Not true for retail. You pay the VAT rate applicable to your country of residence. Order something off Amazon Germany and you will be charged our VAT rate. Same goes the other way round.
I am still wondering why in about 7 years of looking at Digital Spy Forums I have never seen A SINGLE THREAD or even A SINGLE POST expressing any concern whatsoever that one organisation controls 70% of the TV news market.
Even if this deal goes through the BBC will still have a massively greater share of the total media news market than News Corp / Sky. And I mean massively.
There are, of course, other reasons why the deal MAY be uncompetitive which may give Hunt a reason to block the deal or refer it to the CC.
But the issue is not excessive share of the media news market which is the subject of the Daily Mail poll.
BSkyB choose for Sky News to underperform in terms of television audience share, by the limitations they place on its availability, by allowing its continued shortcomings, and by doing little or nothing to improve people's perceptions of it.
The fact is, Sky News could perform markedly better if its owners so chose.
However, the non-Murdoch newspaper groups seem to doubt they could ever improve or even maintain their current fortunes if the Murdoch bid went through, and his newspaper titles subsequently became stronger as a result of tie-ups with Sky.
I am still wondering why in about 7 years of looking at Digital Spy Forums I have never seen A SINGLE THREAD or even A SINGLE POST expressing any concern whatsoever that one organisation controls 70% of the TV news market.
Even if this deal goes through the BBC will still have a massively greater share of the total media news market than News Corp / Sky. And I mean massively.
There are, of course, other reasons why the deal MAY be uncompetitive which may give Hunt a reason to block the deal or refer it to the CC.
But the issue is not excessive share of the media news market which is the subject of the Daily Mail poll.
So, 70% of people who watch TV News, choose at some point to watch the BBC?
Do those figures cover just the 'national' news. or include say the 'regional' news. I guess that is the thing the BBC offers, that is very different.
Could Sky 'regionalise it's news output depending on postcodes? Would Virgin offer a regional Sky News?
my views, are centre / right leaning, but maybe closer to the left these days.
Truth is the Daily Mail used to be my paper of choice, (the war on the BBC aside) but in the past couple of years its gone too far to the right for my taste.
Why is letting the public know about waste in what is paid for by the public a war :rolleyes:
As for it being Right well that could explain it being Britain's most viewed online newspaper
my views, are centre / right leaning, but maybe closer to the left these days.
Truth is the Daily Mail used to be my paper of choice, (the war on the BBC aside) but in the past couple of years its gone too far to the right for my taste.
The Guardian does a good job of reporting media topics. even if the rest of the paper leans a little too much too the left.
However, the non-Murdoch newspaper groups seem to doubt they could ever improve or even maintain their current fortunes if the Murdoch bid went through, and his newspaper titles subsequently became stronger as a result of tie-ups with Sky.
I agree.
Which is why in my original post I said there were "other reasons why the deal MAY be uncompetitive which may give Hunt a reason to block the deal or refer it to the CC."
So, 70% of people who watch TV News, choose at some point to watch the BBC?
Do those figures cover just the 'national' news. or include say the 'regional' news. I guess that is the thing the BBC offers, that is very different.
Could Sky 'regionalise it's news output depending on postcodes? Would Virgin offer a regional Sky News?
I don't know whether regional news was included in the stats or whether they just referred to national news.
The stats referred to audience share - just like other BARB audience share stats.
eg out of every (say) 100 million man hours of watching TV news, 51 million would be on BBC1, 9 million would be on BBC2 etc.
Pity we don't have a "TV tax" to back up your argument.
Oh I wish but then the liberal left would dig deeper into their pockets for the bias
22. Since our last report there has been a significant change in the position of the licence fee. In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of National Statistics (ONS) says "in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services… A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable". [6]
Why is letting the public know about waste in what is paid for by the public a war :rolleyes:
As for it being Right well that could explain it being Britain's most viewed online newspaper
the Daily Mails war on the BBC, is about far more than simple "waste" often its about totally made up waste, and scaring uninformed people with big numbers, they dont understand.
