Trouble at the BBC.

[dangie]

I'm really getting fed up with the constant headlining news coverage concerning the allegations being made against an un-named BBC presenter.
That is not fed up with the seriousness of the allegations, but simply because it's a BBC presenter, as if that makes it more serious.

 

[Howardh]

I'm really getting fed up with the constant headlining news coverage concerning the allegations being made against an un-named BBC presenter.
That is not fed up with the seriousness of the allegations, but simply because it's a BBC presenter, as if that makes it more serious.

Me too, like that other stuff a few weeks ago. I'm in switch-off mode. This country's gone barmy.....there's a war on our continent, people on wages - never mind those on benefits - are using food banks, mortgage rates are sky high, inflation, a zombie government, affects of Brexit, but oh, no, if it's not boats it's TV presenters.

There's a phrase ending in "sakes".

 

[Sm5]

I'm really getting fed up with the constant headlining news coverage concerning the allegations being made against an un-named BBC presenter.
That is not fed up with the seriousness of the allegations, but simply because it's a BBC presenter, as if that makes it more serious.

all we know is someone who cannot be named is alleged to have done something by someone who doesnt want to be named but is related, but is disputed by someone whom does not want to be named and is estranged.

why is this even news ?

Lets not forget those presenting on the BBC know exactly who it is, as its one of their colleagues, whos desk is empty.

The charade is just about making media $$$$.

if you want to know, its all over social media, and non-British news websites making a mockery of the whole thing. Indeed just type in his name its a number 1 hit in google and the story is immediately matched to the person, even his wiki page has been updated 20 odd times in the last few days.

If he’s done something, say it, otherwise it shouldnt be news at all. Trial by media is a scourge of British press, he’s trashed eitherway and may never get a fair trial even if he did do it, making mockery of justice.


Now a second person has allegedly come forwards…
Ask yourself, if this BBC guys ID is a secret, how come a second person who does not know the first, can come forward at all ?
Something doesnt add up, with how the story is breaking.

is the foreign media doubling down on a story ?
is the froeign media also feeding more details outside Uk jurisdiction ?

The same farce played out with Elton John (it always comes out eventually), and of course we have double standards where the BbC had inside info on Cliff Richard, fully named and shamed, only to be found he had no case, and ended up suing, winning but does nothing about the millions of Media £’s generated from a false story.

British media is out of control, and whilst i dislike Prince Harry, on this court case he is right and examples of this show why.
Part of the problem is British media is being foreign owned, who use the British press to generate much greater overseas revenues from antiBritish stories. Imo British Media should be British owned, all media is ultimately propoganda, at least ours should be controlled by us.

The US model seems better… if they have a scoop on criminal wrong doing, put it to the authorities, who do their thing first, but then journalist get‘s the exclusive afterwards. Only when there is a case to answer is it news.

if this person has done wrong, because of this fiasco, hes probably now got away with it, and if he hasnt his career will be over anyway as the story has leaked globally.

 

[AM9]

I'm really getting fed up with the constant headlining news coverage concerning the allegations being made against an un-named BBC presenter.
That is not fed up with the seriousness of the allegations, but simply because it's a BBC presenter, as if that makes it more serious.

There are a whole lot of players who are making the most of the opportunity to show the BBC in a bad light:

the Conservative Government,​

the right-wing press,​

large sections of big business,​

some of the TV streamers (e.g. Amazon, Prime and Disney), etc.​

I don't think the majority of the electorate would like the situation if they all succeeded in their ambitions.

 

[Sm5]

There are a whole lot of players who are making the most of the opportunity to show the BBC in a bad light:

the Conservative Government,​

the right-wing press,​

large sections of big business,​

some of the TV streamers (e.g. Amazon, Prime and Disney), etc.​

I don't think the majority of the electorate would like the situation if they all succeeded in their ambitions.

Like the Twitter debate about the BBC being state funded media.

it is. TV licence isnt optional if you want to watch TV, and it is a tax.
just like the london congestion charge and ULEZ is.

