[Transient1]

Originally Posted by CTD101

I don't disagree, but it hasn't stopped Netflix and LoveFilm being competitive has it and both have access to a vast library of movies.

If Tesco's had an exclusive deal to sell full cream milk Asda and Sainsbury's would still sell loads of other milk. That wouldn't make it right and Tesco's would still be operating a monopoly.
If Tesco's had loads of exclusive deals operating like that so that it was becoming pointless shopping anywhere else then something would be done about it. If Tesco's had thought to buy into the newspaper industry and start trading their newspapers support for an unwritten agreement that they would be let alone they might have got away with it though.

[CTD101]

Originally Posted by Transient1

If Tesco's had an exclusive deal to sell full cream milk Asda and Sainsbury's would still sell loads of other milk. That wouldn't make it right and Tesco's would still be operating a monopoly.
If Tesco's had loads of exclusive deals operating like that so that it was becoming pointless shopping anywhere else then something would be done about it. If Tesco's had thought to buy into the newspaper industry and start trading their newspapers support for an unwritten agreement that they would be let alone they might have got away with it though.

I have absolutely no problems with fair competition. However, as was seen with football rights, it's no good when it costs the consumer MORE money for the same amount. Splitting up the football rights seemed like a good idea for some but the fact is to watch the same amount of games will now cost more money. How exactly has that benefitted the customer. That's the worry with splitting the movies rights.

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by markmag

To be honest Derek, and I appreciate you aren't paid for your comments, but I'm finding your comments far more incorrect and misleading than those of PT.

By the way: FYI:

Source: Sky Annual Report 2011

Inparticular see page 112 of that document to see how much they really pay in tax. My reading is (if someone can correct me please do so, it's not that clear to a non-financial person such as myself) if they paid standard corporation tax that would be 489m for 2011. They actually paid 38m.

The £38m refers to the parent company only - ie not the whole of BSkyB.

This isn't a meaningful figure - for starters no subscriber income is attributable to the parent company. Per note ii) on page 112:

"The Company’s main source of revenue is from licensing the Company’s brand name asset to subsidiaries."

ie the parent company isn't actually trading with the public.

The relevant figures for the whole of the BSkyB group are as follows:

P&L CHARGE:

Per Page 76:

Tax charge current year - 386m
Adj re prior years - (115m)
Deferred tax - (7)

Total tax charge - £264m

Then go to the main Income statement (Page 61) and you see the taxation figure is £256m. (The reason for the difference of £8m is that that relates to discontinued operations - so is within the Discontinued ops figure of £52m on the face of the Income statement on page 61).

TAX PAID IN YEAR (ie cash to HMRC):

Per Page 63 - £219m

Obviously P&L charge doesn't equal Tax paid in year due to timing differences. Corporation tax is normally payable 9 months after the year end.

(The deferred tax of £(7)m is an accounting entry only so is never payable to HMRC but it's only tiny so we can ignore it anyway).

NB. All above figures are Corporation Tax only. Obviously NI will be separate. VAT will not go through the P&L.

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/p...al_report_2011

As for what the charge SHOULD BE the rate of CT was 28% (9 months) and 26% (3 months).

So back of envelope calculation would be:

27.5% * Profit before tax

= 27.5% * 1,014m (page 61)

= £279m

Obviously it's much, much more complicated than that but it gives you a feel for the ball park.

The charge for the current year of £386m is actually well above the back of the envelope ball park of £279m.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by wasa5livefan

On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.

Do they use her anymore than Kelvin Mackenzie of Nigel Farrage with their right wing views?

Nope.

[CAMERA OBSCURA]

miles19740
I am tired and bored of some on here screaming 'BBC bias' when they hear or see views expressed which they disagree with. We live in a democracy. Part of the BBC's role is to express views within our democracy, which in my view, it does brilliantly.

Exactly. I would urge critics that like to throw the BBC biased soundbite around, and NEVER back it up, to view this episode of Newsnight. In particularly when discussing Murdoch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_25_04_2012/


See how it is structured so both side of the argument/s are put forward, not only by the guests but the interviewer/presenter. See how the interviewer, in this case Kirsty Wark, approaches each interview with different political guests. There is NO bias, to be blunt she gives them all a good kicking, switching playing political devils advocate with aplomb. Bias would be the interviewer sitting there agreeing with one political guest constantly over another.

