WE WANT #ABOLISHTHEBBC TRENDING ON TWITTER!
The BBC doesn't fear us specifically or our campaign, but DOES fear the idea behind our campaign: which is that the BBC can be abolished and dismantled like any other public institution. Our campaign is not the end of the BBC, but it is the beginning of the end - others will take up our idea and take up the baton. It is the idea that counts, not the people or organisations involved. One day the BBC, and the rest of the whole rotten Establishment in this country, will topple.
It is by spreading the idea - Abolish The BBC - that we will put fear into the BBC and the wider Left who depend on it.
Even if abolishing the BBC is not politically-possible, by spreading a meme that calls for this, we are helping to shift the parameters of debate. This may result in further reform of the BBC, but we want it to be shut down.
If the BBC is ever brought down, that will represent the biggest-ever reversal suffered by the Left in this country.
Our campaign hashtag embodies the idea: #AbolishTheBBC. It needs to become a popular meme that is repeated every time the BBC is criticised on social media. With that in mind, we today launch our #AbolishTheBBC Twitter Campaign.
The aim is simple: we want our campaign hashtag, #AbolishTheBBC, trending on Twitter by Thursday 18th. October 2018. It's a tall order, but even if we fail, we are confident that we will have started something - and that is the real point.
Today, 30th. September, has been selected purposefully. It is an important date in the BBC's history. It was the date in 1967 when Radio 1 was launched, and this year it is also the 89th. anniversary of the first television broadcast by the BBC.
Likewise, 18th. October is also historic for the BBC. It is the 96th. anniversary of the formation of the British Broadcasting Company on 18th. October 1922.
It would be poignant if, on that historic day, a major social media platform had #AbolishTheBBC trending. We doubt the BBC will report it, but it will be noted.
What we ask of our followers is that you include #AbolishTheBBC in your tweets at every opportunity - especially when your tweet is about the BBC. Please also make others aware of our campaign.
Sunday 30 September 2018
Monday 24 September 2018
Operation Target
Operation Target is concluded. In all, we e-mailed some 5,000 individuals - including MPs, MEPs, MSPs, Assembly Members in Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and local councillors at different levels. In the case of local councillors, we focused on the areas of the country where we believe opposition to, or criticism of, the BBC is likely to be strongest, and we restricted our mailings to Conservative and Independent councillors (plus SNP councillors in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the various unionists in Northern Ireland).
The aims of Operation Target
We also expected that most who responded to us would oppose us – mainly because it’s the safest public position to adopt at this time, and politicians and councillors are by definition creatures of politic. Actually this expectation turned out to be inaccurate. Of the 5% who responded, the split between pro- and anti-BBC was roughly 50:50. That said, it should be added that we are including in the 'antis' those who are merely critical of the BBC in some way, mostly about bias or the TV licence system, or both; nevertheless, such people tend to be receptive to our campaign and can be considered among our soft support. That we received so many favourable responses was interesting and unexpected. We thought it would be more like 90:10 in favour of those against us.
Unfortunately, the exercise seems to have had little or no effect on the petition count, which has slowed considerably. There may be little that can be done about that, as the petition (which isn't even our petition anyway) may have reached its natural ceiling of support. This campaign is for the long haul.
Profile of supporters
Given the broad political profile of the vast majority of those we contacted, we expect that the majority are against the BBC, but most of those will not respond to us as it is not politic to publicly oppose the BBC.
Of those who did respond favourably to us, the profile was mixed, but virtually all of them were either Conservatives, UKIP, DUP or Independent.
The major points:
-Three MEPs, all UKIP, have expressed support for our campaign.
-Two leaders of local authorities have expressed support for us. One is a Conservative, the other - oddly - is Labour (the only Labour politician to back us: we will be keeping his details confidential).
-Several leaders of local authority political groups - mostly Conservative with one DUP - have expressed support.
-We have received a helpful response from the Scottish Government, which we will post up here and comment on in due course.
-Not one MP has backed us so far, and only one - Damian Green, a Tory MP, who opposes us - has given us anything approaching a helpful response.
-Not one Assembly Member in Wales or London has supported us, and only one has given us a helpful response.
-Of the local councillors who support us, around 120 in number, these are a mix of Conservatives, UKIP and Independents. The age profile is also mixed: some are middle-aged, some are elderly, some are quite young (in their 30s). Almost-all are men, but several are women.
Profile of opponents
Most of those who responded to oppose us are local councillors, and most of these are Independents, but some are Conservatives. The age profile is typically middle-aged or elderly and the gender split is 50:50.
We received two responses from MPs, both Conservatives, and both opposed - though the response from one of these, Damian Green, was a little bit helpful.
We received one opposing response from an MEP.
Among MSPs, we received no direct response but the Scottish Government has written to us (details to follow).
Among AMs in Northern Ireland, there was no response at all; only one response, opposition, was received from AMs in Wales.
We received three responses from AMs in London, all opposed, but one of which was at least somewhat helpful.
Nature of the responses received
Most of the supportive comments railed against the bias of the BBC or the TV licence system, or both. A few showed a more sophisticated understanding of things and raised the larger issue of how state broadcasting has affected the health of the nation.
Our opponents in nearly-all cases showed a credulous attachment to out-dated perceptions of the BBC based on how the broadcaster may have been in the past rather than the reality of today. We received reams of twaddle about how the BBC is a 'national institution' and 'one of the great things about this country', etc., etc. Almost-all of these responses revealed a closeted mindset that either refuses, or cannot, confront the problems in Britain and the BBC's role in these.
Some observations
The aims of Operation Target
Abolition of the BBC has never been raised as a possibility in mainstream public discourse. The primary purpose of this exercise was to raise awareness of our campaign and to get the message into the bloodstream of society. A secondary purpose was to start building alliances with prominent and influential local and national individuals who sympathise with us. A further purpose of the exercise was to raise awareness about the petition and boost the signature count.
What we expected and what happened
We expected a 4% response rate - the standard response rate for unsolicited campaigns. This expectation turned out to be more or less accurate: the response was 5%, roughly 250 replies were received.
We expected a 4% response rate - the standard response rate for unsolicited campaigns. This expectation turned out to be more or less accurate: the response was 5%, roughly 250 replies were received.
We also expected that most who responded to us would oppose us – mainly because it’s the safest public position to adopt at this time, and politicians and councillors are by definition creatures of politic. Actually this expectation turned out to be inaccurate. Of the 5% who responded, the split between pro- and anti-BBC was roughly 50:50. That said, it should be added that we are including in the 'antis' those who are merely critical of the BBC in some way, mostly about bias or the TV licence system, or both; nevertheless, such people tend to be receptive to our campaign and can be considered among our soft support. That we received so many favourable responses was interesting and unexpected. We thought it would be more like 90:10 in favour of those against us.
