The Other 'Public Service Broadcasters': Some Initial Thoughts

In a post-BBC world, we would hope that the whole of broadcasting and the state's involvement in media and information is brought under renewed scrutiny and a new regulatory framework is developed.  As part of such a review, Britain's other 'public service broadcasters' ('PSBs') will need to be looked at - these are Channel Four (main channel only), S4C, Channel 3 (chiefly ITV - main channel only - and also ITN) and Channel 5.

Note: The BBC, itself Britain's premier 'public service broadcaster', [in]famously uses this same expression as its marketing tagline, but for the purposes of this piece we have in mind its more technical meaning.

Here we merely set out some brief and initial thoughts on the subject.  This is very brief, especially with regard to ITV: we will have much more detail to provide at a later point.  Our intention is to more fully flesh out the policy options and our preferences as part of a Green Paper consultation process.  Needless to say, our views here are completely separate from the issue of the BBC.

Channel Four

Channel Four is owned by the state and its content is controversial, but we do not see this as an issue of the same gravity as the BBC because in this case state ownership is only nominal - the channel actually receives its revenues through on-air advertising and other commercial ventures.  However, this does not mean that Channel Four is an entirely commercial operation.  While the state does not actually fund Channel Four in any way, the taxpayer does underwrite the channel and would be responsible in the event of losses or collapse.  (Incidentally, this is a point that those who favour commercialisation, even privatisation, of the BBC may wish to note!). 

It is essential in our view that Channel Four ceases to be publicly-owned, but unlike most people who comment on this issue, we would like to see Channel Four put into social 'not-for-profit' ownership.  We do not favour privatisation proper.  Under what we tentatively propose, Channel Four would be privately-owned, but it would not be profit-making.  Instead, any returns earned by the channel would be reinvested in programming or other acceptable ventures.

Socialisation of Channel Four would align with its ethics and values more completely than privatisation, would contribute to plurality in the broadcasting landscape, and would provide a more suitable outlet for alternative and fringe broadcasting - Channel Four's original mission - than a 'for profit' structure could.  What we also have in mind is that with the closure of the BBC, there would be a need to give the political Left and other radical and alternative movements a major terrestrial broadcasting concession that generally expresses their views, opinions and values.  That in itself is an important public service because it provides a virtual interest community for a sizeable section of the population.  At the same time, strict controls on expansion, diversification and audience share would need to be made explicit (using statutorily-codified corporate articles, if necessary) so as to ensure that the newly-structured and re-purposed Channel Four does not become 'another BBC'.  Of course, insisting on a 'not-for-profit' form for the legal entity would all-but preclude multi-media expansion and cross-ownership anyway, but the desire and wish to stop any such developments would need to be expressed in law and be backed-up by a regulator.

Who would own Channel Four?  We would envisage a broadcasting co-operative of cultural organisations and charities, as well as individuals and companies with a social conscience, and maybe even local authorities and other public bodies.  A useful model for this are socially-aware media enterprises like The Guardian and Private Eye, which are owned by trusts, seek to preserve editorial independence (within the parameters of their own socio-political biasing) and which do not seek to profit.  Interested investors and participants could come forward to take ownership of the channel and commit to providing the relevant public service content.  Bids could be invited or the government could adopt some other method of selecting suitable providers.

Of course if a co-operative could not be formed, some form of privatisation would have to be considered as the fall-back option - though care would need to be taken in that regard to ensure that the channel's sell-off or public flotation is seen to be commercially-viable in light of a failed socialisation initiative.  

S4C

Turning to S4C, the Welsh language channel, this is also a state broadcaster, but its programming and production are closely-tied to the BBC, to the extent that one might say that S4C is now almost-entirely dependent on BBC Wales and the wider BBC for its delivery.  Therefore the prospect of closure of the BBC would raise urgent questions about S4C.  

We would call for a referendum in Wales on whether the channel should be devolved to the Welsh Government or an attempt made to place it into private ownership.  If devolved, then S4C becomes the responsibility entirely of government in Wales and it will be up to the Welsh Government (accountable to the Welsh Assembly) to decide on the precise ownership structure and other arrangements.  If S4C has to be sold, then that is straight-forward enough: essentially it's a case of selling a going concern made up of a brand, programming archive and whatever plant and assets are available.

Alternatively, S4C could be affiliated in some way with a re-structured Channel Four along the same lines and under similar terms as the current S4C-BBC relationship.

ITV (Channel 3)

ITV is Britain's private sector 'public interest broadcaster'.  Although now privately-owned and very successful, this success has come off the back of a series of cynical and regressive corporate agglomerations that began during the 1990s.  These put profit before programming quality and the public mission of the Channel 3 providers.  

Against that background, we believe there is significant justification and scope for regulatory intervention in ITV in order to promote plurality in broadcasting.  If we could draw up the plans, we would make ITV this country's primary PSB and require that it leads a renaissance in regionalised broadcasting.  In short, we want ITV to return to its original mission and revert back to full and meaningful regionalisation and plural ownership and a true 'independent network' along the lines of America's PBS (though more in terms of structure than content).

We would like to see a regulatory structure that encourages this process over a gradual period of maybe 5 to 10 years, with the co-operation of the shareholders and company boards involved - but, if necessary, the regulator should force the issue, and even dictate new regionalised corporate structures.  The regulator should so act with the full moral support and legal and constitutional backing of Parliament.

ITV is perhaps the most challenging of the 'other PSBs' to deal with due to its commercial success and the natural reluctance to tamper with it.  We don't want to interfere with private property rights, and certainly it would not be the intention to injure the interests of shareholders - but we think re-regionalisation is essential, not least to promote a proper free market and real, meaningful choice.  

ITN (Channel 3)

ITN seems to us a success story, but ITN's purpose is to provide a national-remit news service for a commercial ratings-driven television network, thus its production values and news-style need to be somewhat sensationalist. Any damage it does is counteracted by the availability of information nowadays from numerous sources, especially social media.   

Channel 5

Channel 5 is the 'general entertainment channel'.  The bread and circuses option.  We have no outline proposals for this channel at this point.  Channel 5 is a trashy channel that broadcasts mostly rubbish, but that is what it was set up for, and it seems to us that it fulfils its remit.  People do have the right to watch rubbish.  Channel 5 delivers.  There can't be any complaints.

Further Comment

The core purpose of the 'public service broadcasting' concept is not to assure quality and standards, as such, but to provide the different and varied segments of the general audience with a televisual pantheon from which they can select their viewing options according to their own particular tastes and values.  The original idea was that those who want quality and more considered viewing will tune into the two main BBC channels; those who wanted quality entertainment and dramas, and programmes with a strong regional focus, would tune into the independent network; those who wanted programmes that were a bit esoteric or different could choose Channel Four.  With the establishment of a fifth channel during the late 1990s, viewers also had a popular entertainment option.