I dont see why the BBC shouldnt be allowed to do advertising and stand on it’s own feet, potentially even listed publically.. but with a 51% UK independent investor owned shareholding, to ensure foreign and corporates dont have undue influence.

 

[AM9]

all we know is someone who cannot be named is alleged to have done something by someone who doesnt want to be named but is related, but is disputed by someone whom does not want to be named and is estranged.

why is this even news ?

Actually, the legal ramifications of this whole matter are very much big news.

Lets not forget those presenting on the BBC know exactly who it is, as its one of their colleagues, whos desk is empty.

All of those people understand the importance of the right to privacy, - presumably you don't.

If he’s done something, say it, otherwise it shouldnt be news at all. Trial by media is a scourge of British press, he’s trashed eitherway and may never get a fair trial even if he did do it, making mockery of justice.

There may not even have been a crime committed here, so the legal jeopardy that anybody in the UK faces should prevent repeats of the Cliff Richard debacle. The remedy for your irritation about the whole issue is to avoid watching that part of the news. It's the lead article every day, so you can turn the sound down at the begginning,and when the next article starts, watch the rest of the news as you wish. That's your choice.

 

[najaB]

it is. TV licence isnt optional if you want to watch TV, and it is a tax.

It's a charge, not a tax. And it's only payable if you watch live TV.

I dont see why the BBC shouldnt be allowed to do advertising and stand on it’s own feet, potentially even listed publically.

Because then they would be at the beck and call of the advertisers. How many companies would pay for adverts on TV channel that is airing negative news stories about them? Don't forget that the licence fee also funds Channel 4 and SC4.

 

[AM9]

Like the Twitter debate about the BBC being state funded media.

it is. TV licence isnt optional if you want to watch TV, and it is a tax.
just like the london congestion charge and ULEZ is.

I dont see why the BBC shouldnt be allowed to do advertising and stand on it’s own feet, potentially even listed publically.. but with a 51% UK independent investor owned shareholding, to ensure foreign and corporates dont have undue influence.

If you don't watch any broadcast television at all, no licence fee is payable, however if you don't watch any TV at all, (and even if you don't have a TV), the basic products that you purchase (e.g. food, clothes, energy) are all more expensive as the high cost of TV advertising that pays for commecial programmes is part of the price build up. So just paying for others towatch ther programmes, however poor you my be.

Like the Twitter debate about the BBC being state funded media.

it is. TV licence isnt optional if you want to watch TV, and it is a tax.
just like the london congestion charge and ULEZ is.

I dont see why the BBC shouldnt be allowed to do advertising and stand on it’s own feet, potentially even listed publically.. but with a 51% UK independent investor owned shareholding, to ensure foreign and corporates dont have undue influence.

Contrary to right-wing anti-BBC propaganda, the UK is nowhere near the only country where public broadcasting is directly or indirectly funded by the state. This Wiki page (not controversial at all) gives details of most national television services' operating models, - many are in essence similar to the UK system.

 

[edwin_m]

if you want to know, its all over social media, and non-British news websites making a mockery of the whole thing. Indeed just type in his name its a number 1 hit in google and the story is immediately matched to the person, even his wiki page has been updated 20 odd times in the last few days.

Now a second person has allegedly come forwards…
Ask yourself, if this BBC guys ID is a secret, how come a second person who does not know the first, can come forward at all ?

You've answered your final point with the paragraph above it.

 

[birchesgreen]

You've answered your final point with the paragraph above it.

If you put in any kind of BBC-linked name you get wild claims to be honest

 

[Cowley]

I guess this story was bound to come up eventually so I’ve split this stuff off from the In Other News thread to stop that getting cluttered up. So firstly, some parameters:

1) Until a name has been officially released. Don’t name them.
2) Until a name has been officially released. Still don’t name them.
3) Not even subtly because you think you’re being clever
4) You get the idea.