Unfortunately, the exercise seems to have had little or no effect on the petition count, which has slowed considerably. There may be little that can be done about that, as the petition (which isn't even our petition anyway) may have reached its natural ceiling of support. This campaign is for the long haul.
Profile of supporters
Given the broad political profile of the vast majority of those we contacted, we expect that the majority are against the BBC, but most of those will not respond to us as it is not politic to publicly oppose the BBC.
Of those who did respond favourably to us, the profile was mixed, but virtually all of them were either Conservatives, UKIP, DUP or Independent.
The major points:
-Three MEPs, all UKIP, have expressed support for our campaign.
-Two leaders of local authorities have expressed support for us. One is a Conservative, the other - oddly - is Labour (the only Labour politician to back us: we will be keeping his details confidential).
-Several leaders of local authority political groups - mostly Conservative with one DUP - have expressed support.
-We have received a helpful response from the Scottish Government, which we will post up here and comment on in due course.
-Not one MP has backed us so far, and only one - Damian Green, a Tory MP, who opposes us - has given us anything approaching a helpful response.
-Not one Assembly Member in Wales or London has supported us, and only one has given us a helpful response.
-Of the local councillors who support us, around 120 in number, these are a mix of Conservatives, UKIP and Independents. The age profile is also mixed: some are middle-aged, some are elderly, some are quite young (in their 30s). Almost-all are men, but several are women.
Profile of opponents
Most of those who responded to oppose us are local councillors, and most of these are Independents, but some are Conservatives. The age profile is typically middle-aged or elderly and the gender split is 50:50.
We received two responses from MPs, both Conservatives, and both opposed - though the response from one of these, Damian Green, was a little bit helpful.
We received one opposing response from an MEP.
Among MSPs, we received no direct response but the Scottish Government has written to us (details to follow).
Among AMs in Northern Ireland, there was no response at all; only one response, opposition, was received from AMs in Wales.
We received three responses from AMs in London, all opposed, but one of which was at least somewhat helpful.
Nature of the responses received
Most of the supportive comments railed against the bias of the BBC or the TV licence system, or both. A few showed a more sophisticated understanding of things and raised the larger issue of how state broadcasting has affected the health of the nation.
Our opponents in nearly-all cases showed a credulous attachment to out-dated perceptions of the BBC based on how the broadcaster may have been in the past rather than the reality of today. We received reams of twaddle about how the BBC is a 'national institution' and 'one of the great things about this country', etc., etc. Almost-all of these responses revealed a closeted mindset that either refuses, or cannot, confront the problems in Britain and the BBC's role in these.
Some observations
A large part of British society is legalistic and conformist. There has always been a vocal element in British society who take the view that laws and institutions should be obeyed unquestioningly. At the same time, the media are at the centre of power and influence in this country. Those two things mean that a powerful state broadcaster with a left-wing political agenda is quite dangerous to the nation.
Our opposition to the BBC is not just a matter of a broadcasting. The quality of programming is an important, but minor, consideration. This is really about power and influence: who holds it and what is done with it. Our view is that, given the technological realities, and in view of the damage done by the BBC to British society, state broadcasting should be abolished in this country for good and all media should be independent and private.
Our opposition to the BBC is not just a matter of a broadcasting. The quality of programming is an important, but minor, consideration. This is really about power and influence: who holds it and what is done with it. Our view is that, given the technological realities, and in view of the damage done by the BBC to British society, state broadcasting should be abolished in this country for good and all media should be independent and private.
Politicians and local councillors are politically-minded, so we would hope that they would think about the BBC not just as a broadcaster but as a political issue. In a way, our campaign is an acid test of the intellect and imagination. Some people can't see beyond the end of their own noses, and unfortunately, many of the elected politicians we contacted failed the test. They don’t grasp that our campaign against the BBC is really about power. They think that this is just about the BBC, they imagine us to be right-wing rotters and spoil-sports or worse, and they oppose us because they like the BBC and hold a sentimental attachment to it. Whether due to low intellect, ignorance, arrogance or an agenda of their own, or some combination thereof, they cannot see the bigger picture.
Why does all this matter? The trusting, law-abiding, myopic nature of the white British people has been taken advantage of. Consider these findings from Migration Watch:
Why does all this matter? The trusting, law-abiding, myopic nature of the white British people has been taken advantage of. Consider these findings from Migration Watch:
Migration Watch UK said the scale of illegal immigration was “considerably worse than the government admits and very little is being done about it”, in a 22-page report which notes that the number of people thought to reside illegally in Britain exceeds one million.
Looking at visa overstayers, detected clandestine arrivals (persons who, for example, arrived illegally by lorry), and failed asylum seekers who do not leave the country, the think tank calculated a gross addition of more than 105,000 people to the illegal immigrant population each year.
With only about a third (35,200) of this figure deported or leaving the country of their own accord each year, Britain has been seeing a net rise of around 70,000 to its illegal immigrant population each year, equating to 700,000 people in a decade.
Commenting, Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “The scale of illegal immigration to Britain is a scandal that has gone on for too long.
“The government must not cave in to opposition attempts to ‘weaponise’ Windrush against legitimate and effective measures to tackle overstaying. These measures are supported by nearly 80% of the public, and rightly so.”
Where was the BBC investigation into immigration numbers and their effect on British society? Isn't the BBC supposed to be the 'national broadcaster'? The truth is that the BBC has for decades censored this issue by omission and has thereby helped the British state to suppress legitimate concerns. Other issues have been treated the same way: where was the BBC report on mass child grooming during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, or even 2000s? There wasn't one.
The BBC must go.
The BBC must go.
Twitter Gold 010
The Left are ripping down historical statues and monuments, monopolising the mainstream media, censoring and closing down social media accounts of those with dissenting opinions in order to save us from fascism.
— Garbage Human 🗑 (@GarbageHuman_) September 24, 2018
Sunday 23 September 2018
Twitter Gold 009
There must be some legal way to end it, a monopoly forcing people to pay for a service you might not use, the BBC pretend to have no adverts but put loads on for BBC programs. BBC radio promoting other channels programs all the time. Time to end it— Andrew Jordan (@AndrewJordan78) September 23, 2018
How You Can Help (Version VI)
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. Tell your friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about the petition and give them the link so they can sign it too.
3. Defund the BBC - stop paying the TV licence and boycott their programmes. You can safely ignore TVL (who enforce the TV licence): they can only take action against people who co-operate. Don't answer their letters. Ignore their letters. Don't telephone them. Don't go online to notify them. Just stop paying. Don't answer the door to them. Just ignore them.