This 'pantheon' model for the PSB framework is being challenged by the expansion of broadcasting into multiple-channel Freeview and now social and micro-broadcasting platforms on the worldwide web.  These developments show that a pantheon of choice can be provided perfectly well by the free market and even by co-production among consumers themselves.  However, the PSB channels are adapting to the realities of Freeview, digital and online broadcasting, and the state should give them the freedom to continue to do so.  We believe the concept of 'public service broadcasting' should continue with it, but with a shift in meaning that reflects a 'rolling-back' of the state from superintendence (and in the case of the BBC, even interference and control) to minimal framework regulation.  

We would envisage the state's role as ensuring that PSBs together represent and provide a minimal range of choices in broadcasting, so that entirely market-driven changes in provision by non-PSBs do not degrade the minimal assurance of plurality.  This can be managed perfectly well without the BBC.  The end of the BBC would present an opportunity to look again at Channel 3 especially and re-regulate to encourage a renaissance in genuine regional broadcasting.

"No-One Forces You To Watch It"

Arguments used in defence of the BBC often seem quite cogent and reassuring at first, but on closer scrutiny, many of these arguments are revealed to be ridiculous and do not stand up to scrutiny.

One of our favourites is the one where we’re told that no-one is forced to watch the BBC, people can just switch-over to another channel or not watch TV at all, and on this basis the BBC’s continued existence should be tolerable to us. 

The obvious flaws in the argument are that:

(i). anybody who wants to watch TV at all must have a TV licence and therefore must fund the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not; and,

(ii). the BBC is also part-funded out of general taxation, and also indirectly subsidised by the taxpayer in a number of ways, meaning we all fund the BBC anyway, including those of us who don’t even own a TV or watch the stupid rubbish (which is most of us in this campaign group, by the way).

But those flaws don’t get to the root of it.  What the BBC defenders will say in response is that even though we must all fund the BBC, we still don’t have to watch it, so in that sense nobody is forcing the BBC on us.  So does the argument hold water?

Actually, this argument isn’t even true in any practical sense.  The BBC is not just a few TV and radio channels that you can switch off and ignore, it is a massive state-owned and state-controlled multi-media conglomerate with interests in TV, radio, journalism, publishing, the arts and creative industries, teaching and learning.  The BBC plays a key role in news gathering across the country, locally, regionally and nationally, and often internationally – to the extent that the BBC could be regarded as a major news agency in its own right - and chances are that any story you may read or hear about has the BBC’s fingerprints on it somewhere.  The BBC is also part of the governing elite of the country – the Establishment – and is regularly the subject of news reports itself.  As well as being highly influential on its own account, the BBC has close connections with the influential and powerful right up to the Prime Minister.  The BBC furthermore has a strong relationship with the security and intelligence services, and a number of its journalists have formerly served in MI5 or MI6.  We could go on and on with the points, but that will do for now.

Against all this, protests such as ‘No-one forces you to watch it” seem laughable.  Yes, no-one forces anybody to literally sit in front of a TV or radio and watch or listen to the BBC, but we are all influenced by the Corporation’s output whether we like it or not.

Have You Received An E-mail From Us?

Thank you for reading the e-mail we sent you, and thank you for visiting our site.

We'd like to stress that the most important thing you can do to help bring about change at the BBC is to sign the latest petition. Here's the link.  Please share that link with your friends, family and contacts - thank you very much.

More About Us

We appreciate you taking the time to find out more about our campaign.  Here we will explain things a little bit and also set out why this issue may be relevant to you and your local community.

We know you are busy, so we will try to keep this relatively brief.

As explained in the e-mail, our campaign is for the abolition of the BBC.

We summarise why we oppose the BBC in this link.  The issues we take are both with the concept of a state broadcaster and with the way the BBC itself operates.  It is clear to us that the BBC cannot be reformed.  Reform has been promised in the past and little or nothing has been achieved.

We demand nothing less than the total shutdown and closure of the BBC and its disposal by asset sale.  In doing so, Britain would become perhaps the world's first country other than the United States without a state broadcaster - a major step forward for civil liberties and an example to the international community.

What Does 'Abolition' Mean?

In practical terms, abolition of the BBC means:

- all BBC transmissions, radio and television, to cease on a specific date and at a specified time to be decided by Parliament;

- the shutdown and closure of all BBC operations;

- revocation of the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates as a so-called 'public service broadcaster'.  This can be done by a government minister (under Crown prerogative), with approval by Parliament;

- dissolution of the statutory Corporation (this requires an Act of Parliament);

- receivership, break-up and sale on the commercial market of all the BBC's assets;

- the proceeds of this sale to be placed under the custodianship of a legacy trust (two government ministers as the trustees, and administered by civil servants), which will meet all continuing contractual, statutory and legal obligations whatsoever of the BBC (including commercial debts, redundancy payments, pension commitments and so on);

- for the avoidance of doubt, abolition of the TV licence in Britain (each of the Crown Dependencies, where the TV licence also applies, would make their own decisions according to local circumstances);

- the refund of TV licence money to licence payers through time-limited claims at branches of the Post Office (and perhaps other government-approved outlets); and,

- any surplus from the legacy trust to be paid annually to support community-based broadcasting and other non-state media initiatives that Parliament may wish to assist.

What Are The Aims Of The Campaign Itself?

Our primary aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as its policy.

Through this campaign, our further aims are to raise awareness of the problems with the BBC and build popular momentum for the cause of abolition - both to address what we regard as the evils of the BBC itself and also to abolish state media in this country for good, in the interests of all.

How Is All This Relevant To Local Communities?

The BBC is relevant to local communities in the following ways:

(i). Individuals and households are often the subject of aggressive, harassing and intrusive inquiries from the BBC's TV licence enforcement arm, TVL.  The BBC can and does criminally prosecute individuals - resulting in fines, and occasionally imprisonment when the fines are not paid.  This causes needless worry and distress, often for innocent people or people who simply cannot afford a TV licence.

(ii). There are consequences for the taxpayer in that the BBC's enforcement costs money, and the BBC is also subsidised in this regard by the involvement of the police (to keep the peace both during the execution of search warrants and when ensuing criminal fines are enforced through levy and seizure of goods), and through the involvement of lawyers, the courts, social workers and prisons, and others.  Some of these costs - mainly the police and social services - have to be met from local budgets.

(iii). The BBC plays an important role in news gathering everywhere in the country.  Stories from the BBC cascade down to local and regional press, and often local and regional journalists will pick up on and pursue the narrative set down by the BBC.  This helps set the political tone in society.  We believe the BBC's bias is generally towards the political Left and towards metropolitan concerns.  Even if you are politically of the Left yourself, the concern we are asking you to consider here is that the bias results in important issues that affect the public being omitted and censored from public debate.