Seems a bit odd linking a BBC story for this but here’s the latest development:

BBC presenter sent abusive and menacing messages to second young person

They say they were sent abusive messages by the presenter and put under pressure to meet up.

www.bbc.co.uk

A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.
The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app.
They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did.
When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
Speaking to BBC News, the young person - who has no connection to the person at the centre of the Sun's story about payments for photos - said they had been scared by the power the presenter held.
They said the threats made in the messages - which have been seen and verified by BBC News - had frightened them, and they remain scared.
The new allegations of menacing and bullying behaviour by the high-profile presenter raise fresh questions about his conduct.
BBC News has contacted the presenter directly and via his lawyer but has received no response to the latest allegations.

 

[Busaholic]

It's a charge, not a tax. And it's only payable if you watch live TV.

Except live includes BBC iplayer in the definition, so be careful. and it's neither a charge or a tax but a fee.

 

[Sm5]

Actually, the legal ramifications of this whole matter are very much big news.



All of those people understand the importance of the right to privacy, - presumably you don't.



There may not even have been a crime committed here, so the legal jeopardy that anybody in the UK faces should prevent repeats of the Cliff Richard debacle. The remedy for your irritation about the whole issue is to avoid watching that part of the news. It's the lead article every day, so you can turn the sound down at the begginning,and when the next article starts, watch the rest of the news as you wish. That's your choice.

Please dont presume, or tell me what to do.
your opinion is just as valid as mine.

my issue isnt around this story, it’s why this story is even on the news.
Imo this shouldnt be on the news, because it is not yet news ready (I didnt say worthy)

The legal system in this country is by laws and courts.
It is not by media giants directing journalists what to print and influencing public opinion.

Right now as I see it, foreign owned media is creating a news story that is one sided, is unproven and certainly not tested by law.
Yet those attached to the story line are being judged.
Why… to make profit for the media, who sell content worldwide.

This isnt about news, or public interest.. it about business, making a service to make a profit by creating a story that can be sold globally… its non-fiction poetry, sold in installments… the international editions of which contain more $ revenue generating details and are out of reach of UK laws.

Of course they would like the other parties side of the story, not to set the record straight, but to make even more money from it.

were we agree is privacy… this shouldn't be on the news at all, until proven, via the correct channels, and that isn't the broadcast media.

If theres a story here, its why is the media in the UK allowed to act in such a way ?

Today is a BBC employee, last time a musician, next time it could be you or me.

right now, no one knows the truth, and thats whats wrong with the story, and real lives are being impacted.

in such situations ”leaks” should be criminalised, as by its very nature its disclosure of information not in the public domain.. and if they occur, there really isnt many places to look for the source.. as always, just follow the money.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2023 ==

Except live includes BBC iplayer in the definition, so be careful. and it's neither a charge or a tax but a fee.

Its not optional, unless you chose not to have a TV at all.

I cannot chose to avoid paying fuel tax, vat either, except by not consuming the product.

Why not ask the Americans about paying for the congestion charge, if thats a fee or a tax either ?

This isnt a netflix subscription and i’m not paying the BBC… this is going to the government who give some of it to the BBC.
its state funded media, and we are citizens of that state who fund it, failure to pay drives state enforcement.

The most common definition of state media or government media refers to any media organization that is either directly or indirectly owned or operated by the state

The BBC is not private, just like France 24 or Deutsche Welle etc.

We can mince words all day, but a British propaganda perspective its a sweet innocent Tv channel that everyone willingly supports, outside the UK its no different to any other national news from any other country, good or bad, spreading news in the perspective of the country creating it.
It is this which is probably under attack from private media, as it presents competition and s barrier to further revenues.
which is why i believe UK media should be UK owned, and by small investors.. not corporates.

The government can still control and guide content shown to the UK Populace as it does today, as it is doing so with tools available to it as with this story.

 

[Mikw]

Bottom Line, BOTH the Sun and BBC are not naming the subject. A legal expert on Channel 4 said it's because they're both taking the same legal advice.
Also, Chris Gifford, the former editor of The Sun said earlier it doesn't matter whether the allegations are unlawful, or even true, Rupert Murdoch will be happy, he wants the destruction of the BBC and having everyone talking about this means they're less likely to be angry with the government about it's woes at the moment.

