Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I thought the shagging computer game characters was the worst Black Mirror episode until I saw this.
I thought the shagging computer game characters was the worst Black Mirror episode until I saw this.Anyway it was this nonsense I was talking about
Channel 4 viewers bamboozled by Gregg Wallace mockumentary about ‘eating human meat’
Viewers were unsure if ‘The British Miracle Meat’ was real or notwww.independent.co.uk
It’s also estimated that selling it off would see its investment in program/film making drastically fall in line with other private entities in the same sector. Which would obviously affect income to its program makers and associated companies or companies B, C or D.Company A has big project
Enlists Companies B, C, D… to do work on project. All of these add to GDP.
It’s not wise to compare the two in C4’s current form. The comparison is to the future that would be C4’s should it be privatised.Correct Netflix carries a lot of debt but after a big drop in share price it’s been climbing for past 12 months. Not sure comparing the two is wise, Netflix has 250m paying subscribers worldwide and I think makes 12bn a year. C4 has a declining viewership and just about breaks even. View attachment 30864
I’ve got no big issue with C4 remaining under public ownership as it makes a little bit of money so isn’t a burden currently but I suppose the question is whether it’s really a governments role to own tv channels..unless you live in Russia I guess ? Also then whether it will remain profitable. The TV worlds changing rapidly and if we can get £1bn for it now, it might not be a bad shout
Eh? Loads of people own companies to make oodles of cash from TV programmes, films etc!No one owns a media company for business reasons,
Eh? Loads of people own companies to make oodles of cash from TV programmes, films etc!
Sorry should have said broadcast/news. Point is we don’t nationalise industries to make a profit but because they have social value.
It’s also estimated that selling it off would see its investment in program/film making drastically fall in line with other private entities in the same sector. Which would obviously affect income to its program makers and associated companies or companies B, C or D.
We’re very lucky to have C4, it unique in the world of media. People need to educate themselves on it, not least Boris and Nads.
It wasn’t actually nationalised and if it was a private company you certainly wouldn’t be nationalising it
It is nationalised. That’s why you want it privatised.
My point is it started as a public company - was not nationalised afterwards - and it was introduced when there were 3 channels as a means to offer an alternative, radical outlook
I think 1980's TV is a bit different and limited versus 2023
Sure. But that doesn’t change the question: is it adding to the media landscape?
Who is?
I'd best let my boss know then as I've been in the wrong job for the past 25 years as a purchasing manager! I did do AAT when i was in credit control back in the early 90s but not sure they'd want me practicing as an accountant.I seem to recall you saying you were
I'd best let my boss know then as I've been in the wrong job for the past 25 years as a purchasing manager! I did do AAT when i was in credit control back in the early 90s but not sure they'd want me practicing as an accountant.
C4 news is the best news program on TV bar none. You’ve also got the brilliant Despatches. Then you’ve got the comedy, Father Ted, Inbetweeners, Vic Reeves big night out etc etc. Countdown is a national treasure. Then there’s the film arm of it. The film’s its been involved with as a production company is astounding as demonstrated by its Oscar nominations, 11 at the last Oscars alone. Films such as 12 years a slave, three billboards… etc etc. over 100 nominations and over 30 wins. A record for a British company and a company that’s only 40 years old. It’s a bit of a phenomenon and it’s largely if not wholly down to the unique way it’s funded. It would be a crime to lose it over some far right hysterical and failing ideology.Sure. But that doesn’t change the question: is it adding to the media landscape?
This is disgusting from Sunak really.
You might expect this shit from idiots like Gullis and 30p, but from the fucking PM? Sums up the state of things I guess.
So much for the integrity he bangs on about.
Erm....OK?
I thought it was more amusing than your twitter exclusive.
Mocking the use of twitter by...replying with a tweet.
Classic.
Well that’s kind of my point
So you think the Prime Minister implying the opposition and the judiciary are on the side of criminal gangs and exploiting people trafficking is perfectly OK?
It's an appalling tweet designed to whip up hate and pander to the very worst people. Which maybe explains why you have no issue with it.
You got that tweet?Well oddly enough I wouldn’t have even known about it until you’ve highlighted it
Not especially edifying but not really much different to the deputy labour leader calling Tories racist, misogynistic, homophobic scum - something I don’t think you were too outraged about at the time
You got that tweet?
Well oddly enough I wouldn’t have even known about it until you’ve highlighted it
Not especially edifying but not really much different to the deputy labour leader calling Tories racist, misogynistic, homophobic scum - something I don’t think you were too outraged about at the time
The fact you didn't know about it doesn't make it OK.
And there's evidence of Tories being all of those things so yeah that's fair game really.
There we have it
But Johnson is a racist, homophobic, misogynist so I'm not sure what your point is.
1 - Boris Johnson is one man not a whole party
2 - has Mr Johnson been found guilty of any of these matters in a court of law?
So I assume if Mr Starmer had tweeted tories are racist homophobic and hate women this would be acceptable as there is apparently some truth in it?
No that would not be OK (even if I agree with it.)
Rayner calling Johnson a racist/homophobe/misogynist at a Labour conference is entirely different to the PM tweeting that Labour are working with criminal gangs.
There is evidence of one. Not the other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?