(iv). The BBC's coverage is generally London-centric and reflects metropolitan preoccupations.  This bias, together with the sheer massiveness of the BBC, helps to stifle discussion and debate of problems and issues in the rest of the country.  Furthermore, when the BBC does discuss parts of the country outside London and the south-east, it tends to be in a way that is negative and focuses on problems.  Of course, there are problems and they need to be discussed, but the negativity reflects a patronising attitude that BBC people have to the rest of the country.  The regions, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, do not have their own inimitable broadcasting.  BBC regional operations are mere cost centres and branches of the BBC, and mostly, if not entirely, fronted by a series of journeymen presenters who are not from whatever is the relevant county or region and who are believers in the narrow social dogmas that prevail within the BBC institutionally.

(v). The BBC does not, or does very little to, celebrate and highlight the regional cultures of Britain and its heritage.  Instead, the BBC has pursued a bland, anodyne, multi-cultural attitude to Britain and often presents white British cultures and ethno-nations in particular as 'problems' to be dealt with rather than unique and distinctive aspects of British life to be celebrated.

How You Can Help Us

If You Agree With Us, then please sign the latest anti-BBC petition.  Please also share the petition link widely with family, friends, contacts and work colleagues.  Please also consider assisting us in other ways, as explained in this link.

If You Want Change At The BBC, Not Abolition, then please sign the petition anyway, as that will help put pressure on the BBC.  Please also share the petition link with family, friends, contacts, work colleagues, etc.

If You Disagree With Us, that is fair.  We know that the BBC does have support and we obviously appreciate that not everybody will agree with us - in which case, thank you for your time.

Questions?  Comments?

If you have questions or comments for us, or if anything is unclear, please feel free to e-mail us.

THANK YOU!

Tim Price Petition & General Campaign Update

The Tim Price Petition is going respectably, but - as we expected - sign-ups have slowed-down after the initial novelty wore off. At just over 7,000 signatures, the petition has reached the natural limit of what can be achieved based on low-intensity effort.  In particular, we noticed that over the last two days there have been virtually no new sign-ups without our active intervention.  We are not aware of any other organised efforts to promote this petition.  Taking these points together, any further progress will depend entirely on our own exertions and those of our supporters.

As of this morning, we've stepped-up our sign-up efforts and we're starting to get lots of interest again. Certainly, we want the Petition up to 10,000 signatures at some point in September, if we can.  Given the radicalism of the Petition, even just 10,000 signatures overall would be respectable, though we do hope to exceed this.

We're also slowly building-up our campaign in other ways:

1. From tomorrow, we will be sending our a mass mailing to key contacts and influencers in local communities where support for the petition is strongest.  This will be an e-mail in which we raise awareness of our campaign and the issues with the BBC, and ask that recipients sign and spread the word about the latest petition.

2. We intend to get our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC trending on Twitter.  Over this weekend, we will be bringing together the tweeps who want to help us with this for a 'dry run' and to formally launch this aspect of our campaign.

3. We will also be developing our web and social media presence further and hope to improve the look and professionalism of our 'brand'.  Some tentative steps will also be taken towards putting our campaign on a more 'legal' footing.

4. We will also be looking at ways to hone our social media strategy and work with other campaigners on lines of attack.

5. We will be expanding our presence online and looking at avenues to spread our message to a wider range of people as well as improve communication with our existing contacts and supporters.

6. We will be looking at how we can reach out to other pressure groups with similar interests, not just in broadcasting-related matters but across the spectrum of issues.  Some of these, we hope, will help spread the word about our campaign and the petition; others may assist our campaign in other ways, and possibly vice versa.

7. If the petition sign-ups continue to climb, we will consider making a surgery appointment with one or more of our activists' constituency MPs in order to begin pressing our case at a more formal level.  We know the reception we are likely to receive in some quarters, but we also know that at least a few MPs, especially in the Conservative Party, are (to some degree or other) quietly sympathetic to campaigns such as ours.

8. Another major aspect of our campaign at this stage is related to policy work.  We intend to write to every political party and campaign group registered with the Electoral Commission, and any non-registered parties and groups of which we are aware, with a series of questions regarding their policy on broadcasting and the BBC.  This is the first stage of our Green Paper process, which we hope will culminate in a consultation to be circulated among our supporters and any other interested parties.  

9. Finally, we will be filing a complaint with the House of Commons' Petitions Committee regarding the handling of our original petition application.  We are of the view that our own petition, which explicitly called for abolition of the BBC, was wrongly rejected.  Nothing can be done about that now, but we want to seek assurances from the Committee about the handling of any such applications in the future.  We also believe there are flaws in the petition process, which should be drawn to the attention of the Committee and on which we will be seeking a response and comment.

Twitter Gold 008: Culture Jamming

pic.twitter.com/U4SaCr8tFf

— boycott the BBC (@boycottTheBBC) March 11, 2016

Way of the World and the Future of Media

An important role of the BBC was to bind the country together by propagating shared values and providing, through its media, a virtual space in which the knowledge, science, arts and culture of Britain could be celebrated and discussed, and in which public affairs could be rigorously debated.

The BBC has failed in this mission and has become instead a propaganda outlet for a narrow social agenda.  Technology is providing choice and self-empowerment and allowing us to compare the BBC's output with others and recognise its limitations and distortions.  We no longer have to rely on one single source or a few sources for our information, we now have a multiplicity of sources and the BBC's lies and shortcomings are becoming painfully apparent.

The future of media once the BBC is gone will be marked by an expansion of media diversity. Some providers will be quite sizeable and focused on advertising revenues through the provision of escapist entertainment - films, sports, sensationalist news and so on.  Other providers will cater to more considered tastes, aiming at viewers and listeners who want to be informed.  Each type of broadcaster and media provider will be building its own virtual community: we self-identify and associate with others through our tastes and interests.

In this digital landscape of virtual interest communities, there will also be a need for the recognition of a meta-community, the basis for overall cohesion in society - embodying the civic norms and values that regulate daily life and represent the vision and ideation of Britain shared by the country's different and disparate interest groups.  The BBC was supposed to be a pillar of Britain's meta-community and was meant to uphold it, but it can't and won't, and it must go.  The beginnings of what might take its place are emerging, in voices on the web and in a radical political movement out in the country that aims to counter and ultimately upturn the Leftist dispensation.

Way of the World's channel represents a style of media that has emerged over the last 10 years or so in which content creators use digital platforms to broadcast a coherent polemic, and rather like the vigorous debates of the coffee shops of early modernism, anyone can comment underneath and begin a dialogue with others.  In this environment, discussion is 'de-socialised' and opinion is 'de-publicised'.  The truth is not handed-down to us on a plate from a Platonic broadcasting elite; instead, there is argument and debate and views and opinions become 'private' again, because we have re-learnt that views are based on interests. Emerging from this are renewed calls for a reactionary dispensation; not just a simple free market, but an older type of society that is really a complex, architectonic ecosystem with certain essential features: Borders, Independence, Culture, Families, Tradition, Hierarchy, Freedom and Identity.  The "British' Broadcasting Corporation has no place in this future, nor does any state media.  