 

[Andyh82]

Me too, like that other stuff a few weeks ago. I'm in switch-off mode. This country's gone barmy.....there's a war on our continent, people on wages - never mind those on benefits - are using food banks, mortgage rates are sky high, inflation, a zombie government, affects of Brexit, but oh, no, if it's not boats it's TV presenters.

I never understand that sort of point. “Why report on [trivial story] when there is a cost of living crisis” is trotted out regularly

Unless there is something specific about those stories that has happened today, do you expect them to run a report just to remind people it’s still going on?

 

[Busaholic]

Is it just me who wonders why the BBC is insistent on making this the leading news item day in and day out? I can only think it's an editorial decision either to force the person's identity to be revealed or to put pressure on Director General Tim Davie, or maybe a combination of the two. If the latter, it's also playing into the Murdoch Sun's hands, of course, bur both sides might be happy with Davie's defenestration. His interview by Sarah Metcalfe on radio 4 was truly execrable.

 

[Andyh82]

Is it just me who wonders why the BBC is insistent on making this the leading news item day in and day out? I can only think it's an editorial decision either to force the person's identity to be revealed or to put pressure on Director General Tim Davie, or maybe a combination of the two. If the latter, it's also playing into the Murdoch Sun's hands, of course, bur both sides might be happy with Davie's defenestration. His interview by Sarah Metcalfe on radio 4 was truly execrable.

The media like nothing more than talking about themselves, particularly the BBC talking about the BBC

You will remember extensive coverage of the Gary Lineker controversial comments story, and of course the recent Schofield story

The BBC have the latter headline coverage day after day, a UK rolling news stream on the BBC News Channel, no end of breaking news app push alerts and multiple live blogs giving a running minute by minute commentary on that day’s This Morning in case something was said.

 

[tomuk]

It's a charge, not a tax. And it's only payable if you watch live TV.

Because then they would be at the beck and call of the advertisers. How many companies would pay for adverts on TV channel that is airing negative news stories about them? Don't forget that the licence fee also funds Channel 4 and SC4.

It funds most of S4C but Channel 4 is paid for by advertising it doesn't get license fee money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2023 ==

Except live includes BBC iplayer in the definition, so be careful. and it's neither a charge or a tax but a fee.

The ONS says the license fee is a tax.

In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the
licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the
National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the
licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to
BBC services… A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5,
satellite, cable”

From the
HOUSE OF LORDS
Select Committee on BBC Charter Review
2nd Report of Session 2005–06
Further Issues for
BBC Charter Review

 

[Sm5]

Is it just me who wonders why the BBC is insistent on making this the leading news item day in and day out? I can only think it's an editorial decision either to force the person's identity to be revealed or to put pressure on Director General Tim Davie, or maybe a combination of the two. If the latter, it's also playing into the Murdoch Sun's hands, of course, bur both sides might be happy with Davie's defenestration. His interview by Sarah Metcalfe on radio 4 was truly execrable.

It could also be a distraction from Hunts planned raid on £3tn of UK private pensions by forcing them to invest in UK companies.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/11/economy/uk-pension-funds-reform-hunt/index.html

one would ask, why would UK pensions need to be forced to invest in UK companies but it rather looks like the answer is embarrasing.. they are higher risk and lower reward than those options available overseas and has been so ever since the Tories came to office….

so feed the masses some short term scandal story instead.

UK media has become very insular, short term and inward looking, do our journalists even have passports anymore, for anything other than a story from a country that makes that country look worse than ours ? Or do they just read news feeds sent by corporate and translate to a local news story ?

