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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

So You Think Petitions Are A Waste Of Time?

Some people are understandably sceptical as to the effectiveness of petitions, and even think they are a waste of time.

Here's what we think:

(i). First, we must be clear that petitions are just one tool among many for campaigning, and we have plans for other campaigning styles and methods which we hope and expect to make use of in the future.

(ii). Petitions are a campaign 'tool' in three respects: first, they are a means to an end and can, directly or indirectly, bring about the realisation of the political goal; second, the campaign to promote the petition itself can lead to gains that promote the eventual realisation of the political goal; and, third, the petition itself must also be acted on in some way.  The first two points are obvious.  Regarding the third point, a petition normally implies that somebody will engage in petitioning of the relevant authorities, which normally involves engagement with law-makers and decision-makers.  This engagement is in and of itself valuable and useful, even if it doesn't directly or immediately lead to realisation of the goal sought.

(iii). A petition itself and its promotion is also a form of propaganda in its own right and raises awareness of the issue among people, keeps the issue in the public eye and on social media, lets people know that others agree with them about the issue and that 'something' is being done about it, and also lets people know that there is a campaign they can join and contribute to if they wish.  It also offers encouragement to others who may want to run their own campaigns independently of us but towards the same or a closely-similar goal.

(iv). It is true that UK Parliament petitions are a rather cosmetic exercise, but that should not lead us to dismiss petitions as a campaign method.  Voting and the secret ballot were initially a cosmetic exercise too.  Mass enfranchisement was a concession to the burgeoning industrial working class in the (not unfounded) belief that it could be used to manage and control the masses, yet voting has turned into the ruling class’s Achilles' heel.  It's all about how we make use of the tools available to us.

(v). It is said that petitions to the UK Parliament have not led to any legislative changes, but even if that is the case, it should be remembered that, first, petitioning is not an automatic law-making process; second, the effectiveness of any petition depends on a range of favourable factors that are often absent in amateur petitions, such as: the popularity of the issue, the underlying campaign and momentum behind it, how well-crafted and worded the petition itself is and - crucially - whether the petition covers a matter that is actionable by the government and Parliament respectively; and, third, petitions have influenced debate and can lead to changes in the law over time.  The change we want will not happen overnight.

(vi). Critics sometimes argue that petitions are a sham intended to fool us into believing that we somehow have a say in government and laws, but we are not so fooled.  We have never laboured under any such belief.  We know that petitioning is simply a campaigning method and nothing more.

More On That Mythical Impartiality Thing

Like discussion of unicorns, discussion of ‘impartial media’ would make a good topic for a first-year undergraduate philosophy seminar.  We’re not sure what, if any, practical application it can have though.

On the subject of unicorns, LBC's James O'Brien doesn't want right-wingers appearing on the BBC:

"Left-wing radio commentator James O’Brien has slammed the BBC for hosting right-wingers like Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, equating it to giving a platform to people who believe in unicorns, whilst admitting “routinely” breaking BBC impartiality rules when working there."

Meanwhile, James Delingpole laments the bias of the BBC's flagship programme, Question Time:

"Just in case any right-wing questions slip through the net, host David Dimbleby is on hand to make sure that left-wing MP Diane Abbott gets her statutory 25 minutes half flirting with Dimbleby while explaining why it’s all the government’s fault, while Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg get five seconds between them to reply that actually it’s a bit more compli…"

And finally, we thought that the BBC was institutionally anti-Brexit, but Raymond Snoddy in the Radio Times thinks different, arguing that the BBC has not given enough space following the referendum to anti-Brexit arguments:

"Given Parliament has yet to take the formal decision to leave the EU, following the end of negotiations, Lord Adonis is making a strong point when, in his formal complaint, he accuses the BBC of breaching its Royal Charter, which governs everything the BBC does and says BBC news must show due impartiality. Already, he says, it has meant the BBC giving “scant” coverage to anti-Brexit marches.  

"Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger sees parallels with the BBC coverage of the Suez crisis in 1956 – when it was found afterwards that even Panorama had “skirted around” the fundamental issues.  

"Rusbridger argued in the New Statesman magazine recently that those who still believe that Brexit would be an economic and foreign policy disaster for the UK are being portrayed by the BBC as “undemocratic extremists”. They are, Rusbridger says, allowed a voice “only if repeatedly challenged, and balanced by fervent Brexit hardliners”.  

"I believe it is in everyone’s interest that, if the UK is going to leave the EU, it should be in the light of the best, most comprehensive and accurate information possible."

Which goes to show that you can't please everybody.

Douglas Carswell On The BBC

We agree and disagree with Mr Carswell.  We know that all politicians, including Mr Carswell, are bare-faced liars who conceal their true motives and beliefs behind semantics and word play.  It has come to something when such a sweeping statement can be made publicly, but this is where we are.  We have a feeling Mr Carswell will not be suing us.  

The cat is out of the bag.  There is no going back to some mythical era, itself based on official lies, in which we all more or less implicitly trusted in authority.  It’s over, and while we still have to put up with these people, the nuances of what they say always need to be considered carefully.

