because of market speculation and it isnt a good idea signing away or tieing your currency to something like that as shown by the results. In regards to the euro it will fail because all single currencies have failed. The economies of Germany and France are nothing like that of Spain, Greece and others and thus common sense shows it cannot work. If you build something on no support, it collapses. The euro and the whole thing will collapse and even the CIA have predicted it. Saying that; even the Germans are contemplating the fact because they have all of their Deutsche Mark in storage which tells you all you need to know about this European Union - even the most pro-EU German political elite are unsure!

No by a 1D economy i mean that our government has not encouraged enough manufacturing in this country and soley focussed on the service sector, which are generally hard to export apart from finacial services, which means we get a stupidly large trade defecit. If these businesses had been sold off, with subsidies on building new capital we'd be able to compete for alot longer. There isn't enough capital investment in the economy - see mainland europe for examples.How can we manufacture when China/India/South Korea and others can do it for a tenth of the price? - the simple answer is that we cant. You often accused me of living in the past before yet it is you who cannot see the simple fact that as an economy moves and grows/progresses it leaves the manufacturing side and becomes a service sector with better standards of living. Once the population within that country can begin to afford to buy themselves, the change is almost irreversible and its a stage which China is beginning to reach at this very moment; http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/growthmodels_3.jpeg

I think people should be able to better themselves, but i don't think they should have to take on £30k of university debt, nor should people have to work 3 jobs to be able to afford to send their kids to school, nor should we have to pay monopolies stupid amounts of money for healthcare (see the USA) to do so.If taxes were lower then people would be able to afford things like this. In regards to healthcare, the idea of the NHS is lovely and I would hope it could continue but it cannot the way it is going. We are heading for a demographic catatrophe at the moment and the NHS which is already overfunded and overbloated will just simply collapse. The solution with the NHS is to try better management and decentralisation/less targets and if that fails then the only solution is privatisation. That said, with privatisation on health it must come with stringent government controls over prices and rules to ensure the companies do not cheat people as they often do both here and in the States.

This post was about TV license fee/BBC which the majority of the UK population support. It would be nice if you could stay on track occasionally as all the threads turn into the same subject when you are posting which is UKIP & the European Union.

Again you cannot answer the simple fact that if the BBC is as popular as you claim then it wouldnt have an issue going private as it would still be able to raise that revenue from the demand it creates. So which is it, please do answer me for once rather than going off on one about UKIP/the European Union. I know your keen to distract the subject away from the BBC and bring it on UKIP/EU and somehow make it out as though i'm going on about them, but yet again its you who is trying to get me drawn into a full on discussion about them. We are not talking about the EU and UKIP so just leave it. In case you say that I brought up the EU, yes I did as an example and not a discussion point.

So please instead of going again on the UKIP/EU run, tell me what is so wrong with people choosing their own broadcaster which they pay for with their own money?

AgnesIO

20-03-2010, 07:40 PM

Why change the BBC now?

It has been fine for 50 yeas or whatever - don't fix what ain't bloody broken.

StefanWolves

20-03-2010, 11:34 PM

The BBC shouldn't be changed, I agree. But I'd rather the BBC had a maximum of a 1 minute break every 15 minutes, and get extra funding, thus have better TV channels, programs, more sports rights, etc because of it. Having a minute break in Eastenders would be convenient for the viewer anyway.

-:Undertaker:-

21-03-2010, 12:22 AM

Why change the BBC now?

It has been fine for 50 yeas or whatever - don't fix what ain't bloody broken.

Because it overspends by gross amounts and the fact is that we now have various broadcasters which provide a better service at a lower price.

Catzsy

21-03-2010, 10:49 AM

Because it overspends by gross amounts and the fact is that we now have various broadcasters which provide a better service at a lower price.

And these broadcasters are?

StefanWolves

21-03-2010, 12:24 PM

Lower price? if you are referring to Virgin and Sky, if you subscribe for a year for all their 'main' services, then you would be paying over £1000 per year... how is that cheaper?

Jam

21-03-2010, 01:57 PM

The BBC are the only one without adverts and for the F1 that is the only way it can be, as the only other option would be a private PPV company would would charge per race which I'm sure would cost more than the license fee.

AgnesIO

21-03-2010, 03:38 PM

Because it overspends by gross amounts and the fact is that we now have various broadcasters which provide a better service at a lower price.

£60 a month for Sky+HD - yeh real cheap.

-:Undertaker:-

21-03-2010, 04:36 PM

And these broadcasters are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom

You are telling me their is no selection?

Lower price? if you are referring to Virgin and Sky, if you subscribe for a year for all their 'main' services, then you would be paying over £1000 per year... how is that cheaper?

It does not cost that much so do not over do it. Here are some examples of the cheap packages you can get with a lot of choice from Virgin Media; http://allyours.virginmedia.com/websales/service.do?id=1 - more choice and what from I can see, it comes under the price of the License fee to the BBC which only has a few channels compared to Virgin and Sky who offer over 50+ channels sometimes going into the hundreds.

£60 a month for Sky+HD - yeh real cheap.

It'll cost more if you use Sky HD as an example. :rolleyes:

Catzsy

21-03-2010, 05:55 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom

You are telling me their is no selection?

It does not cost that much so do not over do it. Here are some examples of the cheap packages you can get with a lot of choice from Virgin Media; http://allyours.virginmedia.com/websales/service.do?id=1 - more choice and what from I can see, it comes under the price of the License fee to the BBC which only has a few channels compared to Virgin and Sky who offer over 50+ channels sometimes going into the hundreds.

It'll cost more if you use Sky HD as an example. :rolleyes:

Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option and you still have to pay the license fee to any live televison view it so in effect it's dearer.
If the license fee was lifted then it would make way for huge rises in these fees - It's only the license fee that keeps them pegged down. Also you have not answered how you are going to get the quality of uninterrupted broadcasting that the BBC is renound for.

AgnesIO

21-03-2010, 05:59 PM

alexxxxx

21-03-2010, 08:18 PM

sky get far more money in terms of revenue and still can't produce quality shows.

-:Undertaker:-

21-03-2010, 08:55 PM

Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option and you still have to pay the license fee to any live televison view it so in effect it's dearer. If the license fee was lifted then it would make way for huge rises in these fees - It's only the license fee that keeps them pegged down. Also you have not answered how you are going to get the quality of uninterrupted broadcasting that the BBC is renound for.

£5.50 x 12 = £66 per year. Now your argument is that if people paid this ontop of the £140 odd sum the BBC compulsory charges (which they do anyway) then this would end up as more which means a family ends up paying around £200. That is at the moment and that is the whole reason why I want to scrap the license fee. Think of it realisically because it would mean it would cost a family less and not more dear as you have twisted it. At the moment say, my family wants to purchase the Sky package as we feel that suits us best. That would cost us a mere £66 a year and not £200. As for the point on the license fee keeping them pegged down;- sorry but thats just totally and utterly wrong. The license fee is not optional and thus they could raise it to £900 tommorow and it wouldnt effect the commerical sector in the slightest. If anything the BBC going private would force the BBC's prices down and make it more efficent, meaning families who wanted to continue paying for both the BBC and other broadcasters would make a saving as well as those who wanted to drop the BBC.