What does the fact its the biggest news paper website have to do with the fact its right wing, however that is true of Fox News as well, I guess commit Right Wing folk, like there media to reflect this.
the Daily Mails war on the BBC, is about far more than simple "waste" often its about totally made up waste, and scaring uninformed people with big numbers, they dont understand.
They can have a war with ITV, CH4,CH5 hell all of them for all I care, their just TV channels
The fact is the articles are correct and that is why the BBC and its 'supporters' object. How dare you criticise the BBC :rolleyes: just keep paying and be a good boy
What does the fact its the biggest news paper website have to do with the fact its right wing, however that is true of Fox News as well, I guess commit Right Wing folk, like there media to reflect this.
Perhaps this is why a minority force the majority to fund the BBC.
The fact is the articles are correct and that is why the BBC and its 'supporters' object. How dare you criticise the BBC :rolleyes: just keep paying and be a good boy
some of them are right, some of them are wrong.
Even when an article is right, its often spun as wrong, eg the Daily Mail will claim the BBC is paying a large amount for something, but fail to point out that ITV will be paying a similar amount, if not more for the same thing.
No that's why they recruit from the Guardian and by them
we have talked before about why the BBC put job ads in the Media Guardian, it is one of the most effectient places to post an ad if you want it read by people in broadcasting, as it is widely read in the sector. The BBC does however advertise in other publications concerning the media, eg Broadcast magazine./website carrys BBC advertising.
It would be a waste of licence fee payers money to put job ads in publications that professional media types dont read.
Even when an article is right, its often spun as wrong, eg the Daily Mail will claim the BBC is paying a large amount for something, but fail to point out that ITV will be paying a similar amount, if not more for the same thing.
Like when the BBC sent more people to the Olympics than any other channel in the world apart from the Chinese themselves ?.............I think you'll find that is a fact because they have to duplicate everything.
we have talked before about why the BBC put job ads in the Media Guardian, it is one of the most effectient places to post an ad
You know I'm beginning to feel like a fortune teller because I knew you were going to say something like that. You and a few others here just wont have the BBC or its partner in crime knocked.
Why people of a particular political persuasion insist on this and that everyone pays is rather disturbing in my opinion
I've said this before and I will say it again, BBC News, under the terms of its licence, has to be impartial. If you disagree and believe it is biased, write to BBC complaints, Newswatch, Jeremy Hunt or your MP.
I've said this before and I will say it again, BBC News, under the terms of its licence, has to be impartial. If you disagree and believe it is biased, write to BBC complaints, Newswatch, Jeremy Hunt or your MP.
Is that a put up or shut up statement coming from someone who happens to like the BBC
Oh and for your information I have written to the BBC and got a standard response which didn't answer the accusation. When I wrote but I never heard back and this wasn't the first time. As you clearly know the BBC answers to no one.
I've said this before and I will say it again, BBC News, under the terms of its licence, has to be impartial. If you disagree and believe it is biased, write to BBC complaints, Newswatch, Jeremy Hunt or your MP.
Have you ever tried dealing with the BBC? it's a complete waste of time.
Oh I wish but then the liberal left would dig deeper into their pockets for the bias.
I don't care what the government call it. I could call this computer a Flymo garden lawnmower. Doesn't mean it is one. And I own it just as (in a way), the government own the BBC.
The very definition of the word says that tax/taxation means something to which the general public is forced to pay for, to which all the proceeds go to the government. Neither of which is true for the BBC thence it is not a tax, no matter what the government call it.
You have the option of paying it, via the option of owning a TV set or not.
Very little of the proceeds you pay in the TV Licence go to the government, a little to other broadcasters but most of it to the BBC.
Like when the BBC sent more people to the Olympics than any other channel in the world apart from the Chinese themselves ?.............I think you'll find that is a fact because they have to duplicate everything.
which Olympics is this, I seem to recall one where NBC sent more for alot less hours of TV coverage.
You know I'm beginning to feel like a fortune teller because I knew you were going to say something like that. You and a few others here just wont have the BBC or its partner in crime knocked.
everything you say is largely predictable as well, one of the problems with this forum is that its all been said before, both sides know the debates well enough to not need each other anymore.