Room 101: Richard Higson

Richard Higson, BBC filmmaker:

I'll bet you anything the Beeb lasts longer than your silly campaign

— Richard Higson (@RichardHigson) August 28, 2018

Will he be proved wrong?  We'll have to see...

But for now, some more of Richard Higson's greatest hits:

The 'locking people up' bit? Actually, I do think it should be enforced, or the whole system become a mockery. Personally, I believe in the BBC for it's value, social cohesion and independence. I suspect you don't for reasons that aren't linked to broadcasting

— Richard Higson (@RichardHigson) August 28, 2018

Anyway, I actually have to go now as I have a meeting at the BBC in half an hour about making more programmes for them. Tra! Good luck with your campaign and your 97 followers

— Richard Higson (@RichardHigson) August 28, 2018

Shame no one cares then. Good luck with your campaign

— Richard Higson (@RichardHigson) August 28, 2018

Sure will! It's your money I'll be spending, thank you!

— Richard Higson (@RichardHigson) August 28, 2018

We extend the The #AbolishTheBBC Challenge to Richard Higson, and also to Gary Philipson of BBC Tees who contacted us via Twitter.  So far, neither has accepted.

Nor has Jim Hawkins, who demands to know who we are and where we are from:

Oh, stop it. You offered to come on a local radio programme. Therefore, knowing where you’re from is quite key. As is, having a name for the person I’d be talking to.

— Jim Hawkins (@jimallthetime) August 28, 2018

Our response to that:

Stop what?
(i). YOU contacted us.
(ii). We have offered to put someone forward to be interviewed.
(iii). You can ask them what you like.
(iv). Our campaign is pertinent to Shropshire, just like anywhere else.
(v). Local radio can and does interview people outside its region.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 28, 2018 

The BBC Is Already A Business

In this video, we see that the BBC's private sector enforcement arm, TVL, works as a sales operation.

This is nothing new to us.  It would be accurate to call TVL a mixture of sales, marketing and enforcement.

Sales- Persuading people (i.e. using harassment, threats, bullying and intimidation to coerce people) to buy a TV licence.

Marketing- Campaigns in the press, on TV and on public billboards (i.e. terrorism, threats and public shaming) informing people about the opportunity to buy BBC's products (i.e. passive-aggressive bullying).

Enforcement- Can't or won't pay?  The BBC takes you to court, and ultimately you may go to prison.

The state can run a business quite as well as anybody else, and just as ruthlessly as the worst of the private sector.  Those who worry about the commercial acumen of the BBC and how it would manage should it be privatised or commercialised needn't be concerned.  The BBC will thrive in the commercial world.

In fact, the BBC is strictly a business already, and has been for a very long time - except that unlike other businesses, its customers include people who do not even want its product, and they must pay up or face imprisonment.

Now that’s what we call a business model! 

If the BBC Board went on Dragon’s Den, we expect investment offers would be coming thick and fast.

Country Bumpkins Newsflash

One thing that we’ve been missing in our lives is the experience of being condescended-to by supercilious Germans:

The BBC is not a state broadcaster. It is neither state owned (it's the British Broadcasting _Corporation_), nor state controlled, much to the annoyance of most, if not all, British governments. And the British government doesn't fund the BBC. So why would you want to abolish it? https://t.co/75edbciAw5

— Ayden Férdeline (@ferdeline) August 22, 2018

He's assuming that we're thick ignoramuses who don't understand or are not aware of the relevant concepts and lingo.  He is wrong on that count and in his understanding of how the BBC works in reality.  The belief that the BBC is not a state broadcaster but in fact a 'public service broadcaster' is a weasel formulation and does not reflect what really goes on.

We repeat here some brief facts we have previously posted about the BBC, its origins and history, and the way it operates today:

(i). The BBC (as the then-British Broadcasting Company) was established in the early 1920s as popular radio broadcasting technology began to emerge.  The first BBC was a conglomerate of various interests in the radio and communications industry - so originally, the BBC (or its immediate precursor) was a private enterprise. However the government intervened early on and started meddling in the running of things to allow for ‘remote state control’ of broadcasting (a phrase used at the time).

(ii). The BBC was soon turned into a statutory Corporation by Act of Parliament, and re-named the British Broadcasting Corporation - operating under Royal Charter, and run by government appointees. 

(iii). State editorial control of the BBC has happened recurrently.  The obvious example is during the Second World War.  The Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1948 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, was based on the BBC.  A more recent example is the BBC’s policy on coverage of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.  The BBC’s senior management wanted to adopt a critical editorial line, and the BBC’s defenders often use this affair as an example of the BBC’s independence – often mentioning the Gilligan Affair - but this was soon put a stop to and in the event, the BBC’s coverage of the Iraq War was bland and conformist.  The truth is that the BBC folded like wet cardboard.

(iv). The BBC has failed to cover other wars in a critical way on numerous occasions.  Another example would be Britain’s military intervention in Libya in 2011, in which the BBC’s coverage was mostly bland and supine.  These examples illustrate the dangers of having a broadcaster under state influence and control.

(v). Today, the senior managerial and executive tiers of the BBC are thoroughly politicised, much like the Senior Civil Service.  The BBC is formally accountable to government ministers for its operations and ministers decide the terms and parameters for the operation of the BBC.  The government awards parts of the BBC grant-aid out of general taxation and even settles the TV licence fee each year.  This political control will inevitably have a broad influence on the BBC's editorial direction, its institutional culture and values, and its editorial narratives concerning key issues and controversies.

(vi). Five members of the BBC Board - its governing body - are appointed by the state, including the chairman and one non-executive member for each of the Nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).  Members of that Board are analogous to shareholders in a limited company, thus state appointees strategically direct the BBC.  It is the case that a majority of the Board are appointed by the BBC itself through its nominations committee, but it would be naive to assume that there is no government influence in these appointments.

(vii). Furthermore, all senior management appointments at the BBC must be approved by government ministers.

(viii). It can be added that the TV licence fee is officially regarded as a tax, and payment is ultimately enforced by the state with the assistance of the police (albeit the police only assist passively), the courts and prisons.

Then there's this information, from a former BBC journalist [click on the image to read it]:

It's clear that the BBC is a state broadcaster and is under a degree of state control.  The German is the ignorant one.  He should stick to commenting on his own country.

"The BBC Maintains The Highest Editorial Standards..." Except When It Doesn't

One of the myths propagated by BBC stooges is that the BBC (especially its news and current affairs capacity) represents a sort of Platonic elite of broadcasting.  The BBC itself plays up to the notion and enjoys repeating at every opportunity, like a boring uncle at a wedding, the prideful and epithetic appellation: 'public service broadcaster'.  Their insistence in this regard has become sufficiently irritating that some of us have unkindly started to question whether it's actually true - a lesson for us all, perhaps, in the dangers of over-stating one's case.