4. Write to your local MP. If you're not sure who that is, you can search for your MP here. We also recommend you use the UK Parliament constituency search page to find your MP's exact contact details, once you know their name. Letters (snail mail) are the most effective, but e-mail is fine if that's all you have time for. It's best if you compose the letter in your own words, but if it helps, feel free to refer the MP to our website and key links such as the summary of our case against the BBC here. If you do e-mail, make sure you include your address within the constituency, as that ensures a reply. Do send us a copy of what you write and let us know if you receive a reply!
5. Support our #AbolishTheBBC Challenge and help us take on the BBC live on-air. Click here for more details.
14. 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? Please e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
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. Tell your friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about the petition and give them the link so they can sign it too.
3. Defund the BBC - stop paying the TV licence and boycott their programmes. You can safely ignore TVL (who enforce the TV licence): they can only take action against people who co-operate. Don't answer their letters. Ignore their letters. Don't telephone them. Don't go online to notify them. Just stop paying. Don't answer the door to them. Just ignore them.
4. Write to your local MP. If you're not sure who that is, you can search for your MP here. We also recommend you use the UK Parliament constituency search page to find your MP's exact contact details, once you know their name. Letters (snail mail) are the most effective, but e-mail is fine if that's all you have time for. It's best if you compose the letter in your own words, but if it helps, feel free to refer the MP to our website and key links such as the summary of our case against the BBC here. If you do e-mail, make sure you include your address within the constituency, as that ensures a reply. Do send us a copy of what you write and let us know if you receive a reply!
5. Support our #AbolishTheBBC Challenge and help us take on the BBC live on-air. Click here for more details.
6. Share our blog posts with others: click the social media links at the foot of each post.
7. Add your own comments to our blog posts to let us know you support us.
8. Visit and click 'Like' on our Facebook Page and invite others to do the same; 'Like' and share our Facebook posts.
9. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Tell friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about our campaign and suggest they search online for our campaign #AbolishTheBBC.
12. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
13. Can you become a local contact for our campaign? We'd especially like to hear from people who live in the constituencies we are focusing on in Operation Target. Please check the list of the relevant target constituencies and get in touch with us if you're from one of those areas.14. 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? Please e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
We're Back!
We haven't gone away you know. We've always been here, but we've been busy with Operation Target, and now we're back. We've had some good responses from local communities, and we have a lot to report. We also see that the government have given their usual predictable and banal response to the petition. In the event, we decided not to write to the DCMS, as we realised that would be a waste of time - but we will be giving them our response to their response.
We also note that the petition sign-ups have slowed down somewhat, so further work will be required in that regard. Time to step-up a gear.
We also note that the petition sign-ups have slowed down somewhat, so further work will be required in that regard. Time to step-up a gear.
Monday 10 September 2018
TARGET 20,000
THE NEW TARGET IS 20,000 SIGNATURES
Thank you very much for the support with our Campaign To Abolish The BBC, and thank you for all your support with the petition.
We don't have time for anything more than a short post as we all have regular work and also still have a large mass mailing to finish off for the campaign.
The petition is now at 10,000 signatures, which means a response from the government is required. We fully expect that the response will be dismissive, derisory, boilerplate rubbish. We will however be contacting the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, the department we believe responsible for this, to outline the kind of response that would be helpful within the realpolitical parameters that exist at present. We hope they take some notice of us, but we don't hold out hope.
The target is now 20,000 signatures - a tall order, but let's see how near we can run!
Thanks again!
And just in case you haven't signed or shared the Tim Price Petition, here's a link.
Saturday 8 September 2018
How You Can Help (Version V)
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. Tell your friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about the petition and give them the link so they can sign it too.
3. To help further promote the petition, a very easy but important step you can take is to open a free account over at buffer, the social media tool, and schedule some automated messages for your Twitter and Facebook accounts with the petition link. If you're really keen to help, then for maximum effect you should schedule for 4 or 5 messages to be sent out each day and re-schedule these every couple of days. We appreciate that's something of a commitment, so if you can only manage to schedule one message for each platform per day, that would still help greatly, and would also mean that you only need to re-schedule the automated messages on a weekly basis. Each message needs to be worded differently (though the change in wording need only be very slight) and should include the petition link [https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226446].
4. Write to your local MP. If you're not sure who that is, you can search for your MP here. We also recommend you use the UK Parliament constituency search page to find your MP's exact contact details, once you know their name. Letters (snail mail) are the most effective, but e-mail is fine if that's all you have time for. It's best if you compose the letter in your own words, but if it helps, feel free to refer the MP to our website and key links such as the summary of our case against the BBC here. If you do e-mail, make sure you include your address within the constituency, as that ensures a reply. Do send us a copy of what you write and let us know if you receive a reply!
5. Support our #AbolishTheBBC Challenge and help us take on the BBC live on-air. Click here for more details.
14. 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? Please e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
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. Tell your friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about the petition and give them the link so they can sign it too.
3. To help further promote the petition, a very easy but important step you can take is to open a free account over at buffer, the social media tool, and schedule some automated messages for your Twitter and Facebook accounts with the petition link. If you're really keen to help, then for maximum effect you should schedule for 4 or 5 messages to be sent out each day and re-schedule these every couple of days. We appreciate that's something of a commitment, so if you can only manage to schedule one message for each platform per day, that would still help greatly, and would also mean that you only need to re-schedule the automated messages on a weekly basis. Each message needs to be worded differently (though the change in wording need only be very slight) and should include the petition link [https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226446].
4. Write to your local MP. If you're not sure who that is, you can search for your MP here. We also recommend you use the UK Parliament constituency search page to find your MP's exact contact details, once you know their name. Letters (snail mail) are the most effective, but e-mail is fine if that's all you have time for. It's best if you compose the letter in your own words, but if it helps, feel free to refer the MP to our website and key links such as the summary of our case against the BBC here. If you do e-mail, make sure you include your address within the constituency, as that ensures a reply. Do send us a copy of what you write and let us know if you receive a reply!
5. Support our #AbolishTheBBC Challenge and help us take on the BBC live on-air. Click here for more details.
6. Share our blog posts with others: click the social media links at the foot of each post.
7. Add your own comments to our blog posts to let us know you support us.
8. Visit and click 'Like' on our Facebook Page and invite others to do the same; 'Like' and share our Facebook posts.
9. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Tell friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about our campaign and suggest they search online for our campaign #AbolishTheBBC.
12. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
13. Can you become a local contact for our campaign? We'd especially like to hear from people who live in the constituencies we are focusing on in Operation Target. Please check the list of the relevant target constituencies and get in touch with us if you're from one of those areas.14. 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? Please e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
The Push To 10,000
The Tim Price Petition is now approaching 10,000 signatures. We expect it to finally reach that target over the next couple of weeks.
If you haven't already, please sign the petition and please also share the petition link as widely as possible among your friends, family, business contacts and work colleagues, etc.
In the meantime, we are busy with Operation Target. Consequently, posts to this site will continue to be sporadic, though a further update to our How You Can Help page will be added today. We hope to resume normal service early next week.