A few weeks ago the media projected a global story of the British guy carving his name on the collosseum in Rome, cementing further Britophobia across the world… high profits and revenue… however that he is Bulgarian seems to have passed by unnoticed, and certainly wouldnt have been as valuable story if it had been.. don't worry those updates didnt make France 24, DW, Euronews, AlJazeera etc either.

its not just UK, TVN Poland recently ran a campaign against the Polish government claiming press freedoms and linking itself. to populist uprising of any reason against the government, to the point of sponsoring unrelated protests with TVN tshirts, badges etc.. Perhaps Warner Bros saw their revenues threatened?

I can sometimes read the same generic hard luck story in England applying to the English, and French, Italian and so on, often even with the same quotes and generic agency photographs.. all feeding the selected populace the same story, written as if its unique to their country… High revenue stories, minimum viable product.

imo foreign owned Media shouldnt be big business, it shouldnt be making the news, over riding laws and influencing peoples opinions.

 

[AM9]

Please dont presume, or tell me what to do.
your opinion is just as valid as mine.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but I am free to interpret your posts however I like to form my presumptions.

Just as nobody is forced to watch TV (thereby being liable for the TV licence fee), nobody, - even those with a TV licence, is forced to watch any particular programme including news broadcasts, so complaining that the selection of news items doesn't suit you changes nothing in the real world.

 

[tomuk]

It could also be a distraction from Hunts planned raid on £3tn of UK private pensions by forcing them to invest in UK companies.


one would ask, why would UK pensions need to be forced to invest in UK companies but it rather looks like the answer is embarrasing.. they are higher risk and lower reward than those options available overseas and has been so ever since the Tories came to office….

so feed the masses some short term scandal story instead.

Why does that announcement require distraction it is so boring that 99.9% of the populace would ignore it with out the need for the BBC story.

A few weeks ago the media projected a global story of the British guy carving his name on the collosseum in Rome, cementing further Britophobia across the world… high profits and revenue… however that he is Bulgarian seems to have passed by unnoticed, and certainly wouldnt have been as valuable story if it had been.. don't worry those updates didnt make France 24, DW, Euronews, AlJazeera etc either.

The guy lives with his girlfriend in Bristol despite being from Bulgaria originally.

 

[Sm5]

Why does that announcement require distraction it is so boring that 99.9% of the populace would ignore it with out the need for the BBC story.

when their 2-10% contributions from their monthly pay checks suddenly disappear in a decades time, then it will be a story.

Question now, not later.
(Though I assume there will be calls for Government to step in and help those who lose out, and counter calls saying it was their own risk, when actually its government using your cash to fill its own failures of responsibility to help grow the country).

why is it news overseas…. Its boring ?
well actually its oppourtunity to make money out of our pensions, and thats why its a story of interest in other countries.

But we dont see many counter stories in the UK suggesting opportunity elsewhere, and god forbid ever suggesting the EU. (other than if its an anti British or a hardluck story).

The guy lives with his girlfriend in Bristol despite being from Bulgaria originally.

Thats just not as marketable is it ?

 

[tomuk]

when their 2-10% contributions from their monthly pay checks suddenly disappear in a decades time, then it will be a story.

Question now, not later.
(Though I assume there will be calls for Government to step in and help those who lose out, and counter calls saying it was their own risk, when actually its government using your cash to fill its own failures of responsibility to help grow the country).

Can I ask why you have taken such a negative review of the proposed reforms? Do you work in the pension industry or financial services?

Thats just not as marketable is it ?

What do you mean by not marketable? It wouldn't be a story if he didn't live in Bristol? It was more of story because people assumed he was a Bristol native?

 

[brad465]

Yet another story that not only is being hyped up for dead cat purposes, but one that would be unable to gain traction if critical thinking education were widespread.

I guess this story was bound to come up eventually so I’ve split this stuff off from the In Other News thread to stop that getting cluttered up. So firstly, some parameters:

1) Until a name has been officially released. Don’t name them.
2) Until a name has been officially released. Still don’t name them.
3) Not even subtly because you think you’re being clever
4) You get the idea.