On your point on the BBC; that is opinion. You have answered your own question really, you state the BBC is very popular and renound for its programming - well if thats the case and you are telling the truth then the BBC would have no problem in keeping its shows at top quality. If its not the case as I am arguing and that a lot of people dont even like the BBC then whats wrong with people deciding themselves which television they want to watch?

Even normal sky costs over £100 a year..

The basic package as Rosie states adds up to £66, nearly half the price of the BBC license fee.

sky get far more money in terms of revenue and still can't produce quality shows.

That is opinion, why not let people make that choice rather than people such as yourself making it for them?

AgnesIO

21-03-2010, 10:23 PM

But again if ee scrap the fee for bbc then we won't save any cash.. they will just charge £100 for something else - probably more...

Catzsy

22-03-2010, 10:02 AM

£5.50 x 12 = £66 per year. Now your argument is that if people paid this ontop of the £140 odd sum the BBC compulsory charges (which they do anyway) then this would end up as more which means a family ends up paying around £200. That is at the moment and that is the whole reason why I want to scrap the license fee. Think of it realisically because it would mean it would cost a family less and not more dear as you have twisted it. At the moment say, my family wants to purchase the Sky package as we feel that suits us best. That would cost us a mere £66 a year and not £200. As for the point on the license fee keeping them pegged down;- sorry but thats just totally and utterly wrong. The license fee is not optional and thus they could raise it to £900 tommorow and it wouldnt effect the commerical sector in the slightest. If anything the BBC going private would force the BBC's prices down and make it more efficent, meaning families who wanted to continue paying for both the BBC and other broadcasters would make a saving as well as those who wanted to drop the BBC.

On your point on the BBC; that is opinion. You have answered your own question really, you state the BBC is very popular and renound for its programming - well if thats the case and you are telling the truth then the BBC would have no problem in keeping its shows at top quality. If its not the case as I am arguing and that a lot of people dont even like the BBC then whats wrong with people deciding themselves which television they want to watch?

The basic package as Rosie states adds up to £66, nearly half the price of the BBC license fee.

That is opinion, why not let people make that choice rather than people such as yourself making it for them?

Dan, the cheapest sky package is £16 per month for which you get a very basic service which not many people are satisfied with so that's a lot more expensive than £66. Hmm I don't choose for anybody. Please read my posts before. There are results of a survey there that says 77% support the BBC and 69% think they are worth the money. End of matter, really.

alexxxxx

22-03-2010, 10:34 PM

That is opinion, why not let people make that choice rather than people such as yourself making it for them?
They make very few shows apart from Sky Sports (of which most is imported, not produced) & Sky News plus very limited shows on Sky One. Everything else is imported, mostly from FOX/News Corp which I doubt they pay for much of anyway.

-:Undertaker:-

22-03-2010, 10:44 PM

But again if ee scrap the fee for bbc then we won't save any cash.. they will just charge £100 for something else - probably more...

You will save money as you wouldn't be forced into paying the £140 still. That means people who do not use the BBC or have any desire to use it would not have to pay the £140. Its a pretty simple concept.

Dan, the cheapest sky package is £16 per month for which you get a very basic service which not many people are satisfied with so that's a lot more expensive than £66. Hmm I don't choose for anybody. Please read my posts before. There are results of a survey there that says 77% support the BBC and 69% think they are worth the money. End of matter, really.

Why did you just say £5.50 then? - and I quote; "Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option"

As for you choosing peoples television service yes you are. If you are forcing people to pay for a service they do not watch or have any desire to use then you are forcing them to pay for a broafcaster that is not their choice. On the survey; wow well this is the first time you've actually listened to surveys because normally you just rubbish them. I'll comment though; commercial television is such a small matter is should be upto the individual, it has no need to be part of the law or enforced by the law. If 70% of people want to pay the TV license and enjoy the BBC then they could do so, while the other 30% odd could pay for another broadcaster.

Tell me why I should pay for BBC services that I do not watch ontop of a cheaper service that I do watch (Sky or Virgin)? - would it not just make more sense to let people make their own choice which broadcaster they prefer to pay towards and thus benefit from their service?

They make very few shows apart from Sky Sports (of which most is imported, not produced) & Sky News plus very limited shows on Sky One. Everything else is imported, mostly from FOX/News Corp which I doubt they pay for much of anyway.

Then just let people decide, if the BBC is as popular as you all claim then it would do perfectly fine as a private company and would not at all be withered away by rival broadcasters, if what I think is really true that the BBC is not all that popular then thats market forces working on what at the end of the day is essentially a business.

Catzsy

22-03-2010, 10:48 PM

Why did you just say £5.50 then? - and I quote; [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][I]"Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option"

Because in your post you were quoting Virgin Media @ £5,50 pm not Sky - that could be the reason? Sky is a minimum of £16.00 per month?

-:Undertaker:-

22-03-2010, 10:51 PM

Because in your post you were quoting Virgin Media @ £5,50 pm not Sky - that could be the reason? Sky is a minimum of £16.00 per month?

My mistake then; so still Virgin is a service which costs far less and has a service with more choice. So whats wrong with people deciding themselves whether they want to pay for the cheapest option (Virgin TV) or the second cheaspest option (Sky) or the most expensive option which is the BBC? - I just dont see for the life of me the issue with allowing to choose what television they wish to pay for and watch.

Catzsy

22-03-2010, 11:01 PM

My mistake then; so still Virgin is a service which costs far less and has a service with more choice. So whats wrong with people deciding themselves whether they want to pay for the cheapest option (Virgin TV) or the second cheaspest option (Sky) or the most expensive option which is the BBC? - I just dont see for the life of me the issue with allowing to choose what television they wish to pay for and watch.

Because the BBC isn't the most expensive option and I believe that it has high quality programming including all the educational programming that would be lost if it was privatised. What are the advantages of privatisation? All I can see is that the others would put up their prices and we would have to pay more for the BBC as well as then it would not be a 'not for profit' organisation. You are right to suggest we get value for money though and the BBC is having a radical overhall of it's spending. It is not just the BBC that get taxpayers money it is also Channel 4 and the Welsh Channel S4C - now that needs looking at as it costs the taxpayer 100million a year with average audiences of 10,000.

