Polly Toynbee Spouting anti-Sky Nonsense - Yet Again

12346

Comments

  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.

    The left-wing views that upset many of those on the left who claim the BBC is right-wing biased? ;)
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    mogzyboy wrote: »
    Right you are.

    She's a bit of a clown though, who, seemingly, doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    The worrying fact is that some people believe her cretinous nonsense.

    Her political heart is in the right place, but she does need to do more research to get her facts right compared with just using her ageing memory.
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    miles19740 wrote: »
    I am more than happy to bash the greedy, private sector...regardless.

    We should all support the public sector. Morally, it is where it is at.

    Miles, while you do have your political heart, sometimes you do go too far.

    The public sector can and does fail on many occasions. The Baby P case is a shining example of this. If there is no criticism then there is no improvement of things when they go wrong - which they will.
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    miles19740 wrote: »
    Definitely not. I stand by what I say. Back the public sector, bash the greedy private sector.

    The BBC, the best of British! Back it!

    I wholeheartedly support you and agree with you - except for the fact that we live in a democracy. If other people don't want to back the public sector* and disagree with you, then we should allow them that right. Their opinion of the BBC's output and behaviour might not be the same as yours as we all have different things to say.

    * Though I don't advocate their pulling out of paying for it - just complaining.
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    Good to see the spirit of Nu Liebour alive and well.

    The "Nu Liebour" (seriously, you must have spent literally *seconds* coming up with that new and innovative joke) that advocated privatising the Bank of England, selling off the NHS bit by bit and was so worshipping of her that it kissed Margaret Thatcher's feet?

    For example ;)
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    jo2015 wrote: »
    Polly Toynbee who got into Oxbridge with a single 'A' level.:rolleyes:

    One law for those at the top.

    In the mid-1960s, when she went to Oxford Uni, this would have been impressive.
  • Rodney McKayRodney McKay Posts: 8,143
    Forum Member
    AS I've pointed out before the BBC/Guardian should be careful what they wish for. They both want Sky smashed, the BBC hate the idea that they're no longer the dominant TV broadcaster in the UK.

    If Murdoch were forced to get rid of all or most of his shares in Sky, it would simply get bought up by another big fish, who might not be so keen to roll over like Murdoch has with the BBC.

    At the end of the day no one is forced to pay for Sky, we are forced to fund the BBC, with the blurring of the internet and TV the method of funding the BBC is unsustainable for much longer, even the BBC know that.I think the BBC may do quite well if it became subscription based, when the BBC wants to it can produce some superb programmes, but the BBC can also produce utter crap.

    I like Sky because it gives me access to the likes of National Geographic, Discovery and the History channels, I don't care for the sport, Sky 1 or the Hollywood TV shows, but others do, I therefore only pay the basic subscription, I'd like to only pay the BBC for what I want to watch, which is minimal these days.

    I'm a believer that the state should provide money for the making of television, especially science, engineering and history programmes, the problem with the BBC is that far too much of its budget is wasted (like the Salford media centre) on just crap, overpaying people and duplication. Funding for television programme making could come from a combination of a basic tax paid on TV subscription, new TV sales, lottery money and some state cash.

    As for fat Polly, I'm surprised anyone reads the garbage she spouts, the Guardian has the readership of a medium sized football club fan base, it's only the BBC that has an obsession with the Guardian
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    AS I've pointed out before the BBC/Guardian should be careful what they wish for. They both want Sky smashed, the BBC hate the idea that they're no longer the dominant TV broadcaster in the UK.

    Actually any hostility has almost always come the other way.

    It's the Murdoch's that want the BBC, and other media organisations, smashed - and a what expense?
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    we are forced to fund the BBC,

    And yet lots chose not to, were they forced?


    I'd like to only pay the BBC for what I want to watch, which is minimal these days.

    You also have to pay Sky for things you don't watch in order to get the things you do watch.

    Subscription is flawed.
    overpaying people

    BBC salaries, for equivalent jobs, are - typically - less than the commercial broadcasters.
    it's only the BBC that has an obsession with the Guardian

    Hardly, most media types read it, no matter who they work for, and it's the de facto place for media jobs.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,511
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AidanLunn wrote: »
    The Guardian doesn't "avoid" paying taxes - it is owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable organisation, so it doesn't have to pay taxes as it is owned by a charity.
    Probably not the tax dodge the person was referring to: http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/2463 When The Guardian Media Group was purchasing the EMAP titles, it incorporated a company in the Cayman Islands to facilitate the purchase. They claim it wasn't about avoiding tax, although doing so did exempt them from UK stamp duty. I'm not sure why else a company would be set up in the Cayman Islands, maybe they just liked the scenery? :D

    The Guardian Media Group will of course still have to pay tax, no matter who its owners are. It's a corporate for-profit entity so it is paying corporation tax, VAT, etc. like every other business. Incidentally, the Scott Trust was wound up and the GMG is now owned by the Scott Trust limited. Itself a move to avoid inheritance tax: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42189&c=1
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AidanLunn wrote: »
    rah rah rah champagne rah rah socialist rah rah rah rah villa in Italy rah rah lefty rah rah Guardian rah rah rah liberal rah rah rah highly paid rah rah rah etc

    The Guardian doesn't "avoid" paying taxes - it is owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable organisation, so it doesn't have to pay taxes as it is owned by a charity.