If you haven't already, please sign the petition and please also share the petition link as widely as possible among your friends, family, business contacts and work colleagues, etc.
In the meantime, we are busy with Operation Target. Consequently, posts to this site will continue to be sporadic, though a further update to our How You Can Help page will be added today. We hope to resume normal service early next week.
Friday 7 September 2018
A Post-BBC World
Introduction
This piece does not form part of our case for the abolition of the BBC. It is not strictly necessary that we should prescriptively set out how a post-BBC broadcasting world would work - and it is not our intention to do so. However, as part of making our case, it may be helpful if we can demonstrate that broadcasting could and should function perfectly well - and better - in a world without the BBC. In doing so, the starting point is to provide a provisional and rather tentative outline for a post-BBC broadcasting environment and possible regulatory structure. What we propose here may be subject to change as our ideas develop.
What follows also serves another purpose in that it allows us to explain and communicate our opposition not just to the public sector statism of the BBC, but also the private sector 'pseudo-statism' of large media formations like ITV plc. and the ITV network, the latter of which - as set out here - we would propose should be broken-up into small, distinct and independent regional broadcasting outlets.
Our vision
We value the free market as part of a natural order and as an essential basis of plurality and choice for individuals, families and communities. We see nothing particularly wrong with the notion that "the world is a business", in the sense that the world is organised broadly along competitive Darwinian lines. As we see it, that is natural. What we do take issue with is an adverse feature of capitalism that detracts from and undermines plurality and competitiveness: its tendency towards anti-competitive statism - whether public or private in the formal sense.
The BBC - despite what it claims - is, in effect, a state broadcaster; as such, the BBC dominates media in Britain, and its output is imposed on all of us and affects all of us, whether we like it or not. This is wrong for a number of reasons - moral and political, as well as relating to broadcasting itself. One strong objection to it is that, in a free society, the state is meant to serve we, the People, rather than we having to serve the state; and, those in charge of the government machinery should have no role in broadcasting or information - they should answer to us; we should not have to answer to them.
That being the case, the state should be minimal and its interventions in society should be carefully- and judiciously-considered. Furthermore, the dissemination of information and the diffusion of ideas in a free society should be 'bottom-up' and 'horizontal', not (or not primarily) 'top-down'. The BBC represents a top-down and rather patrician and patronising type of information and broadcasting provision, and this in turn lends itself to the practice of various abuses, the propagation of biases and the spreading of lies and untruths.
You may think that what we are saying here represents a rather idealistic, even Quixotic, point-of-view on things, but we reject that. One thing we would ask you to bear in mind and reflect on is how the media environment has radically changed even just in the last few years. The top-down model represented and institutionalised by the BBC, dating back to the 1920s, is becoming out-dated as people generate their own media content, often with thousands of subscribers, and as alternative and independent media outlets thrive on social platforms. The BBC will reply that in a plural media environment, they should be maintained as a Platonic institution that guarantees impartiality, but nobody seriously believes the BBC is impartial about anything - nor can it be. Impartiality is a fool's errand, and anti-bias campaigners are only trying to put pressure on the BBC to show bias towards them rather than their opponents. Bias and the provenance of facts is a problem, but it's a problem with or without the BBC, and we now have a literate and educated population with a multiplicity of information sources: in that environment, it's surely preferable to allow people to make up their own minds than rely on good faith on the part of a state-owned and state-controlled broadcaster with a long history of institutional bias.
One important reason we oppose reform and improvement of the BBC - including commercialisation - is that any improvement can only serve to strengthen the BBC's grip on media and information in Britain. The BBC has fulfilled its mission and now needs to be dismantled. We accept that abolition will be a very sad thing indeed and will come at a price, and we fully acknowledge that there will be problems and issues; but it will also leave open a significant opportunity for other large-scale broadcasters to innovate, and we hope it will mark the beginning of an evolution towards hyper-competitiveness in public broadcasting and media, with new providers entering the scene, and greater freedom in news gathering.
The present regulatory situation
The current regulation of broadcasting in Britain is rather complex and can be summarised as follows:
(i). Broadcasting is regulated by the Office of Communications ('OFCOM). All broadcasters, including the BBC itself, fall within OFCOM's remit. The BBC's Operating Licence can be viewed here - it's some 40 pages long. OFCOM assumes responsibility for content regulation, standards and overall superintendence of the broadcasters' various complaints procedures.
(ii). In addition, the BBC is politically-regulated by the government under the terms of its Royal Charter, which is issued under Crown prerogative. The current Royal Charter was issued last year, taking effect on 1st. January 2017 following a review of the BBC, and is accompanied by a Framework Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State; that Charter expires 11 years later, on 31 December 2027. The Charter includes provision for regulation of the BBC by OFCOM.
(iii). There is additional regulation of the BBC through Parliament, especially by the Public Accounts Committee concerning the BBC's finances.
(iv). OFCOM polices broadcasting standards through a licensing system. Each broadcaster is issued with an Operating Licence that is normally renewable every ten years. All broadcasters must adhere to the Broadcasting Code.
(v). There are numerous public service broadcasters ('PSBs'), each with a distinct public service remit that goes beyond the Broadcasting Code and includes additional duties and responsibilities, known as the 'UK Public Services' of the relevant broadcaster.
(vi). Thus, a short definition of a PSB would be any broadcaster that provides UK Public Services and is regulated by OFCOM for this purpose. We labour this point because it is important to note that not all OFCOM-regulated channels are PSBs, and furthermore, PSBs are at liberty to - and do - provide services that are not UK Public Services, notwithstanding that all such services are still regulated by OFCOM.
(vii). The BBC, including all its television channels and radio stations, is a PSB in its own right, by virtue of the Royal Charter and the relevant OFCOM Operating Licence.
(viii). There are additionally 21 'commercial' PSBs broadcasting from five different channels, as follows:
-The main channel only of ITV on Channel 3, a national breakfast TV concession operator, all ITN output and all the output of the fifteen regional licensees who all also broadcast from Channel 3. To be clear, any other channels operated by ITV plc. itself are not PSBs. For further clarity, we should also point out that ITV plc. is not the same as the ITV network (a group of regional and national broadcasters, each individually licensed by OFCOM). The point is not terribly important for present purposes, but for now we will just say that ITV plc. is owned by the various member broadcasters of the ITV network, and ITV plc. itself operates various non-PSB digital channels.
-The main channel of Channel Four, which broadcasts from Channel 4 in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and from Channel 7 in Wales. Channel Four's other channels (e.g. More4) are strictly not PSBs.
-S4C, a Welsh-language TV channel, which broadcasts from Channel 4 in Wales only.
-Channel 5, which broadcasts from Channel 5.
