| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Robert Henderson" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2004 08:46:03 AM |
| Object: |
What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
"Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
"What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
(The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
world.)
The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
pc. Moreover, most of the electorate have no conception that she is not
a free agent in such matters. However, the latter does not come into
play here because, although the Queen's Christmas message is subject to
political control, regrettably this type of pc tosh will have met
with her personal approval, because she has the same Imperial fantasy
world view of her black and Asian subjects as did her great
grandmother, Queen Victoria.
Interestingly, the Telegraph reports today that the audience for the
Queen's message was the lowest since TVs became generally owned in
Britain (around the mid sixties). It was a mere 7 million this year. In
1991 it was 20 million.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.
|
|
| User: "Aardvark" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 10:14:20 AM |
|
|
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
"Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
"What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
(The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
world.)
The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
pc.
No it's not, because multi-cultural tolerance and goodwill is the norm among
most people.
She is in danger of alienating you, possibly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "uNkulunkulu" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 10:18:50 AM |
|
|
"Aardvark" <ambidextrous_aardvark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33aqmuF3vgekqU1@individual.net...
:
: "Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
: > "Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
: > their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
: > unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
: > much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
: > a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
: >
: > One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
: > "What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
: >
: > (The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
: > world.)
: >
: > The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
: > pc.
:
: No it's not, because multi-cultural tolerance and goodwill is the norm among
: most people.
:
: She is in danger of alienating you, possibly.
:
:
RH is a bigoted *****
--
VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT ENGLAND
VOTE SNP
uNkulunkulu
uMvelinqangi
Mina bona wena
mina bona lo mombi yena lo shatini
Skat lo Boss yena fika, nika yena iwhisky
uNkulunkulu@izulu.kya.kamina
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 03:22:22 PM |
|
|
"uNkulunkulu" <uNkulunkulu@izulu.kya.kamina> wrote in message
news:KBWzd.7703$Ar5.153@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Aardvark" <ambidextrous_aardvark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33aqmuF3vgekqU1@individual.net...
:
: "Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
: > "Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
: > their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy
about
: > unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is
so
: > much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is
indeed
: > a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
: >
: > One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
: > "What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
: >
: > (The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
: > world.)
: >
: > The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
: > pc.
:
: No it's not, because multi-cultural tolerance and goodwill is the norm
among
: most people.
:
: She is in danger of alienating you, possibly.
:
:
RH is a bigoted *****
Please explain the use of the term ***** here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 10:41:49 AM |
|
|
In article <KBWzd.7703$Ar5.153@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, uNkulunkulu
<uNkulunkulu@izulu.kya.kamina> writes
:
:
RH is a bigoted *****
Do stop projecting. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ivan" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 11:10:37 AM |
|
|
"Aardvark" <ambidextrous_aardvark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33aqmuF3vgekqU1@individual.net...
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
"Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
"What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
(The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
world.)
The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
pc.
No it's not, because multi-cultural tolerance and goodwill is the norm
among
most people.
I remember once telling a black workmate how tolerant this country was, his
response was "Yes, but who wants to go through life just being 'tolerated'?"
She is in danger of alienating you, possibly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Energumen" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 10:27:49 AM |
|
|
"Aardvark" <ambidextrous_aardvark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33aqmuF3vgekqU1@individual.net...
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
"Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
"What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
(The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
world.)
The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
pc.
No it's not, because multi-cultural tolerance and goodwill is the norm
among most people.
On an individual basis up until the point where serious democratic power
comes to a minority who does not share the mainstream's values and beliefs.
Look at Holland. Many people are simply not going to tolerate being
colonised and outbred by people who want to execute homosexuals, treat women
as cattle and most importantly even effectively end democracy itself. The
day of reckoning will have to come here as well as there. It's demographic
destiny.
She is in danger of alienating you, possibly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "uNkulunkulu" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
28 Dec 2004 04:08:58 AM |
|
|
"Energumen" <ener_gumen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41d03806$0$46772$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
: "Aardvark" <ambidextrous_aardvark@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:33aqmuF3vgekqU1@individual.net...
: >
: > "Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
: >> "Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
: >> their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
: >> unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
: >> much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
: >> a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
: >>
: >> One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
: >> "What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
: >>
: >> (The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
: >> world.)
: >>
: >> The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
: >> pc.
: >
: > No it's not, because multi-cultural tolerance and goodwill is the norm
: > among most people.