-:Undertaker:-

22-03-2010, 11:41 PM

Because the BBC isn't the most expensive option and I believe that it has high quality programming including all the educational programming that would be lost if it was privatised. What are the advantages of privatisation? All I can see is that the others would put up their prices and we would have to pay more for the BBC as well as then it would not be a 'not for profit' organisation. You are right to suggest we get value for money though and the BBC is having a radical overhall of it's spending. It is not just the BBC that get taxpayers money it is also Channel 4 and the Welsh Channel S4C - now that needs looking at as it costs the taxpayer 100million a year with average audiences of 10,000.

The BBC is the most expensive option and its compulsory, you are not giving people the choice. You asked for the advantages of privatisation and I shall give you them while at the same time telling you that privatisation would not mean a rise in all broadcasting because that is total rubbish and goes against market forces and common sense. Privatisation would sort out the following issues;

The BBC would lose its monopoly on the market (good for investment)
The BBC would be constricted to its own budget rather than having its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer (the Treasury in other words).
Rival, struggling broadcasters such as Channel 4 would be allowed to compete fairly with the BBC.
More choice would arise as investment in broadcasting would open up a whole new industry.
The rivalling from other broadcasters would make the BBC get ontop of its game and make it more efficent.
The audience, job public would be able to pick his choice of television rather than having the government do it for him.
The BBC would be forced to become more efficent because not only would they be eligable to scrutiny by the public who could easily stop paying into their service, they would have to work with the constraintes of a budget like any other business has to.
The BBC would certainly not be able to afford to keep paying 55 top executives more than the British Prime Minister.
Broadcasting would become cheaper as their would be more rivallry which would force the BBC down to the same prices as Sky and Virgin, possibly with all becoming even cheaper.

As for the BBCs radical overhaul i'm afraid there is nothing radical at all. If you watched Jeff Randalls interview with Mark Thompson he couldnt even provide basic figures on what he was cutting. The BBC has made no pledges to cut spending, no cuts to the executive higherarchy of the company and no pledges to cut non-jobs with names such as 'BBC director of creativity and racial cohesion' (very similar examples out there with names such as that). Now what I cant understand (still) is why you are so against people being able to choose their own broadcaster and the television they watch - what is so wrong with that concept?

Catzsy

23-03-2010, 01:44 AM

AgnesIO

23-03-2010, 12:46 PM

Dan you make out as if you know ******* everything, about everything to do with money, politics, and all else on earth.

Let me make this clear to you: If the government REMOVED the BBC License Fee, then they WOULD, whether you like it or not, charge for something else.

Nobody would be saving money, as they would still charge.

-:Undertaker:-

27-03-2010, 10:09 PM

Why do you keep saying 'you'. It's not just me. It only costs the taxpayer per household £142 per year - this is hardly a huge expense. There is no way that we would not be charged more if it was privatised. The flood gates would open for more subscription TV and there would be no more free to air I would suggest as it is the BBC that keeps that at bay. It is not a monopoly as they are not the only broadcasting company in the UK. If it was privatised why would it attract more investment? Shareholders require profits. I imagine Rupert Murdoch would love to see the end of the BBC but 77% of the British population wouldn't. You are just against the idea of state funded anything by the sound of it whether it be the BBC or any other body.

It is a huge expense for families which struggle onwards every year with hikes in taxation to pay for more complete and utter waste, bills rising and rising due to taxation, business leaving the country while over 8 million of working age do not work - i'm afraid £142 is a lot of money that a lot of families would much rather have in their pockets than in the pockets of a totally wasteful organisation which could not run an ice cream van if it attempted to do so. If the best you can do by justifying the charge is 'well its not that much anyway' then I think that speaks for itself.

I did not say you would be charged more if it was privatised, quite the opposite. The price would be forced down because of rivals such as Sky and Virgin Media already offering bigger and more optional packets as we speak for a fraction of the compulsory BBC price. The BBC do have a monopoly because unlike the other broadcasters they are not a company which (like most other companies) has to manage itself in the best possible way to survive. The BBC can raise the license fee when it wishes with consent from government and it has (come worst case scenario) Treasury backing - no other broadcaster has this.

The BBC would attract more investment and television in general would because it would mean that broadcasters who sturggle at the moment (ITV and Channel 4) would be able to compete on a fair and level playing field with the BBC whereas at the moment they cannot do so because of the monopoly the BBC has on the fields that it is in. You say 77% of the British population, well how about letting a family/an individual decide where their money is best spent regarding television than executives and ministers on £100k+ per year (and whose wages depend on that very system).

A family/an individual knows how best to spend their own money, not the state.

Dan you make out as if you know ******* everything, about everything to do with money, politics, and all else on earth.

Let me make this clear to you: If the government REMOVED the BBC License Fee, then they WOULD, whether you like it or not, charge for something else.

Nobody would be saving money, as they would still charge.

So in conclusion judging by that top phrase you cannot say much more on the topic and now personally attack me, well not that I care much because it shows up you and not me. The government (this government) would like to charge for something else you are right, but lets consider for a moment if we didnt have a corrupt government which likes nothing better than taking your money away from you.

Just imagine that.

AgnesIO

28-03-2010, 09:51 AM

It is a huge expense for families which struggle onwards every year with hikes in taxation to pay for more complete and utter waste, bills rising and rising due to taxation, business leaving the country while over 8 million of working age do not work - i'm afraid £142 is a lot of money that a lot of families would much rather have in their pockets than in the pockets of a totally wasteful organisation which could not run an ice cream van if it attempted to do so. If the best you can do by justifying the charge is 'well its not that much anyway' then I think that speaks for itself.

I did not say you would be charged more if it was privatised, quite the opposite. The price would be forced down because of rivals such as Sky and Virgin Media already offering bigger and more optional packets as we speak for a fraction of the compulsory BBC price. The BBC do have a monopoly because unlike the other broadcasters they are not a company which (like most other companies) has to manage itself in the best possible way to survive. The BBC can raise the license fee when it wishes with consent from government and it has (come worst case scenario) Treasury backing - no other broadcaster has this.

The BBC would attract more investment and television in general would because it would mean that broadcasters who sturggle at the moment (ITV and Channel 4) would be able to compete on a fair and level playing field with the BBC whereas at the moment they cannot do so because of the monopoly the BBC has on the fields that it is in. You say 77% of the British population, well how about letting a family/an individual decide where their money is best spent regarding television than executives and ministers on £100k+ per year (and whose wages depend on that very system).

A family/an individual knows how best to spend their own money, not the state.

So in conclusion judging by that top phrase you cannot say much more on the topic and now personally attack me, well not that I care much because it shows up you and not me. The government (this government) would like to charge for something else you are right, but lets consider for a moment if we didnt have a corrupt government which likes nothing better than taking your money away from you.

Just imagine that.

I love how your head seems to think UKIP wouldn't be just as corrupt as the other parties. If only you realised that.