All other channels that are seen on Freeview and satellite are not PSBs. Freeview channels are terrestrial and are therefore by definition classed as domestic, come within the ambit of OFCOM, and must have an Operating Licence. There are also numerous domestic non-terrestrial broadcasters that need not command much of our attention here. It is possible that some satellite channels that do not operate terrestrially and are not otherwise based in Britain may not need to seek an Operating Licence from OFCOM, notwithstanding that they may broadcast here, but that is a very technical subject and in any case we don't need to go into it here.
What we propose for the BBC
We believe that the BBC should be abolished and shut down completely. To that end, we propose the following:
- 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. (On a separate but related note, and for the avoidance of doubt, the BBC's Operating Licence would terminate by operation of law once shutdown takes effect);
- 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.
Outline of a post-BBC world
1. The broadcasters
General approach
Without the BBC, we believe there is scope for greater choice, competition and innovation in broadcasting, but further reforms will be required to derive maximum benefit from the opportunities that a post-BBC world will open up.
Instead of treating broadcasters as members of some sort of quality hierarchy, we favour an ecological model in which each broadcaster is valued for their own contribution as part of an overall symbiosis, and each has its own evolutionary trajectory to pursue according to a designated thematic role. Channel 5, for instance, will never become an ITV and shouldn't. It should instead be expected to develop its own distinctive flavour of programming that caters to a popular taste - an important part of an overall picture of choice and plurality.
We are also averse to 'content policing' and regulatory micro-managing because it harms choice and erodes viewer autonomy. We would abolish the various broadcasting codes, and in contrast to present arrangements, we would ask channel operators to agree on their own voluntary broadcasting codes; their content would otherwise be subject to general criminal and civil law. If Channel 4 or Channel 5 were to seek to emulate others in their programming in the interests of some sort of snobbery or under pressure from conservative 'taste and decent' campaigners, they would lose their distinct identities and important segments of the viewing audience would lose their preferred television options. Some people like watching sensationalist news, action films and 'adult' programmes, or want to watch socially-concerned news and current affairs programmes. These tastes should be respected. Conversely, those who do not like that type of broadcasting should not have it imposed on them by a state-owned broadcaster paid-for by tax under the threat of imprisonment. They should instead be offered their own choices in the pantheon, with the assurance that the relevant channel operators are privately-owned and respond to the market.
The PSB Pantheon
In the case of the PSBs, we see them as a 'pantheon', each catering to a particular audience type or broad taste in viewing. This helps to guard against market failures in Freeview and satellite; where providers may not be able to viably provide certain types of programmes, there would remain a core of channels that, together, can cater to as broad a range of tastes as possible.
Channel 3
We would break-up, re-regionalise and pluralise ITV so that the fifteen regional operators become truly independent again and the network becomes a confederacy along broadly similar lines to America's PBS network, with regional mainline programming as the majority of the output and competitive commissioning between regions for some peak time viewing. This re-structuring would not be immediate, but would take place over perhaps a period of 5 to 10 years. Among the measures needed, we would insist that each regional operator is the major provider of Channel 3 programming in its region, and (so far as possible) operated inimitably to that specific region. We would ban cross-ownership and cross-control, and would also enact laws preventing major shareholders from taking significant equity stakes in more than one regional operator, whether directly or through proxies.
In addition to this, we would allow the separate regional broadcasters to pool their resources into national broadcasting to enable them to compete for elite sports events and top-rated films, etc. We would also allow the regional broadcasters to appoint a Director of Vision and Innovation at the national level, to ensure there is a joint strategy and collaboration where appropriate - enabling the regional networks to effectively compete with other commercial channels.
We would propose that the national breakfast concession -currently Good Morning Britain - should be sold by ITV plc. to an independent provider.
We do not propose any significant changes to the arrangements for the national news concession, ITN.
Channel 4
Channel Four is owned by the state but the channel 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.
It is essential in our view that Channel Four ceases to be publicly-owned, but we would like to see it put into social 'not-for-profit' ownership. Under that arrangement, 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 (more on which in section 3 below).
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.
S4C
S4C is the Welsh language channel, funded out of the TV licence. The channel is state-owned and governed and operated by the S4C Authority, a state-appointed body - thus quite similar to the BBC itself. Under the terms of a partnership agreement, this channel largely relies on BBC Wales, and other sections of the BBC, for production of its programmes and for programming innovation. That being the case, obviously should the abolition of the BBC ever become a realistic prospect, there will also be urgent questions about S4C's future. There are already ripe doubts about S4C's viability, due to the marginalisation of the Welsh language in Wales itself.
In regard to S4C, we would propose a referendum in Wales which would offer two options, either:
-responsibility for S4C should be devolved to the Welsh Government as a public sector broadcaster, on the proviso that, first, the new public sector entity must be formed as a company limited by guarantee and subject to restrictions to protect competition and (to be on the safe side) prevent market dominance (for example, all broadcasts must be in Welsh). Furthermore, any funding model to be decided in Wales must be commercial: there must be no imposition of a tax on the Welsh people to pay for S4C;
OR,
-an attempt should be made to privatise S4C as a commercial PSB with Welsh language commitments, failing which it is closed-down and subjected to an asset-sale.
Other specialist PSB channels
BBC Alba
We would also offer a plebiscite in Scotland in regard to the future of BBC Alba. The question to be posed to the electorate would be along the same lines as that which we propose for S4C, with analogous solutions.
Again, if the Scottish people vote for devolved public sector broadcasting, there must be advanced notice of certain provisos that the UK government needs to insist on. The new entity must be limited by guarantee and subject to restrictions that protect plurality and competition and guard against dominance. This will include, among other things, that all broadcasts are to be in Gaelic. These measures will also protect, not just the Scottish people, but the British people as a whole from the prospect of the BBC being resurrected by the back-door. There must be no imposition of a tax on the Scottish people to fund a Gaelic language channel - the UK government should add that proviso to protect the Scottish people themselves from the imposition of a bullying funding mechanism by bossy politicians in Edinburgh.
BBC Parliament
BBC Parliament's operations should be brought in-house as 'Parliament.TV' or something similar. Parliament will be free to contract-out the operation of this channel to the private sector, if it likes, and assuming a private provider can find a commercial market for such coverage. Coverage of the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would become the responsibility of those bodies themselves, as should be the case anyway, and it will be up to them to decide whether, what and how such coverage continues.
2. What about Channels 1 and 2?
Channel 1
With the downfall of the BBC, there will be a space for a new top-line provider on Channel 1. We would propose an open competition for a general purpose, ad-free, subscription-based commercial broadcaster, to provide (among other things) more of a national focus than the ITV network, more mainstream appeal than Channel Four, and a considerably higher quality output than Channel 5.
Couldn't the BBC itself adapt into a commercial 'Channel One'?
