It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Elsewhere they have advertising that subliminally controls the minds of the masses into buying stuff they don't need.
If you ask why Icke should be in London (and hence require money to pay for the prime position), you should also be asking why the BBC and others should be wasting taxpayers money on similar prime locations...London is obviously central to and well connected to travel links, hotels and hospitality for the guests you mention...come on, it's a capital city so there's also a prestige value to having a venue there.
Originally posted by Spiro
Originally posted by Sankari
No it doesn't. The TV licence doesn't go to the mainstream media, it goes to the government. The government requires this money by law, not the mainstream media.
You obviously dont live in the UK. It does go to mainstream media [at least partial] becuase they need funding to improve. The money goes nowhere near the government.
For reasons see my post above.
Be safe be well
Spiro
Originally posted by MysterX
Actually the government sets the fee (fixed until 2016), but the BBC (or MSM in the UK) get's it and decides how to spend it.
And they spend so much money on the BBC website ALONE that it makes Ickes £100,000 look much less than chicken feed.
BBC Online cost £186.6 Million in 2011, that is AFTER a 25% reduction in spending in 2010...Vs. Icke's costs for a 'people's voice' Streaming TV and radio service at around £100,000.
Who's the money grabber again?
Originally posted by Spiro
Greetings,
Originally posted by MysterX
Actually the government sets the fee (fixed until 2016), but the BBC (or MSM in the UK) get's it and decides how to spend it.
It appears you are in agreement with my post because I said the same thing, more or less.
And they spend so much money on the BBC website ALONE that it makes Ickes £100,000 look much less than chicken feed.
BBC Online cost £186.6 Million in 2011, that is AFTER a 25% reduction in spending in 2010...Vs. Icke's costs for a 'people's voice' Streaming TV and radio service at around £100,000.
Who's the money grabber again?
I am not entirely sure why you are asking me who the money grabber is? I am well aware of the BBC vrs Icke funding. I have not said anything about it? I was replying to a member who said that the the governement get the money, not anything to do with what your saying?
Whats the point of your post?
Be safe be well
Spiroedit on 2-6-2013 by Spiro because: fix quote tags
Originally posted by MysterX
Although i was replying to essentially support your own point of view, i was also addressing the wider ATS reader, not just yourself.
The point i was making was for those posters who are centered on the financial aspects of Ickes' new venture, to show that in comparison to established corporations, the finance required to get 'The People's Voice' website up and running is laughingly negligible, thus demonstrating if Icke was a conman proposing the venture simply to elicit money, he's very, very cheap...essentially free by the BBC's financial standards.
Since Icke is setting his website up in direct competition with the BBC's, £100,000 of funding against £186.6 Million of funding is a very small price to gain another voice with which to inform the British Public.
That's all.
Originally posted by FreedomEntered
It already exists. I mean there are already alternative Tv channels. So wondering how Ickes will differ from the others.
All the money that tax payers pay for TV. Is not going or being spend on Tv programs. Because they just repete the same programs to save money and reality TV is very cheap to film.
Its a con.