Unfortunately when people cry bias, especially on DS broadcasting forums, what they really mean is their political party/view has been given a bashing, it is a simple as that yet the very same complainers ALWAYS choose conveniently to ignore that so has the other political views. It is called unbiased interviewing. People that cry foul of biased reporting on the BBC really want to see their views/political allegiance to go unchallenged.

[miles19740]

Originally Posted by mersey70

'totally swerves the article'

You are as biased as Hunt!

The Murdoch's will soon be finished in the UK, and possibly in News Corp too. It's over.

But Sky will continue to do what they do well, whoever controls them or whatever it may end up being called. Pay TV is going nowhere, simple as that.

Dude, I wasn't trying to be balanced, I was expressing my opinion. I am not working for the BBC you know.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by wasa5livefan

On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.

They seem to have had to find a complete new set of panellists for Question Time last night so would go for people they knew would be available.

Thursday, April 26, 2012
More Question Time Briefing Leaks
Seems the last minute nature of the panel – it was supposed to be a Ken, Boris, Brian & Jenny Question Time until the BBC changed their mind – has prompted some hasty preparation.

[Object Z]

Originally Posted by miles19740

Dude, I wasn't trying to be balanced, I was expressing my opinion. I am not working for the BBC you know.

TFFT, It would be wall to wall Neighbours.

[miles19740]

Originally Posted by CAMERA OBSCURA

Exactly. I would urge critics that like to throw the BBC biased soundbite around, and NEVER back it up, to view this episode of Newsnight. In particularly when discussing Murdoch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_25_04_2012/


See how it is structured so both side of the argument/s are put forward, not only by the guests but the interviewer/presenter. See how the interviewer, in this case Kirsty Wark, approaches each interview with different political guests. There is NO bias, to be blunt she gives them all a good kicking, switching playing political devils advocate with aplomb. Bias would be the interviewer sitting there agreeing with one political guest constantly over another.

Unfortunately when people cry bias, especially on DS broadcasting forums, what they really mean is their political party/view has been given a bashing, it is a simple as that yet the very same complainers ALWAYS choose conveniently to ignore that so has the other political views. It is called unbiased interviewing. People that cry foul of biased reporting on the BBC really want to see their views/political allegiance to go unchallenged.

Absolutely right and brilliantly written.

I saw the Kirsty Wark Newsnight you refer to. It was informative and totally balanced...all the way through.

This was only achieved by the way the BBC is funded.

[mlt11]

I know it's bit off thread but does anyone know why QT was changed from London Mayor candidates to a normal version?

[miles19740]

Originally Posted by lundavra

They seem to have had to find a complete new set of panellists for Question Time last night so would go for people they knew would be available.

In my opinion, Question Time last night was brilliant. Very informative and balanced. We had Grayling and Farrage for the Right and Toynbee and Abbot for the Left with Hughes being the Middle ground.

I'm not being funny, but isn't the London Mayoral Election only of interest to Londoners...or have I missed something?

[miles19740]

Originally Posted by Object Z

TFFT, It would be wall to wall Neighbours.

I would get Neighbours back on the BBC...yes...but have it co-produced between the BBC and Fremantle, as it was for a while back in the day!

...anyway, back on topic...

[wasa5livefan]

Originally Posted by CAMERA OBSCURA

Exactly. I would urge critics that like to throw the BBC biased soundbite around, and NEVER back it up, to view this episode of Newsnight. In particularly when discussing Murdoch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_25_04_2012/


See how it is structured so both side of the argument/s are put forward, not only by the guests but the interviewer/presenter. See how the interviewer, in this case Kirsty Wark, approaches each interview with different political guests. There is NO bias, to be blunt she gives them all a good kicking, switching playing political devils advocate with aplomb. Bias would be the interviewer sitting there agreeing with one political guest constantly over another.

Unfortunately when people cry bias, especially on DS broadcasting forums, what they really mean is their political party/view has been given a bashing, it is a simple as that yet the very same complainers ALWAYS choose conveniently to ignore that so has the other political views. It is called unbiased interviewing. People that cry foul of biased reporting on the BBC really want to see their views/political allegiance to go unchallenged.

Can you also put up the episode where Nick Griffin appeared?

[mikw]

Originally Posted by wasa5livefan

Can you also put up the episode where Nick Griffin appeared?

Do they use Polly anymore than Kelvin Mackenzie of Nigel Farrage with their right wing views?

Nope.

