National News C4 privatisation

Mad Nad 'interfering' with something that isnt broken?

facts are :-
Channel 4 is owned by the state but takes not a penny from UK taxpayers, as it is funded by it's advertising revenue.
It's award winning content is free-to-air (including the magnificently diverse All4 streaming service) and has never been and never needs to be "in competition" with Netflix and Amazon.

yet if as the underqualified culture sec bulldozed through her plan the public service programmes produced by C4 will be gone for ever, as shareholders will demand (huge) returns on their investments

I'm gonna own up. Honestly, until this news broke, I had no idea C4 was owned by the state. I've spoken to a couple of mates and they didn't either.
 
Anything that starts "I see you"........................... bin it. [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Still nice bit of liberal frothing to start the week...... "deepfake Queen"...... "flag-shagging" ............... its got the lot.

Top up that cup of salty tears. :)
Nice to see you're in the Dorries camp....not really that surprising.

#Morecultureinayakult
[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
 
The Tory desire to sell off Channel 4 is for two main reasons:

They might be able to make a bit of cash doing so
Their mates might make money once they have done so

Never mind the damage it will do, with this lot cash is king.
 
I'm not sure cash is king in this place. The eventual price is rumoured to be in the region of £1bn (!). This low figure is primarily because the nature of Channel 4's commissions and formats which are not actually owned by the channel but under licence from the various independent producers utilised. That £1bn will not go far amongst the 'creative sector' proposed by Dorries, as opposed to Channel 4's continued ongoing support of the British TV production and film business.

It's film business alone has produced and co-financed some of the most important and commercially successful movies of the last 35 years - just a few for reference: The Favourite, Three Billboards Outside Of Ebbing Missouri, Trainspotting, 12 Years A Slave, Four Lions, This Is England, Slumdog Millionaire, Sexy Beast, East Is East, Four Weddings And a Funeral, Mona Lisa, My Beautiful Launderette and oh, The Inbetweeners. All the profits have been pumped back into the business to fund productions by first time directors, niche productions, socially important films and quite a few failures as well! None of this has cost the state a single penny.

It doesn't need to compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Disney - it can survive as a niche player. I'd expect the usual "well, I don't watch it" comments I've seen here, but it's viewing figures have held up well and while there's a hell of a lot I wouldn't watch, it continues to be a creative innovator in the UK entertainment sector.

If the potential sale price was huge or the channel a burden on strained public finances, then perhaps I might see the logic of the sale but it's not - it's a politically motivated piece of cultural vandalism perpetrated by an opportunist.
 
Last edited:
The Tory desire to sell off Channel 4 is for two main reasons:

They might be able to make a bit of cash doing so
Their mates might make money once they have done so

Never mind the damage it will do, with this lot cash is king.
And their supporters/apologists;)
 
Last edited:
The Tory desire to sell off Channel 4 is for two main reasons:

They might be able to make a bit of cash doing so
Their mates might make money once they have done so

Never mind the damage it will do, with this lot cash is king.
Well, that and the personal butthurt of BoJo for things like being replaced by an ice sculpture at the leaders debate on climate issues he refused to attend (and then complained that it broke election law because it went on without him).
(the other ice sculpture was for Farage who also refused to debate on climate).
pa-48657550_qgmrhu_zmghsp.jpg
 
Well, that and the personal butthurt of BoJo for things like being replaced by an ice sculpture at the leaders debate on climate issues he refused to attend (and then complained that it broke election law because it went on without him).
(the other ice sculpture was for Farage who also refused to debate on climate).
pa-48657550_qgmrhu_zmghsp.jpg
Surprised they didn't just put a massive cock and a massive a**e made of ice on stage and get the audience to chose which one depicted which🤷‍♂️
 
So if noone else is going to make a coherent argument for it, I'll play devil's advocate here.

The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens. That's my view, anyways.
So education, healthcare, infrastructure, legal system, defense, emergency services etc. - all crucial services that a government should provide through tax and spending.

But TV, film and radio? As a form of cultural education.....yes, probably. I can see the argument. But UK taxpayers (let's be honest - the license fee is a tax) already pay between £3.5-4 billion a year to cover this through the BBC.