:
: On an individual basis up until the point where serious democratic power
: comes to a minority who does not share the mainstream's values and beliefs.
: Look at Holland. Many people are simply not going to tolerate being
: colonised and outbred by people who want to execute homosexuals, treat women
: as cattle and most importantly even effectively end democracy itself. The
: day of reckoning will have to come here as well as there. It's demographic
: destiny.
Women are not cattle and democracy should be upheld at all costs, however
homosexuality is perverse and those who will practice it need to undergo
serious psycho therapy to afford a cure that will return them to normal sexual
practice.
--
VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT ENGLAND
VOTE SNP
uNkulunkulu
uMvelinqangi
Mina bona wena
mina bona lo mombi yena lo shatini
Skat lo Boss yena fika, nika yena iwhisky
uNkulunkulu@izulu.kya.kamina
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 08:19:30 PM |
|
|
Energumen wrote:
"On an individual basis up until the point where serious democratic
power
comes to a minority who does not share the mainstream's values and
beliefs.
Look at Holland. Many people are simply not going to tolerate being
colonised and outbred by people who want to execute homosexuals, treat
women
as cattle and most importantly even effectively end democracy itself.
The
day of reckoning will have to come here as well as there. It's
demographic
destiny."
Here's an excellent streaming audio site for Free Speech Radio News on
how Australians are trying to deal with illegal aliens, asylum seekers,
and people smugglers. The Australian leaders don't seem as intimidated
as the Americans and British by the opinion of the "World Community"
with regard to controlling their own borders. This is one of the best
reports on the issue of immigration that I have heard in a long time.
http://www.fsrn.org/news/20041227_news.html
Australian Human Rights, produced by Erica Vowles.
ADELAIDE, Australia, September 2004: In a major address, the Secretary
General of Amnesty International, Irene Khan tells an assembled crowd
of Australians that the "framework of human rights, international law
and multilateral co-operation that Australia helped to build is today
undergoing the most sustained attack since its establishment half a
century ago. And, I am afraid that, contrary to its heritage,
Australia, far from resisting those attacks, is contributing to
them".
This documentary looks at some of the criticisms that Australia has
faced in recent years over its approach to human rights and focuses on
two aspects of current government policy - its treatment of asylum
seekers and its legislative response to the so-called "War on Terror".
Civil rights activists and international law specialists maintain that
Australia's policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers and its
legislative response to the War on Terror represent violations of
international law and impinge on key civil rights. However, Government
ministers remain adamant that the country has violated no international
treaties and maintain that Australia has the right to protect its
borders and people from terrorist and other threats. Drawing on
interviews with Government ministers, civil rights activists and
lawyers, refugees, Muslim Australians and academics. During the next
half hour we will look at the nature of Australia's engagement with
human rights in the 21st century.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
28 Dec 2004 08:20:12 AM |
|
|
In article <YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
Interestingly, the Telegraph reports today that the audience for the
Queen's message was the lowest since TVs became generally owned in
Britain (around the mid sixties). It was a mere 7 million this year. In
1991 it was 20 million.
"Interestingly"?
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
--
Malcolm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
28 Dec 2004 09:01:04 AM |
|
|
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
Interestingly, the Telegraph reports today that the audience for the
Queen's message was the lowest since TVs became generally owned in
Britain (around the mid sixties). It was a mere 7 million this year. In
1991 it was 20 million.
"Interestingly"?
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 01:01:40 AM |
|
|
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FLwPIIAwUX0BFwvp@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
is the pertinent
question, and then you'd need to know what other choices were on offer at
the time of the Queen's speech.
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Frazer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 AM |
|
|
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:A5puUqAUZl0BFwsf@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many
people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
'Most don't'? So do you know how many have Sky, Cable, Freeview no? Let me
help you.....
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/industry_market_research/m_i_index/dtvu/dtu_2004_q3/?a=87101
"By 30 September 2004 digital TV penetration was estimated to have reached
over 55.9% of UK households, up from 53.8% at 30 June 2004.(-1-)
In addition a further 3.5% of households were subscribing to analogue cable,
bringing the total receiving some form of multi-channel television to over
59.4%. Within these total figures, the key developments were:
* The total number of digital television households grew by 560,000 over the
quarter, increasing digital penetration by 2.1%.