The Nazi got in because people though they were heros. You think that about UKIP.

alexxxxx

28-03-2010, 10:37 AM

The BBC is the most expensive option and its compulsory, you are not giving people the choice. You asked for the advantages of privatisation and I shall give you them while at the same time telling you that privatisation would not mean a rise in all broadcasting because that is total rubbish and goes against market forces and common sense. Privatisation would sort out the following issues;

The BBC would lose its monopoly on the market (good for investment)

the bbc does not have a monopoly, it's the fact that in today's multi-channel world, the BBC is the only broadcaster that can actually produce quality shows. We have a problem in this country that producing quality shows costs alot of money at a small audience, this wouldn't change with privatisation - all we'll get is US imports.

The BBC would be constricted to its own budget rather than having its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer (the Treasury in other words).

Saying the BBC gets money from the government is a very serious allegation as it has implications on its impartiality. Can you please link me to some evidence.

Rival, struggling broadcasters such as Channel 4 would be allowed to compete fairly with the BBC.

I don't believe Channel 4 is struggling, infact in certain sectors, like young people, channel 4 is incredibly more popular than the BBC.

More choice would arise as investment in broadcasting would open up a whole new industry.

i seriously doubt more choice will errupt from the privatisation from the BBC. I suspect more populist programming and we'll get more shows such as Britain's Got Talent and boring, formulaic american dramas.

The rivalling from other broadcasters would make the BBC get ontop of its game and make it more efficent.

perhaps.

The audience, job public would be able to pick his choice of television rather than having the government do it for him.

'Joe Public' already can pick his choice, just because he's paid for the TV licence doesn't mean he has to watch the BBC - but most people do.

The BBC would be forced to become more efficent because not only would they be eligable to scrutiny by the public who could easily stop paying into their service, they would have to work with the constraintes of a budget like any other business has to.

the bbc would be scrutinised much less and they are eligible for scrutiny now. have you never heard of the BBC trust?

The BBC would certainly not be able to afford to keep paying 55 top executives more than the British Prime Minister.

maybe, or maybe the top executives will move elsewhere when they have to take a pay cut and quality falls.

Broadcasting would become cheaper as their would be more rivallry which would force the BBC down to the same prices as Sky and Virgin, possibly with all becoming even cheaper.

the bbc is already cheaper than said alternatives.

-:Undertaker:-

28-03-2010, 01:00 PM

I love how your head seems to think UKIP wouldn't be just as corrupt as the other parties. If only you realised that.

The Nazi got in because people though they were heros. You think that about UKIP.

Here we go again, playing the racism card are we?

No, quite frankly i'm not bound to a party like many on here are (why you are bringing UKIP up now I do not understand, I'll hazard a guess that its because you have nothing better to reply with to my points about the BBC) and so far, UKIP have proven to stick by their promises and have acted accordingly to my liking over any fraud that goes on within the party (as all parties have). When UKIP start acting in a way that I do not like/changes in policies I do not like then I will drop them like a sack of spuds, just as I did with the Conservative Party.

Instead of trying to turn it into a UKIP argument, kindly repond to my points about the BBC - thanks.

the bbc does not have a monopoly, it's the fact that in today's multi-channel world, the BBC is the only broadcaster that can actually produce quality shows. We have a problem in this country that producing quality shows costs alot of money at a small audience, this wouldn't change with privatisation - all we'll get is US imports.The BBC does have a monopoly. Do you not understand that if something is funded by compulsory legislation which means it cannot ever go bust while its rivals dont have that advantage that it does have a monopoly over its rivals? - I shall bring up the point again right, you say that it is the only broadcaster which can produce quality shows, so if that is the case and you are correct then why would privatising be such a disaster?

If its as great as you all claim then it wouldnt have a problem in selling itself, or are you not telling the full truth as I suspect hence why you are so afraid of it becoming privatised.

Saying the BBC gets money from the government is a very serious allegation as it has implications on its impartiality. Can you please link me to some evidence.The license fee is provided by compulsory government legislation and the corportation is government owned.

I don't believe Channel 4 is struggling, infact in certain sectors, like young people, channel 4 is incredibly more popular than the BBC.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/the-big-question-is-channel-4s-future-now-under-threat-and-if-so-what-might-save-it-1488585.html

Channel 4 is struggling. In 2007 according to that one source, it had to go to the government cap in hand just to keep going. The problems with Channel 4 and ITV have been well-publicised over the past few years.

i seriously doubt more choice will errupt from the privatisation from the BBC. I suspect more populist programming and we'll get more shows such as Britain's Got Talent and boring, formulaic american dramas.If that is what people want then thats the simple factor called supply and demand.

perhaps.Not 'perhaps', its common sense. If private the BBC would not be able to afford to waste money like it does so now.

'Joe Public' already can pick his choice, just because he's paid for the TV licence doesn't mean he has to watch the BBC - but most people do.So why should Joe be forced to pay for something so trivial as television when he does not even want to watch it?

the bbc would be scrutinised much less and they are eligible for scrutiny now. have you never heard of the BBC trust?The same BBC trust which spent £3.2 million of taxpayer money on renovating a building in which only 45 people work in?

Anyway, whats wrong with Ofcom regulating the BBC like it regulates the rest of the broadcasting sector? - it'd save a hell of a lot of cash for the taxpayer as well.

maybe, or maybe the top executives will move elsewhere when they have to take a pay cut and quality falls.No i'm afraid that is it the commercial sector which is suffering because of the BBC and its salaries, struggling ITV, Channel 4 and others have to pull more money out of their tight funds just to compete with the BBC in this sector because the BBC does not have money concerns, it gets it all from state 'theft' of the taxpayer.

the bbc is already cheaper than said alternatives.The BBC is not cheaper than alternatives, Sky and Virgin offer various packages which come much cheaper than the license fee. To add to that, if the BBC is already cheaper then whats wrong with it becoming private?

You say its popular.
You say its cheaper than rivals.

So whats so worrying about it becoming private?

alexxxxx

28-03-2010, 01:43 PM

The BBC does have a monopoly. Do you not understand that if something is funded by compulsory legislation which means it cannot ever go bust while its rivals dont have that advantage that it does have a monopoly over its rivals? - I shall bring up the point again right, you say that it is the only broadcaster which can produce quality shows, so if that is the case and you are correct then why would privatising be such a disaster?

because the BBC produces many minority programming that would not be able to survive on advertising alone. if the bbc doesn't produce quality shows than why are the other stations you claim 'struggling'? Maybe it's because they are useless.

The license fee is provided by compulsory government legislation and the corportation is government owned.

the first bit is true but the second part isn't. The government doesn't own the BBC, it is an entity by itself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/the-big-question-is-channel-4s-future-now-under-threat-and-if-so-what-might-save-it-1488585.html

Channel 4 is struggling. In 2007 according to that one source, it had to go to the government cap in hand just to keep going. The problems with Channel 4 and ITV have been well-publicised over the past few years.

channel 4 was originally set up the government as a PSB so tbh asking the government for help isn't as odd as it seems.