There are regular slips.  Earlier this month, the BBC reported on the Scottish Government's annual public accounting statistics (known as Government Expenditure and Revenue Statistics - or 'GERS' for short), in a way that suggested the SNP administration is over-spending.  This was grossly inaccurate.  The BBC had conflated UK-wide spending outside the devolved government's competence with spending by the Scottish Government itself.

The Scottish Government’s entire budget = just over half of the total amount of taxes raised in Scotland (£60Bn in 2017/18). The deficit figures are after UK Govt spend on pensions, welfare and cost of UK national debt service, Trident nukes (not wanted here) et al are added in!

— Paul Wheelhouse MSP 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@PaulWheelhouse) August 22, 2018

Protests and demands for an apology followed.  Initially, the BBC denied there was any inaccuracy, but eventually there came an apology.

Of course, even the BBC's worst enemies would not demand that it should provide accurate news each and every time, and we do not make such an unreasonable demand.  The BBC is a human organisation and mistakes will creep in, even when the highest standards are maintained; and, if the incident we mention here had been merely a routine embarrassment to the BBC of the sort that any sizeable media concern inevitably has to endure now and then, we would not think to bring it up.  All that's needed is a correction and, if appropriate, an apology.  Big deal.

Yet it seems that the BBC have reported on the GERS inaccurately in one of the past two successive years as well:

Hi Paul. They lie in their headlines the same way every year. Here are Jackie Bird's opening lines from GERS day reporting Scotland in 2016 and 2017. I complained, they conceded they were wrong yet they persist. It is very deliberate and completely dishonest. pic.twitter.com/FZMPZyRzJu

— Tam Jardine (@Tam__Jardine) August 22, 2018

The 2017 one was about public spending as a whole, not Scottish Government. So two out of three. There is a huge proportion of total spending that continues to be outwith SG control - we cannot cut spend on Trident, say, or use full welfare powers to help inclusive growth.

— Paul Wheelhouse MSP 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@PaulWheelhouse) August 22, 2018

We find this from back in 2016:

"The corporation’s Editorial Complaints Unit [ECU] has upheld a complaint relating to an item that aired on August 24th 2016.

"The item related to the GERS [Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland] report which purports to show the financial status of Scotland. 

"According to the complainant, Reporting Scotland anchor Jackie Bird misled viewers when she read out the introduction to the item.  Viewers heard the presenter say: “The Scottish Government is spending nearly fifteen billion pounds more than it’s bringing in in tax.

"The statement, according to the complainant, was misleading as it implied ‘Expenditure’ in GERS is by the Scottish Government, and that the Scottish Government brings in all the ‘Revenue’ in GERS.  Official documents showed that £40,536M of ‘Expenditure’ was by the Scottish Government and £28,045M was by the UK Government."

It looks like a pattern.  Anybody who thinks the BBC does not have a partial agenda is naive.

Paul Wheelhouse adds:

I am often frustrated by ignorant coverage but have often shrugged it off - this goes into seriously fake news territory & given how important this issue is, this sort of disgraceful misrepresentation is totally unacceptable from a very well resourced public service broadcaster.

— Paul Wheelhouse MSP 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@PaulWheelhouse) August 22, 2018

We are not supporters of Scottish Independence or the SNP and its anti-white Leftist agenda, but that is not the point.  The BBC's reporting here is, on any interpretation, plainly inaccurate.  It implies that the Scottish Government cannot manage itself financially based on both Scottish devolved spending and UK-wide spending. This isn't the 1940s.  The BBC has no right to act like some sort of propaganda department, whether it may be aiding the Left or, as here, fulfilling some sort of UK government agenda.

Here's the BBC's on-air apology for the inaccurate 2018 story:

pic.twitter.com/ih89T5Copf

— Iain #FBPE #FBSI 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@jimmytabuk) August 23, 2018

In the Herald:

"THE BBC has apologised on-air for bungling its coverage of Scotland’s finances after an SNP minister branded it “disgraceful” and “fake news”. 

"The corporation interrupted its 1pm TV news bulletin to admit it confused the finances of the Scottish Government with those of the public sector as a whole.
"It followed a report on Wednesday about the annual Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland (GERS) statistics. 

"These showed the Scottish deficit in 2017/18 - the difference between all public spending and Scottish tax income - was £13.5bn or 7.9 per cent of GDP. 

"However the BBC report said the Scottish Government spent £13.5bn more than its income, which would be illegal. 

"GERS public spending covers both devolved and reserved matters."

The BBC's ideals are in rags.  We are not arguing against ideals in society.  Asking people to be generally honest is an ideal and also attainable and desirable.  A soldier is expected to be loyal to his country, and this again is both attainable and desirable.  Perhaps a difference between the soldier and the journalist is that, whereas for the soldier loyalty is an essential part of his duties - which cannot be performed correctly if he is disloyal - for the journalist, impartiality is not the essence of his trade, and unless he is simply a bare fact reporter, some partiality and bias must always creep in.  Thus, media and journalistic impartiality is not just a laudable ideal, it is almost-always a Quixotic aspiration - impracticable and unattainable.

The danger with the BBC is that people continue to believe the deceit that it can be impartial.  Some people even think that it is.  This is actually unfair on the BBC and its journalists.  BBC bias campaigners are setting the BBC on a fool's errand.  Those who do so because they actually believe in the BBC's own corporate ideology would be better-off realising that it is a myth, even a lie, and settling on a case for abolition and closure.  But we suspect most protest bias not because they are opposed to bias as such, but because they want the BBC to be biased towards them.  The SNP politicians and activists mentioned above are an example.  They are not guided by principle or by opposition to the outrage that is the BBC.  Their concern is purely parti pris in nature, and so while we do not hesitate to highlight the injustice done to them, we ultimately put them in the same category as the BBC and condemn them.  Theirs is a selfish and dishonest agenda, but highlights again how the BBC's Quixotic values and mission serve as a fig-leaf for vested interests of all sorts.

How You Can Help (Version III)

YOU can help us.

Here's how:

1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition.  [Note: UK Parliament will send you an e-mail with a link that you need to click on to confirm your signature to the petition.  If it doesn't appear in your Inbox, please check your Spam/Junk folder].

2. Share our blog posts with others: click the social media links at the foot of each post.

3. Add your own comments to our blog posts to let us know you support us.

4. Visit and click 'Like' on our Facebook Page and invite others to do the same; 'Like' and share our Facebook posts.

5. If you use Facebook a lot, add our campaign banner to your profile photo.  Just save the .png image below to your computer [right-click, then Save as...], then go to the Facebook frames page and follow the instructions.

6. Follow us on Twitter, add the campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC to your profile description, and press 'like' and 're-tweet' whenever you see one of our tweets. 

7. Tell friends, family and work colleagues about our campaign and suggest they search online for our campaign hashtag: google #AbolishTheBBC 

8. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions. 

9. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of contacts or influencers who can help?

THANK YOU!

Twitter Gold 007

Apparently nothing to watch on ITV, C4, Netflix, Prime, Sky... or Freeview or even YouTube!

