We're in this together?

[Albert Tatlock]

On 05/11/2017 at 2:21 AM, Stu Peters said:

I'm not 'subsidised' by the taxpayer either. I work as a contractor for a public service broadcaster. 

A £900k taxpayer subvention as part of a £2M annual spend might suggest otherwise.

[Stu Peters]

Manx Radio is owned by the people of the Isle of Man and is paid to provide a certain kind of service. Stop trying to make out it's a lame duck needing a charity handout.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

10 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Manx Radio is owned by the people of the Isle of Man and is paid to provide a certain kind of service. Stop trying to make out it's a lame duck needing a charity handout.

Excellent news Stu, an addition to my investment portfolio that I didn't even realise I had! What sort of returns can I expect and how do I cash out at the end? 

[Neil Down]

37 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Manx Radio is owned by the people of the Isle of Man and is paid to provide a certain kind of service. Stop trying to make out it's a lame duck needing a charity handout.

That explains why my licence refund circumnavigated my bank account and went straight to Manx Radio then

[the stinking enigma]

I think this thread is a little unfair on stu. 

[woolley]

That's what Stu is there for.

[Stu Peters]

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments for public service radio again, it's boring for all of us.

But I stand by my point - M.R. is providing the service it was set up to provide, achieving some of the best listener figures in the British Isles, winning industry plaudits, working to a strict commitment to content and charging what its owners (the taxpayers) are prepared to pay for that service. Like schools, hospitals, utilities, the arts etc. Those same taxpayers (or the Treasury on their behalf) might decide they would prefer to save the money and leave another radio jukebox of 'more music' and very little local content, or scrap the national broadcaster altogether. Whilst some on here would relish that like a mob before the gallows, there are thousands more who would not.

But whatever the future, please stop suggesting it's a charity case reliant on handouts, or doing the same job as its competitors. Neither assertion is true. And to Neil and Manximus - as you well know it's not a commodity or investment vehicle either.

[notwell]

Well said Stu

[woolley]

Liked the post Stu, but just a FEW less of those overbearing, godawful adverts would help if you could see your way when setting policy for next year. Oh, and if you could tell the people who make them that having some twat shouting the advertiser's name at the top of his voice does not induce the listener to look favourably on buying their merchandise. More likely to prompt the listener to hit the off switch.

[Operation Mockingbird]

36 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

 public service radio again, it's boring for all of us.

Indeed. I don't know why my tax money goes to prop up that boring propaganda mill.

[Operation Mockingbird]

38 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

But whatever the future, please stop suggesting it's a charity case reliant on handouts

Why? It's true.

[Albert Tatlock]

36 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments for public service radio again, it's boring for all of us.

But I stand by my point - M.R. is providing the service it was set up to provide, achieving some of the best listener figures in the British Isles, winning industry plaudits, working to a strict commitment to content and charging what its owners (the taxpayers) are prepared to pay for that service. Like schools, hospitals, utilities, the arts etc. Those same taxpayers (or the Treasury on their behalf) might decide they would prefer to save the money and leave another radio jukebox of 'more music' and very little local content, or scrap the national broadcaster altogether. Whilst some on here would relish that like a mob before the gallows, there are thousands more who would not.

But whatever the future, please stop suggesting it's a charity case reliant on handouts, or doing the same job as its competitors. Neither assertion is true. And to Neil and Manximus - as you well know it's not a commodity or investment vehicle either.

It's not a charity case (honest). It just relies on the taxpayer dropping 9/20ths of its income every year...and notice how the 11/20th's over the last few years have stayed the same albeit by a few hundred quid.

It suggests a dinosaur, reliant on taxpayer money that can't be arsed getting off its arse and increasing its earnings. A bunch of salaries.

The finances show that. Stagnant, but with us paying for inflation over two or three years.

 

Read the accounts.

[Speak The Truth]

Much as I hate to back the paramount of Manxness that is Stu Peters.

His  researched and insightful spouting's  would be sorely missed by my dog.

One thing MR has done is promote the Manx language, for an hour,or two a week, it has also provided shite radio every afternoon for years, unless you have an interest in why women have to wait in line to lick pavements.

 

I massively support subsidising local media that reports, investigates and questions.

On that basis I am proud to contribute to Kremlin radio.

[The Duck of Atholl]

9 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

 

 and charging what its owners (the taxpayers) are prepared to pay for that service.

Really? Was there some sort of referendum or consultation on this? I must have missed it.

£900K in these straightened times is a lot of money. If the station is so brilliantly successful in terms of listener figures then it should be able to stand on its own two feet. 

[Neil Down]

9 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments for public service radio again, it's boring for all of us.

But I stand by my point - M.R. is providing the service it was set up to provide, achieving some of the best listener figures in the British Isles, winning industry plaudits, working to a strict commitment to content and charging what its owners (the taxpayers) are prepared to pay for that service. Like schools, hospitals, utilities, the arts etc. Those same taxpayers (or the Treasury on their behalf) might decide they would prefer to save the money and leave another radio jukebox of 'more music' and very little local content, or scrap the national broadcaster altogether. Whilst some on here would relish that like a mob before the gallows, there are thousands more who would not.

But whatever the future, please stop suggesting it's a charity case reliant on handouts, or doing the same job as its competitors. Neither assertion is true. And to Neil and Manximus - as you well know it's not a commodity or investment vehicle either.

You can't deny that we had no choice where our licence fee rebate went can you. MR is IOM's mini version of the BBC. The taxpayer pays for it. MR gets subsidies. If they are as successful as you say they are then they should stand on their own two feet.