If that is what people want then thats the simple factor called supply and demand.

it's called the lowest common denominator.

So why should Joe be forced to pay for something so trivial as television when he does not even want to watch it?

if he doesn't watch TV, why does he have a TV license.

The same BBC trust which spent £3.2 million of taxpayer money on renovating a building in which only 45 people work in?

the same bbc trust that has stopped the bbc from doing certain things which attack competitors, yes.

Anyway, whats wrong with Ofcom regulating the BBC like it regulates the rest of the broadcasting sector? - it'd save a hell of a lot of cash for the taxpayer as well.

how would it save money? where do you think ofcom gets its money from?

The BBC is not cheaper than alternatives, Sky and Virgin offer various packages which come much cheaper than the license fee. To add to that, if the BBC is already cheaper then whats wrong with it becoming private?

where's this magic package from sky or virgin which is cheaper than the TV license?

You say its popular.
You say its cheaper than rivals.

So whats so worrying about it becoming private?

because the bbc isn't broke so why fix it? it's not just the bbc which gets money from the TVL, the digital switch over and the like are all paid for by the TVL too, which all tv stations benefit from. plus the countless R&D the bbc have been responsible for.

AgnesIO

28-03-2010, 05:58 PM

Here we go again, playing the racism card are we?

No, quite frankly i'm not bound to a party like many on here are (why you are bringing UKIP up now I do not understand, I'll hazard a guess that its because you have nothing better to reply with to my points about the BBC) and so far, UKIP have proven to stick by their promises and have acted accordingly to my liking over any fraud that goes on within the party (as all parties have). When UKIP start acting in a way that I do not like/changes in policies I do not like then I will drop them like a sack of spuds, just as I did with the Conservative Party.

Instead of trying to turn it into a UKIP argument, kindly repond to my points about the BBC - thanks.

The BBC does have a monopoly. Do you not understand that if something is funded by compulsory legislation which means it cannot ever go bust while its rivals dont have that advantage that it does have a monopoly over its rivals? - I shall bring up the point again right, you say that it is the only broadcaster which can produce quality shows, so if that is the case and you are correct then why would privatising be such a disaster?

If its as great as you all claim then it wouldnt have a problem in selling itself, or are you not telling the full truth as I suspect hence why you are so afraid of it becoming privatised.

The license fee is provided by compulsory government legislation and the corportation is government owned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/the-big-question-is-channel-4s-future-now-under-threat-and-if-so-what-might-save-it-1488585.html

Channel 4 is struggling. In 2007 according to that one source, it had to go to the government cap in hand just to keep going. The problems with Channel 4 and ITV have been well-publicised over the past few years.

If that is what people want then thats the simple factor called supply and demand.

Not 'perhaps', its common sense. If private the BBC would not be able to afford to waste money like it does so now.

So why should Joe be forced to pay for something so trivial as television when he does not even want to watch it?

The same BBC trust which spent £3.2 million of taxpayer money on renovating a building in which only 45 people work in?

Anyway, whats wrong with Ofcom regulating the BBC like it regulates the rest of the broadcasting sector? - it'd save a hell of a lot of cash for the taxpayer as well.

No i'm afraid that is it the commercial sector which is suffering because of the BBC and its salaries, struggling ITV, Channel 4 and others have to pull more money out of their tight funds just to compete with the BBC in this sector because the BBC does not have money concerns, it gets it all from state 'theft' of the taxpayer.

The BBC is not cheaper than alternatives, Sky and Virgin offer various packages which come much cheaper than the license fee. To add to that, if the BBC is already cheaper then whats wrong with it becoming private?

You say its popular.
You say its cheaper than rivals.

So whats so worrying about it becoming private?

So in conclusion judging by that top phrase you cannot say much more on the topic and now personally attack me, well not that I care much because it shows up you and not me. The government (this government) would like to charge for something else you are right, but lets consider for a moment if we didnt have a corrupt government which likes nothing better than taking your money away from you.

That is why I bought UKIP into it :l You were hinting - don't deny it

Sameer!

28-03-2010, 07:32 PM

Aw, I would'nt want to pay for them. ITV2 is good though the other ones are **.

Tintinnabulate

29-03-2010, 07:49 PM

I quite like how this thread has gone from ITV to BBC to Economy to ITV to UKIP

I'm only repeating what you said about me being a MP/PM, infact it was your brainchild. Back to the topic itself;

The moves made by ITV are very closely linked with the BBC;- Channel 4 and ITV were close to collapse only a few months ago because of the stranglehold the BBC has on the market. If ITV and Channel 4 are to survive as competitive channels then they will have to privatise the BBC. ITV has tried and attempted many schemes such as this and buyouts many of which have ended in disaster (did they not buy out cable a while ago?) and this could be another one of them. ITV has managed to stay afloat like any other business by cutting back on its waste and spending, meanwhile the BBC spends millions on executives, non-jobs and total waste of money. If the main issue isnt sorted out then you will eventually see ITV go under along with Channel 4 (which would be a great shame especially with Channel 4 and its E4 channels).

Well ITV has many channels. Why not concentrate on 2 instead of having 5?

I did read what you said, you should be asking yourself 'do I understand his very simple points, especially as I claim to be a guru at business' - so let me explain. If the BBC is genuinely (as you say) offering so many popular services then why would it not make a profit. Could it perhaps be the fact that a lot of its services have little demand and and/are a total waste of money?

I wonder if you live in a different planet? Anyone who says BBC's services have little demand is foolish. They started iPlayer and the online TV market in the U.K. If they hadn't spent millions developing the iPlayer, ITV, Channel 4 etc wouldn't have either. Statistics clearly show iPlayer is extremely popular and is continuing to grow.

Secondly, BBC is independent. They don't provide biased news and don't support any government which is essential.

Wig44.

29-03-2010, 10:35 PM

Ditch ITV3 and 4 and make a sports channel and a movies channel.

-:Undertaker:-

30-03-2010, 04:57 AM

because the BBC produces many minority programming that would not be able to survive on advertising alone. if the bbc doesn't produce quality shows than why are the other stations you claim 'struggling'? Maybe it's because they are useless.If there is little demand for them then they are not economically viable and thus should not be funded by a compulsory stealth tax on the people of this country.

the first bit is true but the second part isn't. The government doesn't own the BBC, it is an entity by itself.The BBC is owned by the government, it is a government organisation and we wouldnt be having this discussion if it was a private business like you are now claiming it to be.

channel 4 was originally set up the government as a PSB so tbh asking the government for help isn't as odd as it seems.So you now accept that it is struggling and you didnt actually know what you were talking about, good.

it's called the lowest common denominator.Supply and demand, what every other business has to run by.

if he doesn't watch TV, why does he have a TV license.Or maybe he thinks what the BBC runs is not of interest to him and that he has to pay the tv license because he has no other choice because it is compulsory and not optional.

the same bbc trust that has stopped the bbc from doing certain things which attack competitors, yes...yet they dont see the elephant in the room which is that competitiors (if you can call them that) are struggling because of the monopoly on the market that the BBC has.

how would it save money? where do you think ofcom gets its money from?Because rather than the BBC Trust and goodness knows how many other departments/non-jobs the BBC has conjuired up to employ people and thus extend its power, Ofcom would regulate the BBC rather than the BBC Trust which is another body for more government waste.

where's this magic package from sky or virgin which is cheaper than the TV license? Look back a few pages, we've cleared that issue already with various links from Sky and Virgin.

because the bbc isn't broke so why fix it? it's not just the bbc which gets money from the TVL, the digital switch over and the like are all paid for by the TVL too, which all tv stations benefit from. plus the countless R&D the bbc have been responsible for.The BBC is broke both in its methods and ways, and if its doing such an amazing job as you claim then what is the problem with it becoming private?

