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.
