ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

[StefanWolves]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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]

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:-]

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]

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]

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]

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...-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]

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...-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]

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]

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 seriously............................... i'm sure of it. the mail said so.