The new Channel 1 operation would not be a reinvention of the BBC. What we have in mind is an entirely privately-owned broadcaster, which is unchartered and has no relationship or connection whatsoever with the state beyond that is licensed to provide one main channel for PSB purposes through a completely commercialised operation. Furthermore, the channel operators would submit to restrictions on market share and expansion (as set out in the section on Regulation below). That is a completely different basis to the BBC's organisation, which if it were commercialised in some way, would structurally, institutionally and culturally be completely unable to adapt to what we propose. Nor can all of the problems of the BBC - outlined at length on this site - be resolved through reform and adaptation.
Channel 2
There would also be room for one or more new Channel 2 providers. Initially we would propose a new operation modelled broadly on America's C-SPAN, to be underwritten and funded by the commercial PSBs (including the new Channel One operator, when established) as a condition of their operating terms. They would also nominally own the operation as a company limited by guarantee and would appoint a board of directors from the commercial world, though the relevant company articles would assure complete editorial independence for Channel Two's management and journalists.
The output of Channel 2 would
- present and expound on high culture (classical music, opera, fine art, literature, classical civilisation, ancient history, etc.);
- provide a considered, fact-based news service; and,
- fill any other cultural and social gaps in the output of the commercial PSBs and Freeview channels.
There is the question of whether funding from the commercial PSBs should be set-off by commercial advertising or some sort of subscription model, or the whole operation should simply rely on the PSBs' subsidy. Our view would be that this should be a decision for the commercial PSBs themselves, albeit respecting the editorial independence of the Channel 2 operator itself, as they are best-placed to decide on an appropriate method of funding. The proviso that any returns earned by the channel would have to be re-invested in programming rather than considered profit.
A point to add is that if Channel 2 does end up not being directly funded by PSBs, one objection to this could be that it amounts to a disguised hypothecated tax - a TV licence by another name, the cost passed on to commercial PSB viewers. The government can address this situation by offering tax incentives and exemptions to the PSBs in return for their goodwill, and by pointing out to the public that PSBs are at all times free to commercialise Channel 2's funding model in any way they choose.
3. Regulation
3.1. General principles
Our basic position is that the state should have no involvement in broadcasting, press, media and information: the media industry. This is for moral, aesthetic and political-economic reasons. In short, the state needs to get out of the way, but we are not suggesting that the state should be out of the picture completely. The state does have a minimal role to play in overseeing public service broadcasters (PSBs), in a system we would call 'structural and framework regulation' ('SFR').
3.2. Structural and framework regulation
The purpose of SFR would be to:
(a). assure a free market and competition on the part of PSBs;
(b). pursuant to (a) above, among other things, oversee channel changes and the gradual re-structuring of ITV, and to take action where necessary to encourage PSBs to fill gaps in specialist broadcasting by the wider market (Freeview and satellite providers), and break-up PSB-led corporate groups and broadcasting operations that become overly-dominant;
(c). superintend self-regulation by PSBs and monitor the complaints processes of operators;
(d). monitor the compliance of PSBs with their public service remits;
(e). provide a mechanism for state intervention when free markets and competition are threatened;
(f). provide agreed protocols for emergency state intervention and editorial control under the state's civil contingencies.
SFR would not concern itself with:
(g). the quality or content of PSB output (beyond the broadest considerations of whether a PSB is generally fulfilling its public service remit);
(h). the business strategy or operational and business affairs of PSBs and other commercial matters; and,
(i). whether the agreed basic standards of a free, plural and democratic society are being met by PSBs.
In short, SFR would focus in the main on maintaining a free market, as that is the key to desirable outcomes, and would not be about meddling in the detailed business of PSBs or the content of their output.
SFR would be enforced through a licensing system. There would be a de minimis rule so that smaller and subsidiary media entities and other low-level providers affiliated with PSBs in some way, such as bloggers, independent content creators and citizen-journalists and so on, can be exempt from the strict scope of licensing and regulation.
3.3. Organisation of SFR
We would propose to end OFCOM's role in broadcasting. Instead, the functions of SFR would be split between, one the one hand, one or more self-regulatory bodies set up by the PSBs themselves, and on the other, a government operation ('the SFR Authority'), whose personnel could be drawn from one or more government agencies or departments (though the government could contract-out to the consulting industry).
The self-regulatory bodies would focus on overseeing the different complaints processes and any industry codes and best practice they decide to agree on between themselves.
The role of the SFR Authority would be to:
3.3.1. monitor compliance with the terms of the Operating Licenses;
3.3.2. refer to the relevant government minister whenever a breach occurs or seems likely to occur.
3.4. Operating Licences
Operating Licenses would contain three main elements:
3.4.1. Thematic scope of UK Public Services.
3.4.2. Commitment to media plurality and competition.
3.4.3. Commitment to free speech and free expression.
3.4.4. A funding commitment to establish and run an independent Channel 2 operator.
In the case of 3.4.1., PSBs will not enter into particular or detailed commitments, as at present. Instead, the Operating Licence will set out the thematic scope of the relevant UK Public Services. These could roughly take the form of the following:
Channel 1: high-quality general programming; elite sports events; top-rated films; serious journalism, news and current affairs.
Channel 2: high culture and fact-driven news; in addition, filling market gaps in specialist broadcasting elsewhere.
Channel 3: general programming with a regional focus; national broadcasts of top-rated films, elite sports, news and current affairs.
Channel 4: alternative, radical and fringe coverage of culture and challenging social issues; socially-concerned current affairs programmes, in-depth news, investigative journalism.
Channel 5: popular entertainment, action movies, tabloid-style news, 'adult'-themed programming.
This is intended to be thematic rather than prescriptive. PSBs will essentially be able to broadcast what they like, but must endeavour to fulfill their own thematic role in the 'PSB Pantheon', as this contributes to a wider picture of choice and plurality. There will be an agreement with each PSB that the SFR Authority will monitor output annually in partnership with the PSB Operators themselves, collectively and individually. As part of this, the SFA Authority will give evaluation and feedback on the thematic scope of each Operator's offering in a published report that the relevant government minister will also make available to Parliament. The report will conclude with comments on what, if any, remedial action both the PSB Operator and the SFR Authority have agreed to take to improve compliance with the thematic remit of that Operator and the 'PSB Pantheon' as a whole.
In the case of 3.4.2, Operating Licences would include restrictions on:
- cross-media ownership and diversification;
- expansion of channels;
- foreign ownership; and,
- audience share.
These will be designed and intended to prevent any one PSB gaining a dominant or super-dominant position in the media environment as a whole, the requirements obviously depending on the particular operator. There would be scope for condonable breaches of market-related restrictions, either because they are minor, inconsequential or trivial; even when a breach is serious or non-trivial, this may be treated as condonable if legitimate business factors affect the observance of the restriction: the test must always be whether a breach harms plurality, competition and choice. Parliament would decide whether a significant breach should be treated as actionable by the SFA Authority.
