Polly Toynbee Spouting anti-Sky Nonsense - Yet Again
derek500
Posts: 24,890 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Where does she get her figures from?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/26/murdoch-cameron-shameful-tale
She is a serial anti-Sky ranter, but surely she shouldn't be allowed to spread total untruths?
Nor is Sky that good for the Treasury: for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, 90p flees the country, straight to News Corp and Hollywood in the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/26/murdoch-cameron-shameful-tale
She is a serial anti-Sky ranter, but surely she shouldn't be allowed to spread total untruths?
0
Comments
Are her figures wrong? Can you show otherwise?
Murdoch has way too much power over the media in this country. Handing him control of Sky would be a disaster.
If it was an actual News article (which it's not) then maybe, just maybe your views are justified, until then they are not really :rolleyes:
:yawn:
Derek, don't worry, even if Sky go belly up they'll be other pay tv providers, it's called the "free" market - we haven't really got that at the moment.
Potty Polly must have slept through the Noughties and does not realise the organisation she writes for likes to avoid a tax or two.
Presumably you do have this figure...?
Perhaps you could point out the fallacies in her article Derek. I'm not a Polly Toynbee admirer but that doesn't mean everything she says is wrong.
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.
and another.
There are many, many series that are not bought by Sky that are 'better' than the ones Sky have bought.
and another
Premier League football was never a listed event. Now was its predecessor.
With the greatest of respect to you Shaun. Do you ever discuss the topics under discussion or do you just try and deflect criticism away from companies and people you admire?
I don't know the figures but what if you take out sport and movies that are Sky monopolies and compare like with like.
Well some of that £1 per person must go to all the other channels within the sub package, quite a few which are no Sky, some must go to Astra, some must go to paying wages..... that 10p goes an awful long way!
Sky's subscription income is approx £5b. 10% of that is £500m.
BSkyB pay £400m in UK Corporation tax alone!!!
So that means they're paying all their staff, buying the majority of their content (including billions in sports rights), renting satellite space etc. etc. all for £100m per year.
God knows why the BBC needs its £3.5bn if Sky can do so much with so little.
Sky Movies is not a monopoly, otherwise there would not be Movies4men, TCM, Film4.........
As for watching BBC, this has been done to death, and upshot was, less people watch the BBC if they sub to paytv:)
Well you didn't say that Shaun. BTW I enjoy most of your contributions
Well the competition commission says different.
I agree with you that she is a Sky hater but can you give us the correct figures to back up your argument?
The feelings mutual.
post #17. It's not rocket science.
The competition commission has also had to delay it's findings whilst it takes into account the effect companies like Netflix and LoveFilm have on the movies market.
Murdoch & Co do so why not, and who's to say she's not telling the truth?
Anyway, didn't sky shift their business to Luxembourg so as to avoid UK tax?
There is usually plenty to disagree with in her column.
She must be very highly paid by the Guardian for writing her column there but rants about other highly paid people.
She was in the front line when Rent-A-Mob were trashing some shops in Oxford Street because the owner lived abroad but she worked for a newspaper that was notorious for years for itself avoiding paying UK taxes.
Her column often seems to be written from villa in Italy.
She is a typical Champagne Socialist, would love to see her tax return and see whether she manages to (legally) reduce it like her fellow socialist K Livingstone and other ones.