In the news

Posted on
Page
of 2,983
First Prev
/ 2,983
Last Next
  • Sorry to hear that, I also have a child being supported by CAHMS and can relate to some of what you have been through. Fortunately she has had fairly straight forward access to CAHMS but I am involved with a charity that supports one of her conditions and hearing what other families have to endure in other parts of the country is horrifying. From a purely pragmatic point of view, not spending the money to help the young people early is committing the Government to a far bigger spend long term to support the individuals later on, let alone the trauma that could be avoided and avoid being passed on to another generation.

  • I'm glad you are getting help. My other child has been fortunate in accessing help, so we got really lucky there. One child is getting the support and the other isn't. It's complete potluck. The bottom line is that inter-generational trauma is being ignored, and our young people/children are being failed. I feel for people in worse situations than mine.

  • Re: channel 4 privatisation - are there any positive examples of privatisation?
    It is early and I haven't yet had video those might be a silly question

  • Telecommunications
    Air travel
    Freight and haulage
    BP

  • I'd say that until the recent clusterfuck British Gas / energy was a good example.

    Fundamentally one of the problems with assessing it, is that most of them took place in a very different time and (to the best of my knowledge) went hand in hand with a state monopoly.

  • What I don't understand is why you'd bother privatising C4?

    Literally just for that one-off lump sum?

    I mean how much will that actually be?

  • Ideology. The belief that the state should be as small as possible.

  • Yeah maybe. Maybe a precursor to, or shot across the bows at the BBC?

    But it's commercially operated, self-funding, and surely staffed by non-public sector workers, right?

    I mean it's hardly an ideological battle ground is it?

    Gonna write to my lame tory mp anyway.

  • It's critical of govt and doesn't want to be sold.

  • As a fuck you for continuing to call the conservatives out on the news, the melting snow man they used to replace Johnson etc etc.

    It’s pretty unjustifiable and disgusting they’re going ahead with this.

  • Also bear in mind that our intellectual powerhouse of a culture secretary thought that Channel 4 did receive public money.

    If those making the decision are so ill informed it's not going to be that rational a decision.

  • Would it need to be voted on in parliament before they do this?

  • Probably but with the current majority that is a formality.

  • Yeah I get that but I’d still like to see it debated and see how it’s justified.

  • They probably have one of their mates lined up to buy it.

    Probably but with the current majority that is a formality.

    The depressing reality of UK politics

  • I mean it's hardly an ideological battle ground is it?

    It's the worst kind of idealogical battle ground - C4 accurately report what the government is doing, and the government absolutely fucking hate that. This government, like no other, is allergic to scrutiny. Get rid of C4 into the hands of one of their chums, that goes away. Get rid of the licence fee in '27 and that goes away. It's the Orban playbook.

  • It’s proper dumb as C4 doesn’t receive public funding and is financially self sustaining. But critical of thin skinned Johnson so it has to be smashed up.

    As for the BBC, would it be a surprise if they somehow engineer it so that the licence fee stays but is paid to a private company, just imagine all that guaranteed income and opportunity for skimming off the top…

  • The BBC has a very closer relationship with C4, all kinds of commercial and production agreements. I see it as solely an attack on the BBC.

  • Will be interesting to see who the tories have got lined up to buy them; the industry as a whole seems to be completely against it so it's probably too toxic for a current player to touch it. It's just going to be private equity isn't it? And the sly link to tory ministers isn't going to come out until way too late!

  • I'd say that until the recent clusterfuck British Gas / energy was a good example.

    These ex-employees might disagree:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/202­1/apr/14/hundreds-british-gas-engineers-­lose-jobs-fire-and-rehire-scheme-tougher­-employment-terms

    But from the shareholders' perspective it's been alright.

  • from the shareholders' perspective it's been alright.

    From an informed consumer's pov it's been alright too.

    If you have the ability to switch suppliers there has (up til recently obvs) been strong competition and potentially low prices with packages tailored to your requirements.

    There is a wider question about what happens to uninformed consumers who can't switch, but as privatisations go it did at least provide the intended aims.

  • A choice between lining shareholder pockets to a greater or lesser extent? 👌

  • I like the bit where we pay French state-owned EDF so they can subsidise prices for French consumers.

  • On the wider subject of energy security, don't EDF want to build Sizewell C reactor because France has said no more nuclear (as have many EU countries) but they want the taxpayer to pay for it but they also want to get the profits which would only be possible if the taxpayer pays to build the thing?

    At least thats what my interpretation of the Sizewell C situation is.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

In the news

Posted by Avatar for Platini @Platini

Actions