That is why I bought UKIP into it :l You were hinting - don't deny it

Because I believe there are people and parties out there who can sort this country out and stop the enormous amounts of waste we have to put up with, I prefer to have some optimism rather than voting like a zombie for the three main parties who stand for exactly the same as eachother on nearly every issue. Now please respond to my post about the BBC.

I wonder if you live in a different planet? Anyone who says BBC's services have little demand is foolish. They started iPlayer and the online TV market in the U.K. If they hadn't spent millions developing the iPlayer, ITV, Channel 4 etc wouldn't have either. Statistics clearly show iPlayer is extremely popular and is continuing to grow.

Secondly, BBC is independent. They don't provide biased news and don't support any government which is essential.

Ok then, you say its got a lot of demand like alex and others here. So I will now ask you; why is the BBC becoming private such a problem if the BBC has such great demand? - On the second point; all news broadcasters have to remain neutral as it conforms to the regulations so it makes little difference, although you are wrong when you say the BBC is 'independant' because it depends on the government to finance its vast services, with a lot of waste may I add.

I wonder what planet you are living on.

Theres another can of fish also with the 'non-biased' way the BBC operates which what many people remember was a very pro-Labour organisation and which took an anti-Thatcher tone in the 1980s and even today (as shown by the BBCs change of format to BBC Question Time when Nick Griffin was on) the BBC still has many questions to answer, personally I find the reporting of most of the broadcasters very one sided in favour of the left; pro-climate change, pro-mass immigration and so forth but thats for another day.

AgnesIO

30-03-2010, 07:48 AM

Tintinnabulate

30-03-2010, 10:11 AM

If there is little demand for them then they are not economically viable and thus should not be funded by a compulsory stealth tax on the people of this country.

The BBC is owned by the government, it is a government organisation and we wouldnt be having this discussion if it was a private business like you are now claiming it to be.

So you now accept that it is struggling and you didnt actually know what you were talking about, good.

Supply and demand, what every other business has to run by.

Or maybe he thinks what the BBC runs is not of interest to him and that he has to pay the tv license because he has no other choice because it is compulsory and not optional.

..yet they dont see the elephant in the room which is that competitiors (if you can call them that) are struggling because of the monopoly on the market that the BBC has.

Because rather than the BBC Trust and goodness knows how many other departments/non-jobs the BBC has conjuired up to employ people and thus extend its power, Ofcom would regulate the BBC rather than the BBC Trust which is another body for more government waste.

Look back a few pages, we've cleared that issue already with various links from Sky and Virgin.

The BBC is broke both in its methods and ways, and if its doing such an amazing job as you claim then what is the problem with it becoming private?

Because I believe there are people and parties out there who can sort this country out and stop the enormous amounts of waste we have to put up with, I prefer to have some optimism rather than voting like a zombie for the three main parties who stand for exactly the same as eachother on nearly every issue. Now please respond to my post about the BBC.

Ok then, you say its got a lot of demand like alex and others here. So I will now ask you; why is the BBC becoming private such a problem if the BBC has such great demand? - On the second point; all news broadcasters have to remain neutral as it conforms to the regulations so it makes little difference, although you are wrong when you say the BBC is 'independant' because it depends on the government to finance its vast services, with a lot of waste may I add.

I wonder what planet you are living on.

Theres another can of fish also with the 'non-biased' way the BBC operates which what many people remember was a very pro-Labour organisation and which took an anti-Thatcher tone in the 1980s and even today (as shown by the BBCs change of format to BBC Question Time when Nick Griffin was on) the BBC still has many questions to answer, personally I find the reporting of most of the broadcasters very one sided in favour of the left; pro-climate change, pro-mass immigration and so forth but thats for another day.

Do you really think (in the current economic climate) people will PAY to watch more TV? No. BBC is funded by the government yes, but they have to remain impartial. Although they always arent, its more than other news channels.
If BBC was privatised, it would be 4 men controlling the news we get. However BBC tries to show unbiased news.

Black_Apalachi

30-03-2010, 01:10 PM

... I wonder if you live in a different planet? Anyone who says BBC's services have little demand is foolish. They started iPlayer and the online TV market in the U.K. If they hadn't spent millions developing the iPlayer, ITV, Channel 4 etc wouldn't have either. Statistics clearly show iPlayer is extremely popular and is continuing to grow.

Secondly, BBC is independent. They don't provide biased news and don't support any government which is essential.

To be fair that kind of contradicts itself. iPlayer is for watching stuff you've missed on TV or radio so it can only really be popular if many people aren't watching the TV or listening to the radio.

-:Undertaker:-

30-03-2010, 03:15 PM

I would rather vote for the 3 main parties, that at the very least have experience, rather than a party with NO experience, and has just as lame promises as the other parties.

Also Dan you are fighting yourself too.. Why is there any problems with the BBC not being privatised? We have already released they will just charge us £100 for something else.. and clearly there is only a minor part of Britain that are so damned ignorant to believe UKIP would stop it all.

If you would rather carry on voting for the main parties which have next to none policies which represent the people in this country then please do so, but just dont moan when your denied a referendum on Europe, dont moan when your taxes are going through the roof, dont moan when we have criminals/militant extremists coming here and preaching hatred while we're paying for them to do so, dont moan when your working your socks off to fund criminals/benefit scroungers, dont moan when criminals are let out early and re-commit crime, dont moan when 'we havent got enough money' for older generations who need care & expensive drugs on the NHS which extend peoples lives while we give billions to the EU and others countries such as India and China and theres much much more.

