[img]http://imgkk.com/i/_juc.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/24/government-considering-channel-4-privatisation-document-slip-up-reveals[/url]
[quote]The government has inadvertently provided further evidence that it is looking at privatising Channel 4, after an official was photographed entering Downing Street with a document setting out options for a sell-off.
After months of ministerial obfuscation on whether the sale of the state-owned, commercially funded broadcaster was being considered, the document reveals that proposals have already been drawn up in a bid to raise an estimated £1bn for Treasury coffers.
The leaked document reads: “Work should proceed to examine the options of extracting greater public value from the Channel 4 corporation, focusing on privatisation options in particular.”
With the author of the work identified as a senior civil servant within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the leak suggests that it is the culture secretary, John Whittingdale, who is keenest on the move despite several speeches in recent weeks in which he appeared to deny any decision.[/quote]
And this is why you should never keep documents outside of a file when moving between buildings.
I honestly only just learned that Channel 4 was publicised there now
Is Channel 4 like PBS?
I remember being in a sports hall, and being bored and messing around with my tele lens.
Managed to take a photo of some persons iPhone screen on the other side of the hall, and read the actual messages in the opened message app.
Be afraid :v:
[QUOTE=paul simon;48755198]I remember being in a sports hall, and being bored and messing around with my tele lens.
Managed to take a photo of some persons iPhone screen on the other side of the hall, and read the actual messages in the opened message app.
Be afraid :v:[/QUOTE]
wrong thread?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48755240]wrong thread?[/QUOTE]
Nope. He's saying how easy it is to take photos of documents etc, you don't have to be close up.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;48755176]Is Channel 4 like PBS?[/QUOTE]
No, it makes money from advertising but has public service obligations and is publicly owned. It's kind of Britain's second BBC
[QUOTE=paul simon;48755198]I remember being in a sports hall, and being bored and messing around with my tele lens.
Managed to take a photo of some persons iPhone screen on the other side of the hall, and read the actual messages in the opened message app.
Be afraid :v:[/QUOTE]
Telephoto lenses are fun to use, and with higher megapixel counts, you can see the text even better when zooming in!
[QUOTE=smurfy;48755440]No, it makes money from advertising but has public service obligations and is publicly owned. It's kind of Britain's second BBC[/QUOTE]
Oh so it's similar to Australia's SBS where the government funds it but it relies off advertising for a lot of its revenue
[QUOTE=Reagy;48755019]And this is why you should never keep documents outside of a file when moving between buildings.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure a lot of these are done accidentally on purpose.
Sometimes I wonder just how accurate The Thick Of It was
[editline]25th September 2015[/editline]
"Quiet Bat People"
Didn't realise it was privately owned.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;48758473]Didn't realise it was privately owned.[/QUOTE]
it's not
i thought channel 4 was privately owned, weird
It might save money but how will it effect channel 4.
If they stoping giving them tax money it will be cheaper for the public but at what cost.
Either C4 will need to have more adverts (shit) or people will pay for it (I certainly wouldn't and I suspect it would be much more money and more noticeable than the amount we pay indirectly via taxes) (crap imo)
Or it would continue to receive tax money then not really saving the public much and any profits would be diverted to private interests rather than reinvestment in the country (crap imo)
Sounds like a way to take money from the people of the country and put it into the pockets of investors as per usual.
It'll end up like channel 5 10 minutes of adverts for every 7 minutes of shit programming
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48758966]It might save money but how will it effect channel 4.
If they stoping giving them tax money it will be cheaper for the public but at what cost.
Either C4 will need to have more adverts (shit) or people will pay for it (I certainly wouldn't and I suspect it would be much more money and more noticeable than the amount we pay indirectly via taxes) (crap imo)
Or it would continue to receive tax money then not really saving the public much and any profits would be diverted to private interests rather than reinvestment in the country (crap imo)
Sounds like a way to take money from the people of the country and put it into the pockets of investors as per usual.[/QUOTE]
Channel 4 doesn't get any public money, it's funded by advertising and rights sales and stuff (check page 2 of [url=https://c4-cp-hosting.s3.amazonaws.com/annualreport/Channel%204%20Financial%20Report%20%26%20Statements%202014_3.pdf]this PDF[/url])
[QUOTE=smurfy;48759488]Channel 4 doesn't get any public money, it's funded by advertising and rights sales and stuff (check page 2 of [url=https://c4-cp-hosting.s3.amazonaws.com/annualreport/Channel%204%20Financial%20Report%20%26%20Statements%202014_3.pdf]this PDF[/url])[/QUOTE]
If it costs the public nothing yet provides them a reasonable service for free why would we seek to change it at the risk of more ads or having it cost us money?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48759604]If it costs the public nothing yet provides them a reasonable service for free why would we seek to change it at the risk of more ads or having it cost us money?[/QUOTE]
I think cos selling it off could get the Treasury some sick ££££££££
wow this really is like an episode from the thick of it
[QUOTE=Marzipas;48759797]wow this really is like an episode from the thick of it[/QUOTE]
But with less comic tragedy and swearing.
Channel 4 isn't actually that bad, their documentaries are good
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