Seems a bit odd linking a BBC story for this but here’s the latest development:

BBC presenter sent abusive and menacing messages to second young person

They say they were sent abusive messages by the presenter and put under pressure to meet up.

www.bbc.co.uk

This has "First rule of fight club" vibes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2023 ==

Bottom Line, BOTH the Sun and BBC are not naming the subject. A legal expert on Channel 4 said it's because they're both taking the same legal advice.
Also, Chris Gifford, the former editor of The Sun said earlier it doesn't matter whether the allegations are unlawful, or even true, Rupert Murdoch will be happy, he wants the destruction of the BBC and having everyone talking about this means they're less likely to be angry with the government about it's woes at the moment.

Murdoch is one of those who just cannot ever get enough power: he's in his 90s and a multi-billionaire, he could have retired in his luxury a long time ago and nobody would have batted an eyelid. But no, he just has to keep trying to control the world through his media empire.

 

[tomuk]

Yet another story that not only is being hyped up for dead cat purposes, but one that would be unable to gain traction if critical thinking education were widespread.

Any particular news that this is distracting from?

 

[brad465]

Any particular news that this is distracting from?

Is there any news that it isn't distracting from?

 

[Busaholic]

It funds most of S4C but Channel 4 is paid for by advertising it doesn't get license fee money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2023 ==


The ONS says the license fee is a tax.

I can find thousands of references to the BBC licence fee on the internet, none whatever to a licence tax. If by ONS you are referring to the Office of National Statistics, please provide the relevant quote because, putting the relevant words into a search engine along with ONS presents no match.

 

[tomuk]

I can find thousands of references to the BBC licence fee on the internet, none whatever to a licence tax. If by ONS you are referring to the Office of National Statistics, please provide the relevant quote because, putting the relevant words into a search engine along with ONS presents no match.

In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the
licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the
National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the
licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to
BBC services… A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5,
satellite, cable”

From the
HOUSE OF LORDS
Select Committee on BBC Charter Review
2nd Report of Session 2005–06
Further Issues for
BBC Charter Review

 

[Sm5]

Can I ask why you have taken such a negative review of the proposed reforms? Do you work in the pension industry or financial services?

Yes but not currently, and Ive worked in multiple countries.
Ive seen how it can fail.
I see why pension funds would push back on this.

Generically, Remember their job, is to manage risk and raise return.
UK Pension funds are (generally and generically) heavily invested in lower risk higher yielding returns.. since 2008 other countries have become more attractive than the UK. To the point UK investments are becoming marginal.

A large part of £3tn of UK private pensions is no longer in GBP or UK investments.

it shouldnt be about forcing them to invest in the UK, it should be more attractive than alternatives, to invest in the UK.

put it differently, and to be simplistic ive made an example.

Imagine having the choice between investing in a 50 year old profitable Tin Mine in South America, a stake in an emerging countries debt thats growing GDP 2x every few years or a Start up in Walsall with a business plan written in a pub by a bunch of graduates.

Which are you going to pick to put a £1mn on ?

Now imagine youve got no choice, and youve just been mandated to out £100k in to the start up.. leaving you £900k for one of the other two …

Your steady return for the other two is reduced 10%.
But its still 90% of your investment, so its going to get your time and attention.

A few weeks ago I was talking with a very well known TV celebrity investor, who shared of the 10 investments he put a stake into on that “TV program”… 7 made it beyond the TV show, 6 failed within 3 years, just 1 made it him a triple digit return after 10 years…but it more than covered the other 6.

so your the pension fund…. Which one of your UK start ups is the “1“ ? Or do you dilute and go to a fund, that invests in all 10, but your only getting a 10th of a return from the “1”.

Your risk is higher, your interest in it is lower (You may just write it off from the outset).
But down the road that pension yield maybe 10% smaller return unless the lottery ticket called that number.

Remember personally, you get the comission now, or instalments but either way your golden long before the ticket is, so do you care ?

What do you mean by not marketable? It wouldn't be a story if he didn't live in Bristol? It was more of story because people assumed he was a Bristol native?