I actually believe UKIP because if you look at its history since the early 1990s when it was first set up, it has always been a grassroots party. Nigel Farage was a former stockbroker who got involved because he wanted to halt the ever-powerful EU and its influence over the business sector in this country which has now extended to nearly every aspect of life in the United Kingdom. The same can be said for Lord Pearson who also has experience in business and defected from the Conservatives because they no longer represent what most people in this country want. Now lets take the main parties people for example; most of them have never had a 'real' job before - most were either parachuted in [career politicians as they are known] or have always worked for the state and thus dont know the meaning of business and how a business is run. If you are happy with this country at the moment and think that the people running it are competant then vote for them, if not then vote for someone who actually wants to change this country for the better. It doesnt have to be UKIP as there are many many other parties out there who mean what they say, just whatever you do dont carry on voting for the same corrupt liers who are only in it for themselves and always have been.

What are the problems with the BBC not being privatised?

You are not giving people that choice to choose what television they want to watch.
You are charging people who do not want to watch the BBC [stealth tax]
The BBC overspends and continuously raises its prices which outstrip rival broadcasters.
The BBC is harming other broadcasters such as ITV/Channel4 because of the monopoly it holds.
The BBC is immensely wasteful and greedy and creates 'non-jobs' weekly thus a bigger burden.
A family who does not like the BBC could do more with £145 and afterall it is their own money.

Do you really think (in the current economic climate) people will PAY to watch more TV? No. BBC is funded by the government yes, but they have to remain impartial. Although they always arent, its more than other news channels. If BBC was privatised, it would be 4 men controlling the news we get. However BBC tries to show unbiased news.

Of course they will, just it means you are giving them the choice. It is pretty simple so do let me explain;

A family wants a Sky package which lets say costs £60 per year. Without the license fee they would only have to pay that £60 whereas for instance now, they would be forced to pay for the BBC services which cost £145 per year despite the fact they may not want to watch the BBC. So rather than paying £60 per year for their television services, they end up having to pay £205 per year despite the fact they do not have any interest in the BBC and do not watch/use any of its services/channels.

Again you go on the biased route, I do not know how to make this anymore clearer; all broadcasters are bound to regulations and rules which state they are not allowed to be biased. Whether the BBC was private or not, it has to remain neutral and un-biased. Therefore it makes no difference in that aspect whether or not the BBC is private or owned by the government.

Tintinnabulate

30-03-2010, 03:16 PM

To be fair that kind of contradicts itself. iPlayer is for watching stuff you've missed on TV or radio so it can only really be popular if many people aren't watching the TV or listening to the radio.
Not necessarily missed. But the fact that they watch it online means BBC's programmes are in demand. I will reply to UT later.

AgnesIO

31-03-2010, 03:19 PM

If you would rather carry on voting for the main parties which have next to none policies which represent the people in this country then please do so, but just dont moan when your denied a referendum on Europe, dont moan when your taxes are going through the roof, dont moan when we have criminals/militant extremists coming here and preaching hatred while we're paying for them to do so, dont moan when your working your socks off to fund criminals/benefit scroungers, dont moan when criminals are let out early and re-commit crime, dont moan when 'we havent got enough money' for older generations who need care & expensive drugs on the NHS which extend peoples lives while we give billions to the EU and others countries such as India and China and theres much much more.

I actually believe UKIP because if you look at its history since the early 1990s when it was first set up, it has always been a grassroots party. Nigel Farage was a former stockbroker who got involved because he wanted to halt the ever-powerful EU and its influence over the business sector in this country which has now extended to nearly every aspect of life in the United Kingdom. The same can be said for Lord Pearson who also has experience in business and defected from the Conservatives because they no longer represent what most people in this country want. Now lets take the main parties people for example; most of them have never had a 'real' job before - most were either parachuted in [career politicians as they are known] or have always worked for the state and thus dont know the meaning of business and how a business is run. If you are happy with this country at the moment and think that the people running it are competant then vote for them, if not then vote for someone who actually wants to change this country for the better. It doesnt have to be UKIP as there are many many other parties out there who mean what they say, just whatever you do dont carry on voting for the same corrupt liers who are only in it for themselves and always have been.

What are the problems with the BBC not being privatised?

You are not giving people that choice to choose what television they want to watch.
You are charging people who do not want to watch the BBC [stealth tax]
The BBC overspends and continuously raises its prices which outstrip rival broadcasters.
The BBC is harming other broadcasters such as ITV/Channel4 because of the monopoly it holds.
The BBC is immensely wasteful and greedy and creates 'non-jobs' weekly thus a bigger burden.
A family who does not like the BBC could do more with £145 and afterall it is their own money.

Of course they will, just it means you are giving them the choice. It is pretty simple so do let me explain;

A family wants a Sky package which lets say costs £60 per year. Without the license fee they would only have to pay that £60 whereas for instance now, they would be forced to pay for the BBC services which cost £145 per year despite the fact they may not want to watch the BBC. So rather than paying £60 per year for their television services, they end up having to pay £205 per year despite the fact they do not have any interest in the BBC and do not watch/use any of its services/channels.

Again you go on the biased route, I do not know how to make this anymore clearer; all broadcasters are bound to regulations and rules which state they are not allowed to be biased. Whether the BBC was private or not, it has to remain neutral and un-biased. Therefore it makes no difference in that aspect whether or not the BBC is private or owned by the government.

Ok lets go through with you:

- I DON'T WANT A BLOODY REFERENDUM SO STOP DEMANDING WE HAVE THE STUPID THINGS.
- It's fine I am too young to pay tax and when I am old enough my family are moving permanently to Spain.
- UKIP would HAVE to have high taxes too - they wouldn't work without them..
- Sadly, in reality every country has lazy gits, that's life - UKIP are a POLITICAL party, not magicians.

--

And fine, suit your bloody self, let's privatise the BBC - and remove all their radio channels, get bored to death with stupid unwanted adverts. I PROMISE YOU EVERY family uses the BBC's Services in one way or another. I guarantee it.

-:Undertaker:-

31-03-2010, 03:33 PM

Ok lets go through with you:

- I DON'T WANT A BLOODY REFERENDUM SO STOP DEMANDING WE HAVE THE STUPID THINGS.
- It's fine I am too young to pay tax and when I am old enough my family are moving permanently to Spain.
- UKIP would HAVE to have high taxes too - they wouldn't work without them..
- Sadly, in reality every country has lazy gits, that's life - UKIP are a POLITICAL party, not magicians.

And fine, suit your bloody self, let's privatise the BBC - and remove all their radio channels, get bored to death with stupid unwanted adverts. I PROMISE YOU EVERY family uses the BBC's Services in one way or another. I guarantee it.

Then you wouldnt have to vote, the fact is that most people want the death penalty and for this country to leave the European Union, so whats your big problem with allowing people to decide for themselves? - do you actually not understand why people are so fed up with politics, its because barely any of them actually represent us properly. If you dont want to vote on these issues then you wouldnt have to as we live in a democracy and its your choice, but dont deny others the choice.

It is not fine because there are 60 million people in this country paying through their teeth to fund wasteful projects, and talking about Spain - Spain recieves money from the European Union so essentially we are paying for Spain and getting nothing in return. With high taxes and children to care for, how on earth do you expect to get yourself to Spain?