The rationale behind the creation of Channel 4 (by Thatcher of all people!) as a complement to the Beeb was to provide a combination of quality and diversity of programming. And in the 1980s, that was clearly necessary. When you only have three channels, bringing in a fourth makes a big difference in terms of viewing choices and options.

But in 2022? Hard to argue that viewers don't have quality, choice and diversity. I'll admit to not being 100% sure what TV and streaming services are available nowadays back home, but I believe there's, what, about 50 channels now available on DTT and then presumably it's some combination of Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO and some smaller streamers? There's a massive range of programming available across those channels and services. You'd be having to look in some pretty tiny niches to not find anything you want to watch across them all.

So I struggle to see how a logical argument can be made that the UK government needs to own Channel 4 to protect any rights of UK citizens.
The only argument I'm hearing is the legacy argument - it's always been this way, and it's not doing any harm, so why change it? Which is always a weak one, in my opinion, if there's no real guiding principle behind it.

I don't think I would be approaching privatization in the same way i.e. flogging it for a billion to the highest bidder.

I'd probably first be going to Channel 4's current Board and management and saying "Look, we don't want to acting as your guarantor as a statutory corporation any more, but we're happy to hand this over to you to run as a 'Company limited by guarantee' (or whatever is the appropriate not-for-profit company structure)". See if there's interest in continuing to run it as a mission-based organization before juest auctioning it off.

But ultimately, I just don't think I see the moral argument for why Channel 4 should be state owned. The model for TV has profoundly changed in the past decade, so ownership should probably change with it.
 
So if noone else is going to make a coherent argument for it, I'll play devil's advocate here.

The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens. That's my view, anyways.
So education, healthcare, infrastructure, legal system, defense, emergency services etc. - all crucial services that a government should provide through tax and spending.

But TV, film and radio? As a form of cultural education.....yes, probably. I can see the argument. But UK taxpayers (let's be honest - the license fee is a tax) already pay between £3.5-4 billion a year to cover this through the BBC.

The rationale behind the creation of Channel 4 (by Thatcher of all people!) as a complement to the Beeb was to provide a combination of quality and diversity of programming. And in the 1980s, that was clearly necessary. When you only have three channels, bringing in a fourth makes a big difference in terms of viewing choices and options.

But in 2022? Hard to argue that viewers don't have quality, choice and diversity. I'll admit to not being 100% sure what TV and streaming services are available nowadays back home, but I believe there's, what, about 50 channels now available on DTT and then presumably it's some combination of Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO and some smaller streamers? There's a massive range of programming available across those channels and services. You'd be having to look in some pretty tiny niches to not find anything you want to watch across them all.

So I struggle to see how a logical argument can be made that the UK government needs to own Channel 4 to protect any rights of UK citizens.
The only argument I'm hearing is the legacy argument - it's always been this way, and it's not doing any harm, so why change it? Which is always a weak one, in my opinion, if there's no real guiding principle behind it.

I don't think I would be approaching privatization in the same way i.e. flogging it for a billion to the highest bidder.

I'd probably first be going to Channel 4's current Board and management and saying "Look, we don't want to acting as your guarantor as a statutory corporation any more, but we're happy to hand this over to you to run as a 'Company limited by guarantee' (or whatever is the appropriate not-for-profit company structure)". See if there's interest in continuing to run it as a mission-based organization before juest auctioning it off.

But ultimately, I just don't think I see the moral argument for why Channel 4 should be state owned. The model for TV has profoundly changed in the past decade, so ownership should probably change with it.

A key point, the taxpayer doesn't pay a penny to C4. It makes its money from commercial income so that isn't an argument in anyway.

By keeping it under Govt ownership, it protects the public broadcasting requirements (niche programming that isn't viable otherwise by using profits from elsewhere, hard hitting/controversial programming, independent news and investigative journalism etc) and the requirement to use independent, regional production protects the base it provides these producers in an industry worth £bns. These won't be protected, or at the best massively watered down, otherwise why would a private business bother.