Why people of a particular political persuasion insist on this and that everyone pays is rather disturbing in my opinion
so suddenly you think the BBC should waste money advertising in papers that wont result in people with the right skills & experince applying for jobs.
this is wasteful on two grounds 1) the ineffective advert cost licence fee money & 2) someone in HR at the BBC, had to spend time reading a bunch of CVs that right for the job, when they could have been reading the CV of someone better.
Oh and for your information I have written to the BBC and got a standard response which didn't answer the accusation. When I wrote but I never heard back and this wasn't the first time. As you clearly know the BBC answers to no one.
Probably because it's difficult being a broadcaster that size.
Presumably they want to cut down on admin staff like people like you wanted.
Now you want more people to be able to go through your letters!
Oh and for your information I have written to the BBC and got a standard response which didn't answer the accusation. When I wrote but I never heard back and this wasn't the first time. As you clearly know the BBC answers to no one.
As I mentioned earlier, have you tried Jeremy Hunt or your MP? Jeremy Hunt, who brought in major real-term cuts to the BBC's funding whilst praising Murdoch should be easier to get your points across to.
Can you show us one that is wrong..................….
Here is one article that completely distorts and misrepresents the events that occurred in Blue Peter. The picture captions are inaccurate and are total lies as anyone can see had they bothered to view the clip in its entirety.
Perhaps you also remember the other article about a supposed 900 page book from TV Licensing about how to identify a complaint, which, when looked at, was nothing of the sort. I recall you and your lot rather enjoyed mocking me on your forum for actually bothering to do the research to prove the article was a load of horseshit.
Practically every day of the week there will be something similar. Another BBC 'outrage', complete with quotes from someone or other. Other times it'll be a whole article based upon a couple of whinges on a messageboard. Usually though when looked at closer, each one turns out to be a load of rubbish and churnalism at its worst.
The very definition of the word says that tax/taxation means something to which the general public is forced to pay for, to which all the proceeds go to the government. Neither of which is true for the BBC thence it is not a tax, no matter what the government call it.
Comments
The fact is, Sky News could perform markedly better if its owners so chose.
However, the non-Murdoch newspaper groups seem to doubt they could ever improve or even maintain their current fortunes if the Murdoch bid went through, and his newspaper titles subsequently became stronger as a result of tie-ups with Sky.
So, 70% of people who watch TV News, choose at some point to watch the BBC?
Do those figures cover just the 'national' news. or include say the 'regional' news. I guess that is the thing the BBC offers, that is very different.
Could Sky 'regionalise it's news output depending on postcodes? Would Virgin offer a regional Sky News?
Why is letting the public know about waste in what is paid for by the public a war :rolleyes:
As for it being Right well that could explain it being Britain's most viewed online newspaper
Yes and their very pally with the BBC too aren't they, shame we don't have a newspaper tax to fund it
Independent is best - free from bias.
Pity we don't have a "TV tax" to back up your argument.
I agree.
Which is why in my original post I said there were "other reasons why the deal MAY be uncompetitive which may give Hunt a reason to block the deal or refer it to the CC."
I don't know whether regional news was included in the stats or whether they just referred to national news.
The stats referred to audience share - just like other BARB audience share stats.
eg out of every (say) 100 million man hours of watching TV news, 51 million would be on BBC1, 9 million would be on BBC2 etc.
Really? I find the Indie left of centre and they've always called BSkyB, 'Rupert Murdoch's Sky'.
Oh I wish but then the liberal left would dig deeper into their pockets for the bias
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/128/12805.htm
next
have been reading some of that recently as well, but tis not made my favourites yet
the Daily Mails war on the BBC, is about far more than simple "waste" often its about totally made up waste, and scaring uninformed people with big numbers, they dont understand.
What does the fact its the biggest news paper website have to do with the fact its right wing, however that is true of Fox News as well, I guess commit Right Wing folk, like there media to reflect this.
I think the Guardian gives an unbiased view on the BBC, would not say they are pally however.
They can have a war with ITV, CH4,CH5 hell all of them for all I care, their just TV channels
The fact is the articles are correct and that is why the BBC and its 'supporters' object. How dare you criticise the BBC :rolleyes: just keep paying and be a good boy
Perhaps this is why a minority force the majority to fund the BBC.
