I would like to ban all these anti Sky and BBC threads, they seem to be cluttering all the space in the Broadcast part of the Digital Spy forums.:mad::mad::mad:
Ian.
I would like to ban all the BBC bashing...but greedy, private companies (BSkyB) are fair game as far as I am concerned.
As people have to pay for the BBC (rightly) they have every right to bash it
I don't mind paying the TV Licence and Sky subscription. But i'm getting fed up with all these Anti Sky and BBC threads clutering up the Broadcast forum.
Ian.
Public services are off-limits. Bash the private sector, but not the public sector...
What? thats a dictatorship lol, i can criticise bbc as i pay for it. I shouldnt expect to get what i want from the private sector as its private. I show my disapproval by not subscribing to it.
What? thats a dictatorship lol, i can criticise bbc as i pay for it. I dont really have the right to bash the private sector as its private. I show my disapproval by not subscribing to it.
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.
It would take too much time to go through every incorrect or misleading point.
Here's another one.
Sky subscribers watch more pay content than they do BBC.
Actually what you say is wrong and her opinion could be true - it is in my case as I'm a sky subscriber yet look through my planner and you'll find I watch more on the BBC and other free channels than I do on any of the pay channels - I only keep the Sky Sub going as it's £20pm and I get £2.50pm off the BB and Sky+ would cost £10pm so £7.50pm is worth it in case there happens to be something on worth watching - but when the price goes up in September after the price freeze then even that £20pm sub will be going (I'm already saving for a freesatHD PVR which will have paid for itself in 11 months of no sky).
:sleep:Methinks somebody has had a few wines and is on the wind-up tonight...
No, he isn't drunk. He is either a Communist or some variety of extreme socialist. He hates privacy (the thing that exists in the "private sector"), commerce, individual rights. He basically lives to serve the Almighty State. If he isn't a Communist, Hitler would have loved him -- just so long as he isn't Jewish.
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.
Though didn't she send her children to be privately educated, like many other Champagne Socialists?
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”.
Sadly, Polly Toynbee has become notorious for eschewing baloney, and even when she offered a glowing endorsement of Workfare and Labours introduction of Workfare t1997-2010, she has turned tail.
I don't have a problem with her anti-Sky rants as long as she gets the facts right.
To claim in an article that Margaret Thatcher set the price for BBC carriage on the Sky EPG (in 1998) is sloppy journalism to say the least. Surely someone at The Guardian should be reviewing her articles for factual inaccuracies.
She is a serial anti-Sky ranter, but surely she shouldn't be allowed to spread total untruths?
If that's the case surely there is a fat slander lawsuit in favor of sky, unless sky are firmly sticking to the policy that any publicity is good, in which case why discourage crap journalism.
.... To claim in an article that Margaret Thatcher set the price for BBC carriage on the Sky EPG (in 1998) is sloppy journalism to say the least. ....
These are the words from which you draw your conclusion
Here's the big issue: when Margaret Thatcher helped Murdoch launch Sky with exemptions from EU broadcasting rules, she added another bonus.
She made the BBC pay £10m a year to be transmitted on the Sky platform,
although across the rest of Europe commercial broadcasters pay public broadcasters for the privilege of using their content.
They say something very different to me -
that Thatcher's 'bending' of the EU rules set in train a series of events that, eventually, led to this BBC > BSkyB payment.
There is no 'carriage charge' as such, there is an EPG charge and the very shady 'platform contribution' charge -
this, Toynbee points out, is contrary to practice in the rest of the EU.
What is missing in this copy is that Murdoch snr. is hypocritical over this matter, in that he has won the argument in the US that the flow of cash should be in the EU direction, not that in the UK.
These are the words from which you draw your conclusion
They say something very different to me -
that Thatcher's 'bending' of the EU rules set in train a series of events that, eventually, led to this BBC > BSkyB payment.
There is no 'carriage charge' as such, there is an EPG charge and the very shady 'platform contribution' charge -
this, Toynbee points out, is contrary to practice in the rest of the EU.
What is missing in this copy is that Murdoch snr. is hypocritical over this matter, in that he has won the argument in the US that the flow of cash should be in the EU direction, not that in the UK.
Was it totally beyond Tony Blair's Government to legislate in 1998 to prevent the BBC having to hand over £10 million of licence fee payers' money to BSkyB (a UK based company) every year?
This is the same Blair Government which had received support from the Murdoch press in 1997 and took home Test cricket off the protected events list in 1998 so that Sky could bid for it?
Thatcher didn't make the BBC pay £10 million per year, whatever chain of events she set in place in 1989. All PSB channels should have been granted automatic carriage and an exemption from these charges when Sky Digital launched in 1998.
I don't have a problem with her anti-Sky rants as long as she gets the facts right.
To claim in an article that Margaret Thatcher set the price for BBC carriage on the Sky EPG (in 1998) is sloppy journalism to say the least. Surely someone at The Guardian should be reviewing her articles for factual inaccuracies.
Why quote my post only addressing a quote from someone else?
My post was about the financial interests of the thread starter and their constant spamming with pro-Sky threads and posts on multiple forums including Freesat!
And they don't even get the irony of questioning the bias of what others have to say.
Or maybe they do get it and know exactly what they are doing and we know why they are doing it?
Was it totally beyond Tony Blair's Government to legislate in 1998 to prevent the BBC having to hand over £10 million of licence fee payers' money to BSkyB (a UK based company) every year?
No, but there is increasing evidence that Blair was in 'too cosy' a relationship with Murdoch and that is why he wouldn't.
This is the same Blair Government which had received support from the Murdoch press in 1997 and took home Test cricket off the protected events list in 1998 so that Sky could bid for it?
