ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

[Seatherny]

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?a...l=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:-]

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

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]

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:-]

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/showthrea...=628508&page=5

[Seatherny]

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]

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]

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:-]

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]

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!!!!!!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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