No that's why they recruit from the Guardian and by them
Even when an article is right, its often spun as wrong, eg the Daily Mail will claim the BBC is paying a large amount for something, but fail to point out that ITV will be paying a similar amount, if not more for the same thing.
we have talked before about why the BBC put job ads in the Media Guardian, it is one of the most effectient places to post an ad if you want it read by people in broadcasting, as it is widely read in the sector. The BBC does however advertise in other publications concerning the media, eg Broadcast magazine./website carrys BBC advertising.
It would be a waste of licence fee payers money to put job ads in publications that professional media types dont read.
Can you show us one that is wrong......................
Like when the BBC sent more people to the Olympics than any other channel in the world apart from the Chinese themselves ?.............I think you'll find that is a fact because they have to duplicate everything.
You know I'm beginning to feel like a fortune teller because I knew you were going to say something like that. You and a few others here just wont have the BBC or its partner in crime knocked.
I hate to let you in on this secret but the BBC isn't the only broadcaster in the UK and the Guardian isn't the only newspaper here either.
Why people of a particular political persuasion insist on this and that everyone pays is rather disturbing in my opinion
Is that a put up or shut up statement coming from someone who happens to like the BBC
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-yes-we-are-biased-on-religion-and-politics-admit-bbc-executives.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308215/Yes-BBC-biased-Mark-Thompson-admits-massive-lean-Left.html
I love the "was" bit of the last link.
Oh and for your information I have written to the BBC and got a standard response which didn't answer the accusation. When I wrote but I never heard back and this wasn't the first time. As you clearly know the BBC answers to no one.
Have you ever tried dealing with the BBC? it's a complete waste of time.
The Independent is a left wing rag that's no better than The Guardian.
I don't care what the government call it. I could call this computer a Flymo garden lawnmower. Doesn't mean it is one. And I own it just as (in a way), the government own the BBC.
The very definition of the word says that tax/taxation means something to which the general public is forced to pay for, to which all the proceeds go to the government. Neither of which is true for the BBC thence it is not a tax, no matter what the government call it.
You have the option of paying it, via the option of owning a TV set or not.
Very little of the proceeds you pay in the TV Licence go to the government, a little to other broadcasters but most of it to the BBC.
Next.
which Olympics is this, I seem to recall one where NBC sent more for alot less hours of TV coverage.
everything you say is largely predictable as well, one of the problems with this forum is that its all been said before, both sides know the debates well enough to not need each other anymore.
I know I mention the BBC advertising in "Broadcast" also the BBC does not advertise in the Guaridan generally, it advertises in the Media Guardian.
so suddenly you think the BBC should waste money advertising in papers that wont result in people with the right skills & experince applying for jobs.
this is wasteful on two grounds 1) the ineffective advert cost licence fee money & 2) someone in HR at the BBC, had to spend time reading a bunch of CVs that right for the job, when they could have been reading the CV of someone better.
Really?
On numerous occasions I've seen it criticising things that the Guardian seemed to be praising.
Probably because it's difficult being a broadcaster that size.
Presumably they want to cut down on admin staff like people like you wanted.
Now you want more people to be able to go through your letters!
The only loyalty I have seen Jeremy Hunt give is to Murdoch from his quotes from what I have seen.
Here is one article that completely distorts and misrepresents the events that occurred in Blue Peter. The picture captions are inaccurate and are total lies as anyone can see had they bothered to view the clip in its entirety.
Perhaps you also remember the other article about a supposed 900 page book from TV Licensing about how to identify a complaint, which, when looked at, was nothing of the sort. I recall you and your lot rather enjoyed mocking me on your forum for actually bothering to do the research to prove the article was a load of horseshit.
Practically every day of the week there will be something similar. Another BBC 'outrage', complete with quotes from someone or other. Other times it'll be a whole article based upon a couple of whinges on a messageboard. Usually though when looked at closer, each one turns out to be a load of rubbish and churnalism at its worst.
^ This.
No. As already pointed out to you, their articles are frequently (actually, mostly) not really very accurate at all.
You will, of course, have the figures to back up this claim. Right?
I have and have never had a problem with them.