[CAMERA OBSCURA]

Originally Posted by wasa5livefan

Can you also put up the episode where Nick Griffin appeared?

In what context are you referring to.

An actual episode in which Nick Griffen has appeared, then he would have received exactly the same interviewing technique other politicians receive. Or would you prefer the interviewer to just agree with everything he says during an interview?


Or do you mean that Nick Griffen has not been on Newsnight to discuss the Murdoch Hacking scandal or the recession?

If you could give me a little more context beyond one line then I will be able to give you a fuller response.


Maybe you could also respond to the posts asking how the BBC use Polly Toynbee at every opportunity as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views, because Newsnight would be the ideal place to have her on every night during this Murdoch Scandal.

[wasa5livefan]

Originally Posted by CAMERA OBSCURA

An actual episode in which Nick Griffen has appeared, then he would have received exactly the same interviewing technique other politicians receive.

I actually meant the episode of Question Time where he received a completely different interviewing technique than anyone else has, before or since.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by wasa5livefan

I actually meant the episode of Question Time where he received a completely different interviewing technique than anyone else has, before or since.

Oh, the one where he was taken apart and made himself look silly?

With his "friendly Ku Klux Klan" remarks?

[CAMERA OBSCURA]

Originally Posted by wasa5livefan

I actually meant the episode of Question Time where he received a completely different interviewing technique than anyone else has, before or since.

Well no he didn't, he was just simply out of his depth.

Considering it was the first time he appeared on Question Time it was blinking obvious that the questions from the audience would be regarding his party and politics. Maybe you wanted him to go unchallenged, maybe you wanted the BBC to show bias and NOT use the method of how they approach what questions are used, (set by the audience) Maybe you wanted The BBC to show bias by letting NG to go unchallenged.


Politicians get a good kicking on QT weekly.

Again you have confused your calls of bias with politicians being challenged.



How are you getting on with Polly Toynbees constant appearances on the BBC?

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by miles19740

.... I'm not being funny, but isn't the London Mayoral Election only of interest to Londoners...or have I missed something?

The London Mayoral campaign has been funny purely because of the lengths that Livingstone is going to avoid disclosing the truth about his tax. Also for the number of devout Labour people who have turned against him.

[bluesdiamond]

Originally Posted by i4u

But it's not just 10p.

10m subscribers paying say £20 a month = £20,000,000

Or if I've done my sums right a mere £240m a year?

Try 10m subs at £20 = £200,000,000 a month
or £2.4 billion a year
add in sports, movies broadband etc.
But basic Sky receives £2.4 Billion, no doubt some carriage charges for Astra, but does that get cancelled by say Virgin Media paying to have Sky's services on their platform?

[SouthCity]

Polly Toynbee has been caught out with errors in her Sky articles before. In January 2012 there was this howler:

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,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-parasitic-sky

Most people on this forum know that there was no EPG on Sky Analogue, so the BBC couldn't possibly have been paying anything to BSkyB for EPG charges in 1989/90 when Margaret Thatcher was in power.

The BBC joined the Sky Digital EPG in 1998, when Tony Blair was PM. That doesn't quite fit Polly's anti-Tory agenda though does it.

[mogzyboy]

Originally Posted by SouthCity

Polly Toynbee has been caught out with errors in her Sky articles before. In January 2012 there was this howler:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-parasitic-sky

Most people on this forum know that there was no EPG on Sky Analogue, so the BBC couldn't possibly have been paying anything to BSkyB for EPG charges in 1989/90 when Margaret Thatcher was in power.

The BBC joined the Sky Digital EPG in 1998, when Tony Blair was PM. That doesn't quite fit Polly's anti-Tory agenda though does it.

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.

[miles19740]

Originally Posted by mogzyboy

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.

She is not a clown at all. She believes in funding quality public services. Do you?

[mogzyboy]

Originally Posted by miles19740

She is not a clown at all. She believes in funding quality public services. Do you?

I do. However, what I don't do is spread myths in my newspaper articles to further my left-wing agenda, in the hope that people buy it.

[miles19740]

Originally Posted by mogzyboy

I do. However, what I don't do is spread myths in my newspaper articles to further my left-wing agenda, in the hope that people buy it.

Good...I am glad you believe in public services. That is a positive at least...

Onto the rest of of your 'criticism'..."myths"...really? I happen to believe her take. Are you just using the 'myths' tag because you don't like her take? For me, she is bang on the money...and most sane people will realise it to.

Three cheers for Polly...!