— Warren Whyte (@CllrWarrenWhyte) August 23, 2018

Resistance News 002

The left will not win.

— Kevin (@Kevin45498807) August 27, 2018

Resistance News 001

At least in Scotland they dont send BBC TV Licence evaders to prison like they do in England & Wales. 📺@BBCNews pic.twitter.com/ebqxbz9s0U

— JobCentreSUCKS (@DWPscumbags) August 23, 2018

Standing Up For British Heritage Peoples

An Australian politician, Fraser Anning, stands up for British Heritage Peoples and for the political order that is the English signature: social, economic and political liberty.

Would you hear a British politician say this?  If not, why not?  It’s rare enough in Australia - even there, Fraser Anning is on the fringe.  But turning to Britain, could the absence of similar voices in the front-line of British politics have at least something to do with the BBC and the wider Leftist Establishment of which it is part? 

The existence of a state media that is institutionally Leftist and hostile to the white British is a powerful force against dissent.

The #AbolishTheBBC Challenge

Our challenge to the BBC:

1. Mention, just once, our campaign hashtag, #AbolishTheBBC, live on one of your shows, so that the BBC's own viewers and listeners can seek us out and decide for themselves about the BBC.

2. In addition, or in the alternative, we are happy to put forward one of our number for an interview on a live broadcast of yours - radio or television.  On the simple condition that we can speak freely and mention our campaign, you can ask us whatever you like.  All you need to do is e-mail us to make the necessary arrangements.

*********************************************************************************

Further Comment

To the best of our knowledge, nobody at the BBC has taken us up on 1 above, and certainly the BBC has not taken us up on 2 above.  This is puzzling - what could the BBC possibly have to fear by informing its own loyal viewers and listeners of our campaign?  Ipso facto, viewers and listeners should be dutiful supporters of the BBC rather than us.

The Reithian Principles and the BBC’s own notional commitment to 'impartiality' require that all viewpoints are heard.  Replying to us on social media (which several BBC personalities have done) is not enough, the BBC is a broadcaster.  So we await contact from somebody at the BBC - either they mention our campaign hashtag or they invite us on air.  They can contact us at any time.

We expect to be issuing this challenge to everybody we encounter from the BBC.

*********************************************************************************

How You Can Help

If you support our campaign:

1. Send the BBC a link to this page and ask them why they haven't taken us up on The #AbolishTheBBC Challenge.

2. Issue the BBC with your own #AbolishTheBBC Challenge along the same lines - and if you make it onto the air, or the BBC mention you, let us know!

THANK YOU!

Room 101: Jim Hawkins From The BBC

Jim Hawkins is a mid-morning presenter on BBC Radio Shropshire.  As such, he is a rather obscure figure, and a quick perusal over his biography suggests a fairly humdrum, though successful, career in the lower rungs of journalism, broadcasting and media.  We'd never heard of him, though he may be recognised in Shropshire for all we know.

Mr Hawkins has found us on Twitter, and an exchange ensued.  The tweets are below, with our narration.

First, Mr Hawkins obliquely suggests that the BBC solves problems rather than causing them.  In response, we ask Mr Hawkins why he has to rely on the taxpayer for a living and we point out that the BBC has helped the Establishment conceal Britain's politically-incorrect problems.  We refer him to one of our pieces here on this site.

Why do you need to rely on the taxpayer for a living, Mr Hawkins? As for the BBC solving problems, the BBC has spent the last 60 years covering up problems & censoring & bullying away dissenting voices. Probably our best piece so far and explains it: https://t.co/XOs6L1p6or

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 26, 2018

He doesn't reply but instead complains about the length of the piece.  We accept the complaint.

1/2. There is nothing wrong with the English in the linked piece. We surmise from your response that you haven't bothered with it and just assume we're 'thick Northerners' or something similar. We will bring down the BBC - and we will also publish this exchange on our site.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 26, 2018

It's perfectly true that is a long piece and it is not for everybody.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 26, 2018

So we send him a link to a shorter article that we think he might like:

Here's a shorter one: https://t.co/gfYmHEYKb6

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 27, 2018

We then issue Mr Hawkins with a challenge:

Will you meet the #AbolishTheBBC challenge, Mr Hawkins? Just mention us on your BBC show, directing your listeners to our campaign hashtag: #AbolishTheBBC. That way, BBC listeners can consider our case and decide for themselves. #BBCImpartiality #ReithianPrinciples Thanks!

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 26, 2018

We're several people from the north of England. We're happy to put forward one of our number who can appear on your show.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 26, 2018

2/2. Why don't you mention us and the current petition on your BBC show? We assume you will have nothing to fear, since the BBC is so wonderful; and, after all, your listeners must be loyal to the BBC ipso facto.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 26, 2018

Mr Hawkins has not responded. So this is our attempt at an amusing dig:

Hey everybody! The BBC's secret police are on to us! "Who are you, and where are you from?" Very Nineteen Eighty-Four-ish.#AbolishTheBBC https://t.co/WFK6Uny9XT

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 27, 2018

An Update On Those Marvellous Charles Dickens Dramas

“Drama to get your pulse racing” they call it at the BBC.

But we imagine watching the BBC’s ‘wonderful dramas’ won’t quite quicken the pulse as much as being sent to prison for the heinous offence of not having a TV licence:

"A CHRONICALLY ill grandmother from west Belfast was last night spending her first night in Hydebank Prison after she was arrested for non-payment of fines for not having a TV licence. 

"Anne Smith (59), who has serious mobility issues and is awaiting a double-hip replacement, was ordered to present herself to police by 5pm yesterday so she could begin a six-day sentence behind bars.
The mother-of-four, who has 12 grandchildren, told The Irish News yesterday that she was "terrified" at the prospect of being imprisoned. 

"Police called at the Poleglass woman's home on Friday with a bench warrant for her arrest, which had been issued because of unpaid fines for not having a TV licence. 

"Ms Smith, who suffers from the debilitating lung condition COPD, as well as osteoporosis, said she was given until Monday to try and sort the matter. 

"However, despite engaging a solicitor and contacting the court to pay the fine, which amounts to just over £1,100, she was prevented from settling the outstanding debt because a bench warrant had already been issued. 

"Police returned to her address on Tuesday to arrest her however, as some of her young grandchildren were present, police instead told her to present herself to Musgrave Police Station by 5pm yesterday to be taken to Hydebank to begin her detention."

Apparently, the BBC doesn't like old women with lung and hip problems who have care responsibilities and can't leave the house:

"I think it is utterly ridiculous that they would arrest a woman over a TV licence. I wish I had just paid the fines. 

"I broke my hip and was unable to get out of the house for a whole year. In hindsight, I should have had a licence but because of my health, and I had to help my sister through cancer, I didn't get to do it."

And the crucial quote, which the newspaper does not forget to include:

She added: "I would say to other people, especially those with young children to go and make arrangements to get a TV licence if this is the lengths to go to. I never dreamed they would come and arrest me and put me away."