C4 has added a lot to UK culture under public ownership. So I'd argue that looking at why should it be under public ownership is the wrong way round, the question should be why should it be privatised, what is the benefit?

Nobody has been able to explain any real benefits of C4 privatisation. Mad Nad and this Govt are doing this for ideological purposes and a bit of revenge for the news coverage as assuming they actually get £1bn, that isn't much long term when you look at what C4 provides financially to our creative/TV industry annually.

*Also, I appreciate you are playing devil's advocate.
 
Change for changes sake.

I simply don't trust this government and particularly Nadine f*****g Dorries to handle it competently or in the best interests of preserving all that is good about C4 (which has been well detailed and documented in this thread).

Classic example.of knowing the cost of something, but not the value in a true phillistanic show of ignorance and intolerance from our dear Lords and Masters....
 
The government doesn`t move on from the 70s/80s media model - "They aren`t modernising".

The government does move on from the 70s/80s media model - "They shouldn`t do that".

Things have changed kids, want to cater to a niche market? Bung it on Youtube.

Ch4 should never have ditched TT. :)

🤷‍♀️ 🤷‍♀️
 
This is a lot of faff to get your own back, just because C4 occasionally holds you accountable in its reporting. This is probably about them replacing BoJo with an ice sculpture in 2019, after he refused to take part in a climate change panel along with the rest of the then-party leaders.

I would’ve probably left dog s**t on the doorstep before I sold off a profitable public-owned entity, but hey, I’m not in charge.

Yet.
 
The government doesn`t move on from the 70s/80s media model - "They aren`t modernising".

The government does move on from the 70s/80s media model - "They shouldn`t do that".

Things have changed kids, want to cater to a niche market? Bung it on Youtube.

Ch4 should never have ditched TT. :)

🤷‍♀️ 🤷‍♀️
Don't worry, I'm sure Grayson Perry has got room in his sidecar for a big beautiful weirdo like you;)

Nadine Dorries on the other hand...she can f*****g well walk:cool:
 
A key point, the taxpayer doesn't pay a penny to C4. It makes its money from commercial income so that isn't an argument in anyway.

By keeping it under Govt ownership, it protects the public broadcasting requirements (niche programming that isn't viable otherwise by using profits from elsewhere, hard hitting/controversial programming, independent news and investigative journalism etc) and the requirement to use independent, regional production protects the base it provides these producers in an industry worth £bns. These won't be protected, or at the best massively watered down, otherwise why would a private business bother.

C4 has added a lot to UK culture under public ownership. So I'd argue that looking at why should it be under public ownership is the wrong way round, the question should be why should it be privatised, what is the benefit?

Nobody has been able to explain any real benefits of C4 privatisation. Mad Nad and this Govt are doing this for ideological purposes and a bit of revenge for the news coverage as assuming they actually get £1bn, that isn't much long term when you look at what C4 provides financially to our creative/TV industry annually.

*Also, I appreciate you are playing devil's advocate.
That point about Channel 4's charter and the requirement to commission programming from independent, regional production companies is a key one here. Well before the term 'levelling up' was casually bandied about by recent governments, Channel 4 was doing exactly that, moving production away from a London-centric base and throughout the UK. That has become more even more important as the fusion of the regional ITV companies into one amorphous mass

@tonyw I thought that a well argued response , asking some really good questions but for this government it's not about creating a 'mission-based' company, which would be interesting but a piece of high profile political points scoring driven by an idiot.
 
Mad Nad cant help herself can she? ....


View attachment 8621

She doesn't have to worry about where the next meal/heating is coming from, or even choosing between one or the other' and she really doesn't care about it either it seems. As she has the empathy of a piece of granite that comment really isn't a surprise.
 
Don't worry, I'm sure Grayson Perry has got room in his sidecar for a big beautiful weirdo like you;)

Nadine Dorries on the other hand...she can f*****g well walk:cool:

Met Grayson Perry at the opening of the Stonehenge exhibition at the BM in February, how did you know? :oops: :oops:

And Mary Beard and George Osborne amongst others...
 
Back
Top Bottom