    For many years the Guardian avoided UK taxes. The Scott Trust is no longer a charity, it is a limited company called "The Scott Trust". They also made many millions from hedge funds whilst criticising others for doing the same.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    lundavra wrote: »
    For many years the Guardian avoided UK taxes. The Scott Trust is no longer a charity, it is a limited company called "The Scott Trust".
    The Scott Trust, owner of Guardian Media Group plc (GMG), has reorganised its structure to strengthen the protection it offers to the Guardian.
    The change has no impact on the amount of tax GMG pays – or will pay in future – under current legislation.
    It does address the hypothetical risk of future changes in inheritance tax law that could, in theory, threaten the Guardian’s independence.
  • ShaunWShaunW Posts: 2,356
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just noticed this addition to the Guardian article Derek500.

    This article was amended on 1 May 2012 to delete an incorrect statement that for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, 90p goes straight to News Corp and Hollywood in the US.


    :D:D:D:D


    Might as well link this whilst I'm at it.

    http://corporate.sky.com/media/press_releases/2012/new_report_reveals_the_economic_impact_of_sky
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    lundavra wrote: »
    For many years the Guardian avoided UK taxes. The Scott Trust is no longer a charity, it is a limited company called "The Scott Trust". They also made many millions from hedge funds whilst criticising others for doing the same.

    It's not a legal requirement that a private company pays all its taxes anyway - that's what accountants are for.

    This *is* the press - hypocrisy is in its blood.
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    ShaunW wrote: »
    Just noticed this addition to the Guardian article Derek500.

    This article was amended on 1 May 2012 to delete an incorrect statement that for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, 90p goes straight to News Corp and Hollywood in the US.

    Impressive - compared to £8billion for the BBC in 2009/10 (I can't find a more recent report than this)

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/economic_report0910.pdf
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    AidanLunn wrote: »
    It's not a legal requirement that a private company pays all its taxes anyway - that's what accountants are for.

    .

    They employ accountants to do it on their behalf.

    If tax is not paid then it's the company who'd be liable and not the accountant.
  • Mr.HumphriesMr.Humphries Posts: 1,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The days are numbered for The Guardian newspaper. The Independent is also facing trouble. Only the BBC would give Polly employment. Which says a lot about the BBC.
  • DejaVoodooDejaVoodoo Posts: 5,764
    Forum Member
    The days are numbered for The Guardian newspaper. The Independent is also facing trouble. Only the BBC would give Polly employment. Which says a lot about the BBC.

    Are you against the BBC having a variety of viewpoints on air in the interest of balance?
  • AidanLunnAidanLunn Posts: 5,320
    Forum Member
    They employ accountants to do it on their behalf.

    If tax is not paid then it's the company who'd be liable and not the accountant.

    But liable to what? As I said, they don't have to pay all their taxes if they wish not to - that's not a legal requirement.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The days are numbered for The Guardian newspaper. The Independent is also facing trouble. Only the BBC would give Polly employment. Which says a lot about the BBC.

    She did work for the BBC for a while. The problem was she couldn't understand that television is about pictures and not abstract ideas. The BBC dispensed with her services.
  • Mr.HumphriesMr.Humphries Posts: 1,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AidanLunn wrote: »
    But liable to what? As I said, they don't have to pay all their taxes if they wish not to - that's not a legal requirement.

    The lawyers found a way for The Guardian's owners to avoid their legal requirement. I only wish my lawyers were just as devious! :p
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AidanLunn wrote: »
    But liable to what? As I said, they don't have to pay all their taxes if they wish not to - that's not a legal requirement.

    I don't wish to pay any taxes, can I just tell HMRC that I don't wish to pay them?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 717
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The original article sounds like reactionary knee-jerk politics. The idea that only 10% of subscription revenue is spent in the UK is clearly stupid. What about all that sports sponsorship?

    What no-one seems to have picked up on is that for years Sky has been allowed to get away with blatantly breaking the EU quota requiring 50% of content to be EU produced.
  • Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Most of the Left despise Sky and Polly Toynbee is no exception. As someone has pointed out, I wonder how much this bourgeois lefty gets paid every year. No doubt she sits at dinner parties in Hampstead with the likes of Harriet Harman discussing feminism.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glenn A wrote: »
    Most of the Left despise Sky and Polly Toynbee is no exception. As someone has pointed out, I wonder how much this bourgeois lefty gets paid every year. No doubt she sits at dinner parties in Hampstead with the likes of Harriet Harman discussing feminism.

    Guido always talks of her villa in Italy (Tuscany?), would not surprise me if she had several houses.
    Guido had a bit of a dig at the three-houses-owning, multi-millionairess, anti-poverty campaigner Polly Toynbee last week.

    http://order-order.com/tag/polly-toynbee/
    The home in London worth a million-and-a-half, the house in the country, the villa in Italy, the sheer inequality of it all must play on the conscience of a progressive social democrat. Her get out for keeping all is that she won’t make the sacrifice unless the likes of the greedy and privileged bankers in the neighbouring villas do so as well. Do you see the flaw in this aspiration?

    Polly’s excuse for educating her children in private schools is that the state schools were crap at the time. The exact same reason the Fawkes girls go to schools whose existence Polly Toynbee now campaigns against. Another case of “do as I say, not as I do”.
Sign In or Register to comment.