”A British guy writes his name on the Colosseum “
or
”A Bulgarian guy, living in Britain writes his name on the colosseum”
or
”A Bulgarian writes his name on the colosseum“
or
”A tourist writes his name on the colosseum”

Attach a price tag to the article. Sell it via PA, or Reuters etc, see it printed in the Singapore Straits times, SCMP, SMH, Toronto Star, El Pais etc etc etc….

which title of the above has more revenue potential to earn a few grand ?

heres a clue…

Bulgarian Tourist Coloseum.. 5.4mn hits on google
British Tourist Coloseum.. 34.8mn hits on google.


Media news is now a product, with a shelf life, just like Bread and Milk, its about how you label it that determined its value.

click on the link and for the savvy ones, a fraction of a cent will be transferred to some corps bank account on every click… 34.8mn shop windows selling your story, or 5.4mn shop windows…?
why would an American media giant care about semantics in the UK when billions of others around the planet get the Option to read an “Ugly British tourist” story, or a more truthful story about a tourist from country they may never have even heard of.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes but not currently, and Ive worked in multiple countries.
Ive seen how it can fail.
I see why pension funds would push back on this.

Generically, Remember their job, is to manage risk and raise return.
UK Pension funds are (generally and generically) heavily invested in lower risk higher yielding returns.. since 2008 other countries have become more attractive than the UK. To the point UK investments are becoming marginal.

A large part of £3tn of UK private pensions is no longer in GBP or UK investments.

it shouldnt be about forcing them to invest in the UK, it should be more attractive than alternatives, to invest in the UK.

put it differently, and to be simplistic ive made an example.

Imagine having the choice between investing in a 50 year old profitable Tin Mine in South America, a stake in an emerging countries debt thats growing GDP 2x every few years or a Start up in Walsall with a business plan written in a pub by a bunch of graduates.

Which are you going to pick to put a £1mn on ?

Now imagine youve got no choice, and youve just been mandated to out £100k in to the start up.. leaving you £900k for one of the other two …

Your steady return for the other two is reduced 10%.
But its still 90% of your investment, so its going to get your time and attention.

A few weeks ago I was talking with a very well known TV celebrity investor, who shared of the 10 investments he put a stake into on that “TV program”… 7 made it beyond the TV show, 6 failed within 3 years, just 1 made it him a triple digit return after 10 years…but it more than covered the other 6.

so your the pension fund…. Which one of your UK start ups is the “1“ ? Or do you dilute and go to a fund, that invests in all 10, but your only getting a 10th of a return from the “1”.

Your risk is higher, your interest in it is lower (You may just write it off from the outset).
But down the road that pension yield maybe 10% smaller return unless the lottery ticket called that number.

Remember personally, you get the comission now, or instalments but either way your golden long before the ticket is, so do you care ?





”A British guy writes his name on the Colosseum “
or
”A Bulgarian guy, living in Britain writes his name on the colosseum”
or
”A Bulgarian writes his name on the colosseum“
or
”A tourist writes his name on the colosseum”

Attach a price tag to the article. Sell it via PA, or Reuters etc, see it printed in the Singapore Straits times, SCMP, SMH, Toronto Star, El Pais etc etc etc….

which title of the above has more revenue potential to earn a few grand ?

heres a clue…

Bulgarian Tourist Coloseum.. 5.4mn hits on google
British Tourist Coloseum.. 34.8mn hits on google.


Media news is now a product, with a shelf life, just like Bread and Milk, its about how you label it that determined its value.

click on the link and for the savvy ones, a fraction of a cent will be transferred to some corps bank account on every click… 34.8mn shop windows selling your story, or 5.4mn shop windows…?
why would an American media giant care about semantics in the UK when billions of others around the planet get the Option to read an “Ugly British tourist” story, or a more truthful story about a tourist from country they may never have even heard of.

With regard to pension funds, is the proposed legislation not just a product of the age old problem of the sort of UK investors who should be taking more of a risk, not investing in British business ?