Indeed it was, but subject to modification, in an agreement with Blair's 1st Secretary of State for Media and the ECB, yet discarded by Blair's 2nd Secretary of State following a direct approach by a Murdoch.
Thatcher didn't make the BBC pay £10 million per year, whatever chain of events she set in place in 1989.
All PSB channels should have been granted automatic carriage and an exemption from these charges when Sky Digital launched in 1998.
I agree totally with the last sentiment and would go further, in that I believe that the advertising revenue of pay-tv companies should be 'levied'
and the proceeds passed to free-to-air advertising funded broadcasters as compensation for their loss of income.
Indeed it was, but subject to modification, in an agreement with Blair's 1st Secretary of State for Media and the ECB, yet discarded by Blair's 2nd Secretary of State following a direct approach by a Murdoch.
You can't really have a verbal agreement that goes against what the ECB asked for. They asked for test matches to be removed from the A list and what is what they got.
They could have easily asked for a more specific agreement (like there is for Wimbledon), limiting pay tests to a certain number per season.
How can it be expected to abide to a verbal agreement, when both parties to it were no longer in the their jobs.
The ECB wanted all the tests on Sky and that complied with the B list.
Comments
I would like to ban all the BBC bashing...but greedy, private companies (BSkyB) are fair game as far as I am concerned.
As people have to pay for the BBC (rightly) they have every right to bash it.
I don't mind paying the TV Licence and Sky subscription. But i'm getting fed up with all these Anti Sky and BBC threads clutering up the Broadcast forum.
Ian.
Public services are off-limits. Bash the private sector, but not the public sector...
I would say don't bash either.
Ian.
What? thats a dictatorship lol, i can criticise bbc as i pay for it. I shouldnt expect to get what i want from the private sector as its private. I show my disapproval by not subscribing to it.
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.
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!
Actually what you say is wrong and her opinion could be true - it is in my case as I'm a sky subscriber yet look through my planner and you'll find I watch more on the BBC and other free channels than I do on any of the pay channels - I only keep the Sky Sub going as it's £20pm and I get £2.50pm off the BB and Sky+ would cost £10pm so £7.50pm is worth it in case there happens to be something on worth watching - but when the price goes up in September after the price freeze then even that £20pm sub will be going (I'm already saving for a freesatHD PVR which will have paid for itself in 11 months of no sky).
No, he isn't drunk. He is either a Communist or some variety of extreme socialist. He hates privacy (the thing that exists in the "private sector"), commerce, individual rights. He basically lives to serve the Almighty State. If he isn't a Communist, Hitler would have loved him -- just so long as he isn't Jewish.
Not according to BARB. I assume she's heard the statement "BBC One is the most watched channel in pay homes", which is true and misquoted it.
Good to see the spirit of Nu Liebour alive and well.
Though didn't she send her children to be privately educated, like many other Champagne Socialists?
From the serial PRO-Sky ranter, with direct financial interests in Sky.
Sorry, but your Sky shareholder propaganda is so transparent now.
Poor dear.
She's not alone on that one, dreadful policy.
Good idea in principal, but execution that has seen many people with bad medical conditions having their benefits removed.
I don't have a problem with her anti-Sky rants as long as she gets the facts right.
To claim in an article that Margaret Thatcher set the price for BBC carriage on the Sky EPG (in 1998) is sloppy journalism to say the least. Surely someone at The Guardian should be reviewing her articles for factual inaccuracies.
If that's the case surely there is a fat slander lawsuit in favor of sky, unless sky are firmly sticking to the policy that any publicity is good, in which case why discourage crap journalism.
They say something very different to me -
that Thatcher's 'bending' of the EU rules set in train a series of events that, eventually, led to this BBC > BSkyB payment.
There is no 'carriage charge' as such, there is an EPG charge and the very shady 'platform contribution' charge -
this, Toynbee points out, is contrary to practice in the rest of the EU.
What is missing in this copy is that Murdoch snr. is hypocritical over this matter, in that he has won the argument in the US that the flow of cash should be in the EU direction, not that in the UK.
Was it totally beyond Tony Blair's Government to legislate in 1998 to prevent the BBC having to hand over £10 million of licence fee payers' money to BSkyB (a UK based company) every year?
This is the same Blair Government which had received support from the Murdoch press in 1997 and took home Test cricket off the protected events list in 1998 so that Sky could bid for it?
Thatcher didn't make the BBC pay £10 million per year, whatever chain of events she set in place in 1989. All PSB channels should have been granted automatic carriage and an exemption from these charges when Sky Digital launched in 1998.
Why quote my post only addressing a quote from someone else?
My post was about the financial interests of the thread starter and their constant spamming with pro-Sky threads and posts on multiple forums including Freesat!
And they don't even get the irony of questioning the bias of what others have to say.
Or maybe they do get it and know exactly what they are doing and we know why they are doing it?
You always dispute BARB figures, unless they show Sky programming doing well!:D
Rupert Murdoch is effectively a member of Blair's cabinet.
Indeed it was, but subject to modification, in an agreement with Blair's 1st Secretary of State for Media and the ECB, yet discarded by Blair's 2nd Secretary of State following a direct approach by a Murdoch.
Jowell and Murdoch talked cricket before deal
I agree totally with the last sentiment and would go further, in that I believe that the advertising revenue of pay-tv companies should be 'levied'
and the proceeds passed to free-to-air advertising funded broadcasters as compensation for their loss of income.
You can't really have a verbal agreement that goes against what the ECB asked for. They asked for test matches to be removed from the A list and what is what they got.
They could have easily asked for a more specific agreement (like there is for Wimbledon), limiting pay tests to a certain number per season.
How can it be expected to abide to a verbal agreement, when both parties to it were no longer in the their jobs.
The ECB wanted all the tests on Sky and that complied with the B list.