In the case of 3.4.3, Operating Licenses will include a requirement that the PSB Operator should allow a prominent Right of Reply to any person (individual or body corporate) criticised or mentioned adversely in broadcasts or other output.
We have already mentioned Channel 2 in an earlier section.
3.5. Powers of the SFA Authority
The SFA Authority would have the power to:
- grant and renew Operating Licences, to be signed-off by a government minister;
- issue PSB operators with compliance notices and stop notices, as appropriate;
- act as an anti-monopoly authority in requiring overly-dominant regulated operators to sell or lease or otherwise dispose of facilities, businesses or other assets in order to conform with Operating Licence terms;
- withdraw any Operating Licence on notice, subject to approval by Parliament;
- terminate any Operating Licence without notice under specific circumstances, subject to authorisation by a government minister;
- vary any Operating Licence, subject to approval by Parliament;
- intervene in any licensed operator and exercise directorial, editorial or other operational control, but only under specified circumstances relating to civil contingencies, only temporarily, and only with the prior approval of Parliament;
- suspend an Operating Licence on any terms it decides, subject to approval by Parliament; and,
- call-in a decision of any public authority (other than a judicial authority) that concerns a regulated operator.
The SFA Authority would not be able to require that a non-regulated operator becomes licensed and regulated without a special Act of Parliament.
3.6. Isn't this statism?
No, for the following reasons;
-this regulation would only apply to PSBs and therefore never apply to the vast majority of media. Among those excluded would be digital and satellite broadcasters (including the output of PSBs through these means), bloggers and social media platforms, independent content creators, etc.;
-each PSB would be a privately-owned and commercially-operated entity, standing or falling on its own efforts;
-Channel 2's PSB funding could be commercialised by PSBs at any time, and PSBs underwrite the channel operator;
-the regulator would not intervene in content or exercise control over PSBs or other media outlets (other than in obvious emergency situations such as nuclear attack, etc.);
-the regulator would act, and if necessary intervene, to prevent over-dominance or inappropriate diversification by any one PSB, ensuring that no PSB can develop into a super-dominant state-like entity as some large private media corporations in other countries do;
-the state would not own any broadcaster or other media operation;
-most of the everyday regulation would be administered by one or more self-regulatory bodies run by the PSBs themselves.
Tuesday 4 September 2018
How You Can Help (Version IV)
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. Tell your friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about the petition and give them the link so they can sign it too.
3. Support our #AbolishTheBBC Challenge and help us take on the BBC live on-air. Click here for more details.
12. 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? Please e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
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. Tell your friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about the petition and give them the link so they can sign it too.
3. Support our #AbolishTheBBC Challenge and help us take on the BBC live on-air. Click here for more details.
4. Share our blog posts with others: click the social media links at the foot of each post.
5. Add your own comments to our blog posts to let us know you support us.
6. Visit and click 'Like' on our Facebook Page and invite others to do the same; 'Like' and share our Facebook posts.
7. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Tell friends, family, contacts and work colleagues about our campaign and suggest they search online for our campaign #AbolishTheBBC.
10. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
11. Can you become a local contact for our campaign? We'd especially like to hear from people who live in the constituencies we are focusing on in Operation Target. Please check the list of the relevant target constituencies and get in touch with us if you're from one of those areas.12. 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? Please e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
Operation Target
Posts to this site may be sparse over the next few days as we are in the process of completing Operation Target: a mass mailing to influential individuals and organisations in specific areas of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Below is a list of these areas - there are 396 in total, being the parliamentary constituencies in which we believe opposition to the BBC is strongest. This is based on various data we have collected from public sources.
We aim to reduce this list down to around 100 constituencies over the long-term, but for now if your constituency is listed below, we would especially welcome you getting in touch with us, as we would like to work with contacts in as many of these areas as possible.
Thank you!
THE LIST
1. Aldershot
2. Aldridge-Brownhills
3. Altrincham and Sale West
4. Alyn and Deeside
5. Amber Valley
6. Angus
7. Argyll and Bute
8. Arundel and South Downs
9. Ashfield
10. Ashford
11. Ashton-under-Lyne
12. Banbury
13. Barnsley Central
14. Barnsley East
15. Barrow and Furness
16. Basildon and Billericay
17. Basingstoke
18. Bassetlaw
19. Beckenham
20. Belfast East
21. Berwick-upon-Tweed
22. Beverley and Holderness
23. Bexhill and Battle
24. Bexleyheath and Crayford
25. Birmingham Northfield
26. Bishop Auckland
27. Blackley and Broughton
28. Blackpool and Cleveleys
29. Blackpool South
30. Blaydon
31. Blythe Valley
32. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
33. Bolsover
34. Bolton North-East
35. Bolton West
36. Boston and Skegness
37. Bosworth
38. Bournemouth East
39. Bournemouth West
40. Bracknell
41. Bradford East
42. Braintree
43. Brecon and Radnorshire
44. Brentwood and Ongar
45. Bridgend
46. Bridgwater and West Somerset
47. Brigg and Goole
48. Brighton, Pavilion
49. Bristol East
50. Bristol South
51. Broadland
52. Bromsgrove
53. Broxtowe
54. Buckingham
55. Burnley
56. Burton
57. Bury North
58. Bury South
59. Bury St. Edmonds
60. Caerphilly
61. Calder Valley
62. Camborne and Redruth
63. Cannock Chase
64. Canterbury
65. Cardiff South and Penarth
66. Carlisle
67. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
68. Carshalton and Wallington
69. Castle Point
70. Central Ayrshire
71. Central Devon
72. Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
73. Charnwood
74. Chelmsford
75. Chelsea and Fulham
76. Chichester
77. Christchurch