* Sky's subscriber numbers increased by 53,000 to reach 7,085,000 in the UK
at the end of Q3 2004.
* Freeview (Digital Terrestrial Television) also saw an increase, with
household numbers estimated to have grown to around 3,915,000 in the same
period.
Latest estimates suggest there are also around 345,000 free-to-view digital
satellite homes. This figure includes viewers who are no longer Sky
subscribers but still receive the public service channels through their
set-top box. Also included in this figure are the ?Solus? viewers who are
able to receive the public service channels through this scheme.
In total there are now over 4.2 million free-to-view digital households.
(Freeview (DTT), plus free to view satellite).
The total number of subscribers to cable television remained around 3.36
million. Digital cable now accounts for just over 2.5 million of the total,
with 33,000 additions in Q3."
This compares with 1991......
http://www.terramedia.co.uk/statistics/cable_tv_subscribers_2.htm
"CABLE TELEVISION SUBSCRIBERS 1991 267,000 1.2 % of households"
2003
5,409,000 21.5
Which puts it all into a rather different perspective, don't you think?
I do hope I've helped you learn something today Rab ;-) xx
--
Steve Frazer
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Frazer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
30 Dec 2004 12:46:33 PM |
|
|
I take it you did learn something then!
"Steve Frazer" <stevefrazer@spamfreeworld.com> wrote in message
news:33frh5F3tbg82U1@individual.net...
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:A5puUqAUZl0BFwsf@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many
are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many
people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
'Most don't'? So do you know how many have Sky, Cable, Freeview no? Let
me
help you.....
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/industry_market_research/m_i_index/dtvu/dtu_2004_q3/?a=87101
"By 30 September 2004 digital TV penetration was estimated to have reached
over 55.9% of UK households, up from 53.8% at 30 June 2004.(-1-)
In addition a further 3.5% of households were subscribing to analogue
cable,
bringing the total receiving some form of multi-channel television to over
59.4%. Within these total figures, the key developments were:
* The total number of digital television households grew by 560,000 over
the
quarter, increasing digital penetration by 2.1%.
* Sky's subscriber numbers increased by 53,000 to reach 7,085,000 in the
UK
at the end of Q3 2004.
* Freeview (Digital Terrestrial Television) also saw an increase, with
household numbers estimated to have grown to around 3,915,000 in the same
period.
Latest estimates suggest there are also around 345,000 free-to-view
digital
satellite homes. This figure includes viewers who are no longer Sky
subscribers but still receive the public service channels through their
set-top box. Also included in this figure are the ?Solus? viewers who are
able to receive the public service channels through this scheme.
In total there are now over 4.2 million free-to-view digital households.
(Freeview (DTT), plus free to view satellite).
The total number of subscribers to cable television remained around 3.36
million. Digital cable now accounts for just over 2.5 million of the
total,
with 33,000 additions in Q3."
This compares with 1991......
http://www.terramedia.co.uk/statistics/cable_tv_subscribers_2.htm
"CABLE TELEVISION SUBSCRIBERS 1991 267,000 1.2 % of households"
2003
5,409,000 21.5
Which puts it all into a rather different perspective, don't you think?
I do hope I've helped you learn something today Rab ;-) xx
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 02:02:02 AM |
|
|
In article <A5puUqAUZl0BFwsf@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FLwPIIAwUX0BFwvp@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and, secondly,
if we add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your
"few million households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households.
So perhaps you would like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or
would that make you look a fool.........again?
--
Malcolm
.
|
|
|
| User: "MT" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 02:51:06 AM |
|
|
In article <EF7gXPp6Rm0BFwfL@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk says...
In article <A5puUqAUZl0BFwsf@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FLwPIIAwUX0BFwvp@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and, secondly,
if we add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your
"few million households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households.
So perhaps you would like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or
would that make you look a fool.........again?
I can't find a link just now as I'm off out, but if memory serves me
right, BSkyB has in the region of 7 million subscribers (many of these
are multiple or overseas), freeview has about 4 million and as for cable,
they were a bit too late ie sky are fairly dominant even in cable areas.
So basically something in the region of 1 in 5 households have something
other than terrestrial TV.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 04:02:37 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1c3c80354ad6e73698974b@news.individual.net>, MT
<pacman@operamail.com> writes
In article <EF7gXPp6Rm0BFwfL@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk says...