For the purpose of emphasis, let’s just run through what this poor woman will have experienced:

• Worry and distress over threatening and bullying letters from a ruthless and avaricious private sector enforcer, telling her that she has to pay money she doesn’t have or else.  


• A visit from a thug who extracted the money from her under duress (she probably had to beg of a friend or relative).  


• Then, despite paying the protection money, there is a court summons.  


• Humiliation in court, a fine she can’t pay, then her name in the local papers and a de facto criminal record.  


• More worry because she can’t pay the fine.  


• More visits, this time from court-appointed thugs calling themselves court enforcement officers.  


• More threatening letters, this time from the criminal “justice” system.  


• Another summons, this time for the offence of non-payment of a criminal fine.  


• Humiliation in court and imprisonment.  


• The shock experienced by a law-abiding individual of being imprisoned, especially over such a trivial matter.  


• A search of her body and belongings by private sector court custody officers.  


• Being locked inside a tiny concrete cell, awaiting transportation to prison: claustrophobia, humiliation.  


• Being locked in a cubicle inside an escort van: claustrophobia, humiliation. This woman will have been terrified.  


• Being led into the prison reception area, being strip-searched (she will have had to remove all her clothes in front of prison officers), being asked various intrusive questions about her health and personal circumstances, then being led to a reception wing and a cell shared with another inmate, containing a wash basin and a toilet – indignity, humiliation.  


• Then at some point the next day being moved on to a general population wing. Having to live in a cell for 23 hours-a-day.  


• Being locked up with actual criminals, some of them violent and dangerous. Even in women's prisons, there are some nasty, dangerous people.

One has to ask: Is locking people in concrete boxes a price worth paying for ‘high-quality dramas’?  Is saving Eastenders more important than the liberty and dignity of human beings?  Will our civilisation collapse if the BBC disappears?  We needn’t resort to the Current Year argument, but we have to observe that this is the 21^st. century, not the Middle Ages.  We should not be serfs anymore, but it seems the BBC disagrees.  The TV licence imposition is a New Serfdom.

The BBC’s stooges will say this unfortunate woman was imprisoned for not paying the fine rather than for not having a licence, but she would not have been fined were it not for the stupid TV licence and the BBC.  David Attenborough nature documentaries of whatever quality don’t quite justify locking people up for what, under the best of circumstances, should be entirely a civil matter. 

The truth is that the BBC has already fulfilled whatever public mission it once had and has now become an abusive, self-serving institution. It needs to be closed down, David Attenborough can go make his documentaries for the private sector, and we can each choose whether we want to pay for them.  

A Word For Infogalactic

We agree with Alt Right figure Vox Day that those of us who in some way oppose the present dispensation need to create and support independent structures and digital platforms.  It's a message that coheres with an important aspect of our central case against the BBC: that the era of state information and broadcasting must come to an end.  We want to practice what we preach, and we can begin by supporting and highlighting the work of those who already do.

For this reason, where possible we now use Infogalactic as our baseline source for referencing and fact verification.  Infogalactic is an excellent information source, and we like that it is decentralised, rejects dogma, and opposes the censorship practiced by Wikipedia. Infogalactic is truth-driven and focused on reliability and verification.  For more information, refer to Infogalactic's Seven Canons.  

You will find links to Infogalactic in many of our articles.  We encourage our readers and supporters to visit Infogalactic whenever possible, and we have added a permanent link in the right-hand column.

We wish to add that we have no commercial affiliation or association with Infogalactic or its backers, and we do not gain by promoting their site and resource here - we just believe strongly in what they are doing.

BBC Impartiality: Treason Edition

Why would a so-called 'public service broadcaster' intentionally orchestrate a political discussion in public in which the audience was filled mostly with people hostile to, if not outright hateful towards, one of the panel members, and in which almost-all the questions were either loaded or rhetorical in nature, and slanted against that panel member?

We would respectfully submit that such arrangements are not indicative of impartiality and that simply allowing Mr Griffin to appear on the Question Time programme did not and could not absolve the BBC of its duty to be impartial.  Of course, our view is that the BBC cannot be impartial anyway and that impartiality is a myth, and in the case of the BBC, also a lie.  We think BBC Question Time, like the rest of the BBC's output - political and non-political - is a window into what the Corporation really thinks about the white British.

This is not a 'national broadcaster' and this is not 'public service broadcasting'.  It is pure propaganda.  It is also treason.

What If The BBC Is Privatised?

Time and again we hear from the BBC’s critics that if only the TV licence is ended and the BBC moves to subscription-based viewing and advertising, or some sort of privatisation even, all will be well.  We also see that commercialisation is now UKIP policy.  The argument is shallow, unimaginative and misconceived, and if implemented, would leave us in a worse situation. 

To reiterate, we call for:

1. Complete abolition and closure of the BBC; all transmissions to cease; its Royal Charter revoked; its assets broken-up, and fragmented and sold on the commercial market.

2. A total end to state involvement in information, media and broadcasting.

3. A new era of plurality and choice with the free market assuring independence and standards. 

These changes would be as epochal as the formal abolition of slavery - and we purposefully draw a parallel between the two institutions.  The existence of a state-owned and state-controlled media amounts to the perpetuation of slavery through mass psychology.

That being said, we are not mad marketeers.  If a state-owned media is wrong, then so is a transmogrified statist media owned by private interests.  We do not want that either.  In so far as we believe in the so-called ‘free’ market as a concept, it is in the sense that we regard it as part of the natural order of a healthy society.  We do not want corporate media dominance – but then, that’s one of the very reasons we oppose reforms and ‘improvements’ to the BBC. 

It follows that our understanding of ‘privatisation’ is quite different to that of neo-thatcherites.  To us, privatisation is simply a process in which state assets are returned to the public, the most efficient means of doing this being via the market – either through sale of the entity as one or more operating concerns or closure followed by asset-based sell-off.  In the case of the BBC, we favour the latter.  The BBC has fulfilled its mission and is now functionally redundant.  Its assets must be sold and the proceeds returned to the public, minus any legacy contractual and legal obligations to the BBC’s staff, pensioners and other creditors.  To continue the BBC and allow it to operate in whatever form – public or private – would be to continue a sham and a deceit and allow the enemies of this country to run rampant. 

But some will not be convinced by the case, so here we would like to offer a vision of what broadcasting would look like under a Privatised BBC.  We consider it dystopian.

