ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

[Catzsy]

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]

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:-]

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...hmodels_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]

Why change the BBC now?

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

[StefanWolves]

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:-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.