In article <A5puUqAUZl0BFwsf@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FLwPIIAwUX0BFwvp@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and, secondly,
if we add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your
"few million households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households.
So perhaps you would like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or
would that make you look a fool.........again?
I can't find a link just now as I'm off out, but if memory serves me
right, BSkyB has in the region of 7 million subscribers (many of these
are multiple or overseas), freeview has about 4 million and as for cable,
they were a bit too late ie sky are fairly dominant even in cable areas.
So basically something in the region of 1 in 5 households have something
other than terrestrial TV.
Err, my figure above of 40% of households is equivalent to 2 in 5.
--
Malcolm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Frazer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 07:58:36 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TxKlKfB9Co0BFwfO@indaal.demon.co.uk...
Err, my figure above of 40% of households is equivalent to 2 in 5.
If you see my other post you'll see the actual figures..... just shy of 60%!
--
Steve Frazer
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MT" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 11:48:49 AM |
|
|
In article <TxKlKfB9Co0BFwfO@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk says...
In article <MPG.1c3c80354ad6e73698974b@news.individual.net>, MT
<pacman@operamail.com> writes
In article <EF7gXPp6Rm0BFwfL@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk says...
In article <A5puUqAUZl0BFwsf@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <33ds8jF3ujcbcU2@individual.net>, Steve Frazer <stevefrazer@s
pamfreeworld.com> writes
"Robert Henderson" <Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FLwPIIAwUX0BFwvp@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
ROTFL! Come on Rab even you know that this is ludicrous. How many people
now have a much greater choice than they did in 1991
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and, secondly,
if we add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your
"few million households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households.
So perhaps you would like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or
would that make you look a fool.........again?
I can't find a link just now as I'm off out, but if memory serves me
right, BSkyB has in the region of 7 million subscribers (many of these
are multiple or overseas), freeview has about 4 million and as for cable,
they were a bit too late ie sky are fairly dominant even in cable areas.
So basically something in the region of 1 in 5 households have something
other than terrestrial TV.
Err, my figure above of 40% of households is equivalent to 2 in 5.
As I said, many of these are multiple subscribers ie they have more than
1 digibox in the house or got a digibox in the caravan at skipsy, and
overseas subscribers ie people in benidorm and teneriffe whose missis
can't do without missing corrie and eastenders.
So shall we settle on a figure of around 30%?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 03:00:29 AM |
|
|
In article <EF7gXPp6Rm0BFwfL@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and, secondly, if we
add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your "few million
households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households. So perhaps you would
like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or would that make you look a
fool.........again?
Nope, it would merely show that the numbers using new channels is small.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 08:46:12 AM |
|
|
In article <Zr3IwJAtIn0BFwui@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <EF7gXPp6Rm0BFwfL@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and,
secondly, if we
add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your
"few million
households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households. So perhaps
you would
like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or would that make
you look a
fool.........again?
Nope, it would merely show that the numbers using new channels is small.
*was* small, Rabbie, *was* small. Or, in other words, any comparison
between 1991 and 2004 has to take into account the enormous growth in
the number of available channels. You've boobed again.
--
Malcolm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Glynn" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 06:02:10 AM |
|
|
Robert Henderson wrote:
In article <EF7gXPp6Rm0BFwfL@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
Most don't. Even Sky is only in a few million households. RH
Firstly, we are discussing a greater choice, not just Sky and, secondly, if we
add cable and free-to-view digital terrestrial to satellite, your "few million
households" in 2004 amount to nearly 40% of all households. So perhaps you would
like to provide the comparable figures for 1991, or would that make you look a
fool.........again?
Nope, it would merely show that the numbers using new channels is small.
RH
Point of information. They haven't got the Christmas figures up yet
but the BARB ratings suggest otherwise. For the week ending 12
December, for example, the total viewing share (including timeshifts) was
Total Terrestrial: 55.9%
(of which BBC1 & 2 24.1%, total commercial 31.8%)
Total Non Terrestrial Channels: 44.1%
(Total Sky: 11.4% -- i.e. total of all viewing rather than total
non-terrestrial).
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=multichannel
Apparently audiences for TV shows are generally falling. I'd have
thought that the popularity of DVDs and computer games has a lot to do
with it.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
30 Dec 2004 01:13:34 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 at 12:02:10, Stephen Glynn wrote
:
Nope, it would merely show that the numbers using new channels is small.