Watch this:

    

That’s a video from The Guardian about people who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum.  We see here how unconscious biasing works.  The casual viewer might regard The Guardian’s treatment as ‘fair’.  We disagree.  The Guardian interviews various individuals who are articulate and well-spoken but in some way slightly eccentric.  Much like Nick Clegg’s feature on Wales for the BBC that we eviscerated yesterday, The Guardian misses out the majority category and in doing so (intentionally or otherwise) presents the viewer with a distorted picture of things.  You will notice that The Guardian does not interview the white English working class who would represent normative England.  They are entirely absent from the feature.  This is because The Guardian does not regard such people as articulate or well-spoken or having the ‘right’ sort of views.  Certainly, the people interviewed have voted Brexit and are in opposition to a large part, perhaps all, of The Guardian’s agenda, but they are able to put across why in a way that The Guardian and its audience finds acceptable, or at least relatively inoffensive.  You will note that even in the segment with the man in Lincolnshire in which the problem of immigration is discussed, he negotiates around the central issues carefully in a way that must leave the observant viewer deeply annoyed and frustrated.  The result is an unconscious biasing towards relatively unchallenging opinions and the censoring-out of any genuine dissent against The Guardian’s agenda.  It’s a subtle process and even The Guardian’s own journalists and producers may not be entirely self-conscious or self-aware about what they are doing.

With this instructive example under our belts, we turn to what a Privatised BBC would be like.  We must remember that the BBC is not a pleasant little radio and TV outlet with nice smiley people all working fluffily in the public interest.  It is a state-owned and state-controlled diversified multi-media state conglomerate with interests in:

(i). the broadcasting of TV and radio programmes, now entirely digital;

(ii). the production of radio and TV programmes, for the BBC itself and other outlets (especially S4C in Wales);

(iii). news-gathering and other journalism;

(iv). the arts and creative industries;

(v). vocational and graduate training in management, broadcasting techniques, the arts and journalism and other relevant fields;

(vi). books, magazines and other publications;

(vii). various websites.

In evaluating the option of a future Commercial BBC, or Privatised BBC, one thing we need to do is imagine what the qualitative experience of its output will be like under those proposed situations, taking into account the BBC’s diversification and super-dominance.  It is by doing so that readers, we hope, will begin to understand why we insist on abolition and closure.  Obviously the exercise is little more than educated guesswork, but we can base our guesswork on the preponderance of what the BBC actually does now.

Here's an example which we think typifies the attitude of the BBC to the rest of the country outside London, the hip parts of Manchester, urban Bristol and its other metropolitan strongholds.  In other words, this is what the BBC thinks of the native white British, using its privileged position as a state broadcaster to tell us.  The message seems to be that if you voted for Brexit, you are somewhat of a xenophobe, and a bit of cad:

BBC Newsnight is not ‘news’, it is an ‘agenda’.  For comparison purposes, let's zoom back to The Guardian.  Here we have an exemplar of the genre. A jumpy little lefty with a squeaky voice, who looks like an overgrown first year university undergraduate, runs round the English countryside patronising everybody he meets ad hoc, snarkily inferring they are [stupid/backward] [country bumpkins/narrow-minded provincials] because they don’t agree with his Leftist predicates:

The BBC and The Guardian are the same people.  But maybe you’re not convinced?

Here’s another one from the squeaky little mouse:

The result of privatising the BBC will be that we are left with a multi-media conglomerate that looks like a hybrid of Channel Four, LBC, Virgin Media and The Guardian.  If you need it put to you bluntly: imagine The Guardian as a massive global multi-media empire and you have a sense of what a Privatised BBC could do.  Channel Four already tries its best to be the private sector's Leftist propaganda outlet of choice in Britain.  We don’t need another one.  Imagine furthermore this media empire retaining a Royal Charter (entirely possible, very many private companies are chartered) and having the mission of a public service broadcaster, with all the credibility and implied integrity that goes with it.

In response to these points, the supposition of many anti-TV licence campaigners goes something like this:

-The TV licence system becomes unsustainable and ends.

-It is then replaced by subscription-based viewing and advertising.

-The BBC then crumbles (a bit like ITV Digital did) because of insufficient viewers and subscribers.

This seems cogent enough, but a moment’s thought should tell you that it doesn’t hold.  The thinking is errored as soon as it comes up against what we know about the reality of the BBC’s institutional values and its broadcasting.  You don’t just change those things by changing the structure.  Even a public to private shift won’t change it.  The BBC already in effect operates much like a commercial entity.  Thanks to the John Birt era (an appointee of Thatcher), a large part of the BBC’s revenues and operating circumstances are commercial and resemble how a private company would function. Yet still the BBC is incurably Leftist and metropolitan; in fact, the more ‘commercialised’ the BBC has become, the worse its culture.  But then, why should that be a surprise?  Lots of private enterprises operate in this way and neo-liberal economics often goes hand-in-hand with social liberalism.  There was always a great congruency and alignment between Thatcherism and the social liberal Left.

Furthermore, we must consider the BBC’s accumulated strengths.  Whatever else may be said about the BBC, the following has to be conceded:

• The BBC is a prestigious brand with global market penetration and worldwide recognition.  Literally virtually everybody in the world, across cultures and languages, knows who the BBC are and broadly what they do.

• The BBC has had the benefit of nine decades of public investment, in its brand, its technics, its production values, its buildings, its talent.

• The BBC has a loyal following of many millions, and there is a hardcore (mostly Left, but many from the political Right) who will defend the BBC come hell or high water.

• The BBC has become intrinsic to the managerial-state, and each reciprocates the other with support and patronage (and probably bribes and favours too).  That will remain the case even if it is privatised.  Think we’re wrong?  Take a look at how privatised utilities work: they are in effect state bodies operating under the auspices of private capital, and in the case of some post-privatisation entities, the private sector status is nominal.  Suffice it to say that anybody who thinks commercialising or privatising the BBC in whatever way is a solution or would end its influence on the country is just being naïve.

Like it or not, those are facts or conclusions from facts.

Our view:

The BBC won’t crumble if the TV licence ends.  To the contrary: the BBC can and will thrive without the TV licence, and we think the BBC’s senior management (who aren’t stupid people) know this and privately want the TV licence system torn up for good.  They won’t say so publicly because they know why the TV licence still exists, despite its obvious ridiculousness.  It serves the interests of their political masters.

To be clear, the reason the TV licence remains in place is because it suits the political class.  For them it’s the perfect system:

-It allows the government of the day to exercise strategic and broad tonal control over the BBC, its output, its institutional culture.  As a hypothecated tax, it also avoids the problem of accountability and answerability that there would be if the BBC were funded out of general taxation.  Note, however, the rider below.

The important rider is that a move to a directly-funded BBC would be the easiest evolutionary option and explains why other broadcasting systems that have abandoned their license tradition have immediately took up direct funding models – it’s the path of least resistance, despite its difficulties.  It avoids a big legal or parliamentary showdown.  Abolition, in contrast, requires great political and moral courage and foresight.  Commercialisation and privatisation are legally and administratively quite tricky, politically-controversial and play into the hands of the relevant public broadcaster, which has a brand and whose elite management (and their private capital cronies and associates) want to be enriched thereby without state meddling.

Taking all the above into consideration, we hope you can see why an abolition campaign is needed.  Most of the alternatives don’t bear thinking about, but rest assured, they will be on the agenda should we reach the point where a boycott/non-payment campaign threatens the sustainability of TV licensing.