78. Cities of London and Westminster
79. City of Chester
80. City of Durham
81. Clacton
82. Cleethorpes
83. Clwyd South
84. Clwyd West
85. Colne Valley
86. Congleton
87. Copeland
88. Coventry North-West
89. Coventry South
90. Crawley
91. Crewe and Nantwich
92. Croydon Central
93. Croydon North
94. Darlington
95. Dartford
96. Daventry
97. Delyn
98. Denton and Reddish
99. Devizes
100. Dewsbury
101. Don Valley
102. Doncaster North
103. Dover
104. Dudley South
105. Dumfries and Galloway
106. Dundee West
107. Dunfermline and West Fife
108. Ealing Central & Acton
109. Easington,
110. East Devon
111. East Hampshire
112. East Lothian
113. East Surrey
114. East Worthing and East Shoreham
115. East Yorkshire
116. Eastbourne
117. Eastleigh
118. Ellesmere Port and Neston
119. Elmet and Rothwell
120. Eltham
121. Epping Forest
122. Epsom and Ewell
123. Erith and Thamesmead
124. Esher and Walton
125. Fareham
126. Filton and Bradley Stoke
127. Folkestone and Hyde
128. Forest of Dean
129. Flyde
130. Gainsborough
131. Gedling
132. Gillingham and Rainham
133. Glasgow Central
134. Gloucester
135. Gosport
136. Grantham and Stamford
137. Gravesham
138. Great Grimsby
139. Great Yarmouth
140. Hackney South and Shoreditch
141. Halesowen and Rowley Regis
142. Halifax
143. Haltemprice and Howden
144. Halton
145. Hammersmith
146. Hampstead and Kilburn
147. Harlow
148. Harrogate and Knaresborough
149. Hartlepool
150. Harwich and North Essex
151. Hastings and Rye
152. Havant
153. Hazel Grove
154. Hemel Hempstead
155. Hemsworth
156. Henley
157. Hereford and South Herefordshire
158. Hertford and Stortford
159. Hertsmere
160. Hexham
161. Heywood and Middleton
161. High Peak
162. Holborn and St. Pancreas
163. Hornchurch and Upminster
164. Hornsey and Wood Green
165. Horsham
166. Hove
167. Huntingdon
168. Ipswich
169. Isle of Wight
170. Islington South and Finsbury
171. Jarrow
172. Keighley
173. Kettering
174. Kingston and Surbiton
175. Kingston-upon-Hull North
176. Kingston-upon-Hull West and Hessle
177. Kingswood
178. Lagan Valley
179. Lancaster and Fleetwood
180. Leeds Central
181. Leeds North-East
182. Leeds West
183. Leicester West
184. Leigh
185. Lewes
186. Lincoln
187. Llanelli
188. Loughborough
189. Louth and Horncastle
190. Luton South
191. Macclesfield
192. Makerfield
193. Maldon
194. Manchester Central
195. Manchester, Withington
196. Mansfield
197. Meon Valley
198. Meriden
199. Mid-Bedfordshire
200. Mid-Dorset and North Poole
201. Mid Norfolk
201. Mid Sussex
202. Middlesbrough
203. Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
204. Milton Keynes North
205. Milton Keynes South
206. Mole Valley
207. Montgomeryshire
208. Moray
209. Morecambe and Lunesdale
210. Morley and Outwood
211. Motherwell and Wishaw
212. New Forest East
213. Newark
214. Newbury
215. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central
216. Newcastle-upon-Tyne North
217. Newcastle-under-Lyme
218. Newport East
219. Newton Abbot
220. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford
221. North Aryrshire and Arran
222. North Devon
223. North Dorset
224. North Down
225. North Durham
226. North-East Bedfordshire
227. North-East Cambridgeshire
228. North-East Hampshire
229. North-East Hertfordshire
230. North Norfolk
231. North Shropshire
232. North Somerset
233. North Swindon
234. North Thanet
235. North Tyneside
236. North Warwickshire
237. North-West Cambridgeshire
238. North-West Durham
239. North-West Hampshire
240. North-West Leicestershire
241. North Wiltshire
242. Northampton North
243. Northampton South
244. Norwich North
245. Nottingham North
246. Nottingham South
247. Nuneaton
248. Ochil and South Perthshire
249. Oldham East and Saddleworth
250. Oldham West and Royton
251. Orpington
252. Pendle
253. Penistone and Stocksbridge
254. Perth and North Perthshire
255. Peterborough
256. Plymouth, Moor View
257. Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport
258. Poole
259. Portsmouth North
260. Portsmouth South
261. Putney
262. Rayleigh Witford
263. Reading East
264. Redcar
265. Reigate
266. Ribble Valley
267. Richmond (Yorks)
268. Richmond Park
269. Rochdale
270. Rochester and Strood
271. Rochford and Southend East
272. Romford
273. Rossendale and Darwen
274. Rotherham
275. Rother Valley
276. Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
277. Rutland and Melton
278. Saffron Walden
279. Salford and Eccles
280. Salisbury
281. Scarborough and Whitby
282. Scunthorpe
283. Sefton Central
284. Selby and Ainsty
285. Sevenoaks
286. Sheffield South-East
287. Sheffield, Hallam
288. Sherwood
289. Shrewsbury and Atcham
290. Sittingbourne and Sheppey
291. Skipton and Ripon
292. Sleaford and North Hykeham
293. Somerton and Frome
294. South Antrim
295. South Basildon and East Thurrock
296. South Derbyshire
297. South Dorset
298. South East Cambridgeshire
299. South Cornwall
300. South Holland and The Deepings
301. South Leicestershire
302. South Norfolk
303. South Northamptonshire
304. South Ribble
305. South Staffordshire
306. South Swindon
307. South Thanet
308. South-West Bedfordshire
309. South Devon
310. South Thanet
311. South-West Bedfordshire
312. South-West Devon
313. South-East Hertfordshire
314. South-West Norfolk
315. South-West Surrey
316. South-West Wiltshire
317. Southampton, Itchen
318. Southampton, Test
319. Spelthorne
320. St Albans
321. St. Austell and Newquay
322. St. Helens North
323. St. Helens South and Whiston
324. St. Ives
325. Staffordshire Moorlands
326. Stalybridge and Hyde
327. Stockton North
328. Stockton South
329. Stoke-on-Trent North
330. Stoke-on-Trent South
331. Stone
332. Streatham
333. Stretford and Urmston
334. Stroud
335. Suffolk Coastal
336. Sunderland Central
337. Surrey Heath
338. Sutton and Cheam
339. Sutton Coldfield
340. Swansea East
341. Swansea West
342. Tamworth
343. Tatton
344. Taunton Dean
345. Telford
346. Tewksbury
347. The Cotswolds
348. The Wrekin
349. Thirsk and Malton
350. Thornberry and Yate
351. Thurrock
352. Tiverton and Honiton
353. Tonbridge and Malling
354. Torbay
355. Torridge and West Devon
356. Totnes
357. Tunbridge and Falmouth
358. Tunbridge Wells
359. Twickenham
360. Tynemouth
361. Vale of Clwyd
362. Wakefield
363. Wansbeck
364. Wantage
365. Warrington North
366. Warrington South
367. Warwick and Leamington
368. Washington and Sunderland West
369. Watford
370. Waveney
371. Wealdon
372. Weaver Vale
373. Wellingborough
374. Wells
375. Welwyn Hatfield
376. Wentworth and Dearne
377. West Bromwich West
378. West Dorset
379. West Lancashire
380. West Suffolk
381. Weston-super-Mare
382. Wigan
383. Winchester
384. Wirral South
385. Whitham
386. Woking
387. Wokingham
388. Wolverhampton North-East
389. Wolverhampton South-East
390. Workington
391. Worthing West
392. Wycombe
392. Wyre and Preston North
393. Wyre Forest
394. Yeovil
395. Ynys Môn
396. York Central
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)