UKIP would not have to have high taxes, we [this country] did something in the 1980s and we cut taxes by a large margin for both families and business and thus the economy took off and our wealth now (what remains of it) we owe to them reforms. It is very simple economics, lower taxes mean people can spend more of their own money which helps create business and thus more jobs for the 8 million unemployed in this country.

Every country does have lazy gits you are right so the simple solution is to cut the benefits. There is also an issue which Nigel Farage tackled on HardTalk with the fact that for people on the minimum wage, it is not worth them working as for them to work with tax, its more beneficial for them to remain on benefits because the sad truth is that them sitting at home not working leaves them better off than it would with them working; hence why UKIP want to introduce a flat tax rate which would lift the poorest out of the taxation system altogether which means they can then get off the benefits and go back to work and it also saves the country money in benefits and red tape that come with the present system.

Ok then you gurantee it, so if the BBC is as popular as you say then what is your objection to the BBC being privatised?

AgnesIO

31-03-2010, 04:49 PM

Then you wouldnt have to vote, the fact is that most people want the death penalty and for this country to leave the European Union, so whats your big problem with allowing people to decide for themselves? - do you actually not understand why people are so fed up with politics, its because barely any of them actually represent us properly. If you dont want to vote on these issues then you wouldnt have to as we live in a democracy and its your choice, but dont deny others the choice.

It is not fine because there are 60 million people in this country paying through their teeth to fund wasteful projects, and talking about Spain - Spain recieves money from the European Union so essentially we are paying for Spain and getting nothing in return. With high taxes and children to care for, how on earth do you expect to get yourself to Spain?

UKIP would not have to have high taxes, we [this country] did something in the 1980s and we cut taxes by a large margin for both families and business and thus the economy took off and our wealth now (what remains of it) we owe to them reforms. It is very simple economics, lower taxes mean people can spend more of their own money which helps create business and thus more jobs for the 8 million unemployed in this country.

Every country does have lazy gits you are right so the simple solution is to cut the benefits. There is also an issue which Nigel Farage tackled on HardTalk with the fact that for people on the minimum wage, it is not worth them working as for them to work with tax, its more beneficial for them to remain on benefits because the sad truth is that them sitting at home not working leaves them better off than it would with them working; hence why UKIP want to introduce a flat tax rate which would lift the poorest out of the taxation system altogether which means they can then get off the benefits and go back to work and it also saves the country money in benefits and red tape that come with the present system.

Ok then you gurantee it, so if the BBC is as popular as you say then what is your objection to the BBC being privatised?

I personally plan on getting on an plane.. or do you prefer to swim?

And my objection is I am happy for that £100 if it means I don't have to watch adverts. So same to you - why is your objection about the BBC not being privatised? It has been fine for so long afterall.

-:Undertaker:-

31-03-2010, 05:02 PM

I personally plan on getting on an plane.. or do you prefer to swim?

And my objection is I am happy for that £100 if it means I don't have to watch adverts. So same to you - why is your objection about the BBC not being privatised? It has been fine for so long afterall.

You cannot just buy a £20 RyanAir flight and jet off with your family to go and live in Spain. You need the money to be able to do it.

On the BBC; I have listed the problems with the BBC and how privatisation would sort it, I am now asking you that if the BBC is as popular as you claim, what is the big problem with privatising it?.. could it possibly be that its not all that popular as you claim?

xxMATTGxx

31-03-2010, 05:17 PM

If the BBC did go private. I'm guessing 100% they would start putting adverts up to get funding, correct?

-:Undertaker:-

31-03-2010, 05:26 PM

If the BBC did go private. I'm guessing 100% they would start putting adverts up to get funding, correct?

If the BBC was as popular as these lot suggest then it wouldnt need to do that. If (as I suspect) the BBC isnt as popular as suggested here, then I dont see what the problem is with allowing people who do not want to watch the BBC to not have to folk out £145 a year for something they have no interest in watching.

xxMATTGxx

31-03-2010, 05:32 PM

If the BBC was as popular as these lot suggest then it wouldnt need to do that. If (as I suspect) the BBC isnt as popular as suggested here, then I dont see what the problem is with allowing people who do not want to watch the BBC to not have to folk out £145 a year for something they have no interest in watching.

I can see what you mean but even with the BBC "private" we would still have to pay some sort of fee, surely? Our fee covers TV recorders which does include stuff like V+ and Sky+. I don't see the whole fee being "cut" just because the BBC is now private.

AgnesIO

31-03-2010, 06:06 PM

You cannot just buy a £20 RyanAir flight and jet off with your family to go and live in Spain. You need the money to be able to do it.

On the BBC; I have listed the problems with the BBC and how privatisation would sort it, I am now asking you that if the BBC is as popular as you claim, what is the big problem with privatising it?.. could it possibly be that its not all that popular as you claim?

Hate to break it to you, but we already have homes in Spain, used to live there for half the year, I mean come on? I think we are set to go..

You are politically mad to be honest. You have some of the most stupid views I have EVER seen on this forum. Seriously.

And what the bloody hell are you on about? ITV and C4 are hugely POPULAR, they still need ruddy adverts,

Just because someone likes something does not mean the thing they like has unlimited money. You are mad.

-:Undertaker:-

31-03-2010, 08:44 PM

I can see what you mean but even with the BBC "private" we would still have to pay some sort of fee, surely? Our fee covers TV recorders which does include stuff like V+ and Sky+. I don't see the whole fee being "cut" just because the BBC is now private.

You'd have to pay for a broadcaster if you wanted to watch televison, just it would be optional. If I wanted a Virgin Media package only, I could buy only the Virgin Media package without being forced to purchase the BBC package which I may not be interested in. So rather than paying for example £145 (BBC) and £60 (Virgin) = £205 I would only have to pay the £60 thus saving me and a lot of families a lot of money which is better spent elsewhere.

I dont understand second part, elaborate? :)

Hate to break it to you, but we already have homes in Spain, used to live there for half the year, I mean come on? I think we are set to go..

You are politically mad to be honest. You have some of the most stupid views I have EVER seen on this forum. Seriously.

And what the bloody hell are you on about? ITV and C4 are hugely POPULAR, they still need ruddy adverts,

Just because someone likes something does not mean the thing they like has unlimited money. You are mad.

Ahh right, however you will need the money yourself to buy them homes off your mum and dad (unless they are planning to be very generous and allow you the house/rent it to you) and you will have to be sure there is employment and a job waiting for you in Spain.

See now, you will not reply to my point about the BBC. I keep asking you, if the BBC is really that popular as you claim then what is so bad about allowing it to go private? - please do answer that for me. The point on ITV and Channel 4 is totally wrong, ITV and Channel 4 have had deep financial issues as of recent times and over the past few years, I may be mad but at least I have some idea of what I am talking about.