RH
Point of information. They haven't got the Christmas figures up yet
Just as well, as they are not representative of the general picture -
more people watch terrestrial channels over the Xmas period than is the
case throughout the year. There's generally about a 4% rise in the
combined BBC1/ITV totals.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
28 Dec 2004 09:57:07 AM |
|
|
In article <FLwPIIAwUX0BFwvp@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <xbiNAlRcuW0BFw4u@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
In article <YumYhtArAC0BFw+R@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
Interestingly, the Telegraph reports today that the audience for the
Queen's message was the lowest since TVs became generally owned in
Britain (around the mid sixties). It was a mere 7 million this year. In
1991 it was 20 million.
"Interestingly"?
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
Which is a typically meaningless statement of the kind that you are so
good at.
Even if true, the "bulk" that used terrestrial channels in 1991 is still
going to be far larger than the "bulk" using them now. Unless, of
course, you would care to produce some actual figures for 1991 and
2004????
No, I didn't think so.
--
Malcolm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
29 Dec 2004 02:00:20 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Tue, 28 Dec 2004 at 15:01:04, Robert Henderson
wrote :
How many different TV channels were available in 1991 and how many are
there now?
There is in practice not a seismic change because the bulk of the
audience still goes to the terrestrial channels. RH
But an ever-shrinking proportion :
As of the week ending 12/12/04, the audience share was :
Non-terrestrial 29% (up from just 12% seven years ago)
BBC1 22%
ITV 24%
BBC2 9%
C4 9%
C5 7%
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scipio" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 07:03:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:46:03 +0000, Robert Henderson
<Philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that
their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about
unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so
much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed
a strength and not a threat." The Queen's Christmas message 2004.
One may apply Lincoln's question to pro-slavers to multiculturalism:
"What is this good thing that no man wants for himself?"
That's so very true, with regard to multicult.
In the States our problem is Latinos, but is very similar to what goes
on in the UK with Moslems. They do not want it for themselves, the
very idea seems silly to them, but they endeavor with all the PC,
ethnic organisations & lawyers they can bring to bear to yoke the
people whose country they wish to usurp with it.
The thing that really sets them apart their leftist American
counterparts however, is that they are entirely shameless about it,
make no effort whatsoever to veil the nature of what they are doing.
It is an element of their culture that these things must be visible
and obvious to the people whom they are screwing. The victims must see
them laughing about it, essentially. If Americans have been accused of
lack of subtlety, you ought to meet these people.
You can get some idea of why their nations and societies are so
stubbornly corrupt and hopeless, from this element of their culture
alone.
(The Queen, of course, lives in and has always lived in a very white
world.)
The crown is in danger of alienating general support with support for
pc. Moreover, most of the electorate have no conception that she is not
a free agent in such matters. However, the latter does not come into
play here because, although the Queen's Christmas message is subject to
political control, regrettably this type of pc tosh will have met
with her personal approval, because she has the same Imperial fantasy
world view of her black and Asian subjects as did her great
grandmother, Queen Victoria.
Interestingly, the Telegraph reports today that the audience for the
Queen's message was the lowest since TVs became generally owned in
Britain (around the mid sixties). It was a mere 7 million this year. In
1991 it was 20 million.
RH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
27 Dec 2004 10:45:10 AM |
|
|
Robert Henderson wrote:
"Discrimination still exists.
I was astonished by this comment. What on earth can she mean by the
word "still", as if it was something that happened in the past but less
so now? Discrimination is increasing almost daily. If she believes
otherwise, she is deeply ignorant and has no business commenting on
things she knows nothing about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
28 Dec 2004 09:28:15 AM |
|
|
You might think that, but my own experience is that there's far less
discrimination in society now than there was even 10 years ago. Things
are getting better. It's happening slowly, but things are getting
better and there's nothing the BNP and the rest can do to stop this!
Cheers,
TALT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfesser White" |
|
| Title: Re: What is this good thing no man wants for himself? |
28 Dec 2004 09:34:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1104247694.987417.210270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
You might think that, but my own experience is that there's far less
discrimination in society now than there was even 10 years ago. Things
are getting better. It's happening slowly, but things are getting
better and there's nothing the BNP and the rest can do to stop this!
Cheers,
TALT
The Muslims and various minorities will manage to keep discrimination
alive and flourishing.
Perfesser White
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