Mr Carswell is right that an organised boycott of the TV licence is on the horizon, however we would hope that the issue is ultimately resolved by Parliament in the form of an orderly dissolution of the BBC.  That is what realisation of our goal will bring about. 

Yet, despite his apparent antipathy to the BBC, clever Mr Carswell does not actually argue against the BBC, he only says that he thinks a boycott is coming and laments the prospect.  For all we know, he is a BBC defender and sympathiser who would stop us in our tracks, if he had half the chance.

Anti-TV licence campaigners should consider carefully the record of the Establishment in duping the public.  Brexit is but one example in a sorry tale that goes back decades and decades.  Politicians like Carswell will say the right things, but when it comes to the crunch, they will not hesitate to organise a stitch-up that preserves the status quo in some form.

That is why we have organised this independent political campaign for abolition of the BBC.  We must not make the same mistake as the Australians and end up saddled with a Soviet-style broadcasting monolith funded out of taxes.  As it becomes clear that the TV licence is no longer sustainable and has become indefensible, there must be a strong and unified political initiative for complete and total abolition, dissolution and dismantlement of the BBC itself. 

That means:

The Royal Charter must be revoked.

The statutory Corporation must be dissolved by Act of Parliament.

All BBC television and radio transmissions must cease and the BBC must end as a going concern (with all its commercial goodwill nullified). 

The government must appoint receivers to break-up, fragment and dispose of the BBC’s assets: every nut and bolt must be, variously, sold or leased on the commercial market.  Except that the state should retain ownership of the BBC brand to deter re-use.

The money recovered must be reinvested by the government in trust and used to fund legacy wage obligations and pension commitments, with any surplus returned annually to the taxpayer.

In short, the BBC must cease to exist. 

Additional optional measures, which we would support, include the privatisation of Channel Four - a mere formality and in itself relatively uncontroversial.  We would also support strong structural regulation of broadcasting, the press and the media to ensure a domestic market that is free of cross-media ownership and actual and shadow monopolies, and bans foreign ownership, while re-affirming a commitment of the state to withdraw from state involvement in ownership or content. 

Beyond the minimal regulatory necessities of maintaining the conditions for a functioning market, the state has no business in media and information.  To that end, we would support further privatisations of all state media and information functions within the sort of regulatory framework we have just outlined.  If there is no viable business model for a particular government information operation, then it should be shut down, the assets disposed of, and any surplus recovered should be returned to the taxpayer.  If ministers and civil servants cannot explain to the public their policies and actions, then they should not be undertaking their duties.

That is where we stand.

The following cop-outs and half-measures are not enough:

Somehow make the BBC unbiased. 

How this astonishing feat will be achieved is never explained.  Perhaps it’s proposed that the government should give the BBC a jolly good telling-off?

End the TV licence. 

Campaigners never tell us how they will persuade Parliament and the government of the day not to simply fund the BBC out of tax – the obvious thing to do and exactly what happened in Australia – or, alternatively, how commercialising the BBC will cure its problems.

There doesn’t see to be any sort of strategy beyond simply ‘not paying’.  It’s not enough.  We will end up in the same position as we have over Brexit – outmanoeuvred by cleverer people in the Establishment who do plan and prepare and will see us coming.

Privatise the BBC. 

This depends on what exactly is meant by ‘privatisation’ – we have learnt over the years just how deceptive and misleading the word is – but unless it means a break-up and pluralisation along similar lines to, or analogous to, the railway privatisation of the 1990s, it’s difficult to see how this can be regarded as any sort of fundamental change.  It just strengthens the BBC’s position, as it then (we assume) becomes entirely a profit--making enterprise, therefore virtually immune from political attack, yet with all the dignity and credibility implicit in the ‘BBC’ brand.  On reflection, privatisation seems like the worst option of them all.

Our Mission and Objective

We are the Campaign To Abolish The BBC.  

Our objective:

WE DEMAND THE ABOLITION OF THE BBC.

Most anti-BBC campaigners concentrate on the TV licence.  While we completely understand this approach and we agree that the TV licence system is outrageous, we believe that reforming the BBC's funding will ultimately not be enough. The BBC itself must be abolished.

Why Should The BBC Be Abolished?

The reasons are both political and operational. The BBC is a malignancy in our national life. It is a hotbed of Leftism, and anti-patriotic thought and sentiment, and is openly subversive.  Quite apart from this, there is no longer any need for a state-owned 'public service broadcaster' in Britain (even on a commercial basis).  We now live in the digital age, where there is choice and innovation and even ordinary people can set up their own digital channels on the web and attract thousands of viewers and subscribers. The BBC will reply that, in a pluralistic Information Society where there is a multiplicity of different media, it should remain as a guardian of impartiality, but the BBC is hopelessly biased. The guardian should be the free market that already exists and that can thrive without the BBC monolith.  Parliament should revoke the Charter, dissolve the Corporation, then sell-off its assets to the private sector. Its staff should be expected to seek employment in the commercial world.

Why Anti-TV Licence Campaigns Are Strategically-Flawed

To be clear, we are not suggesting people should continue to pay the TV licence.  Quite the opposite: we endorse civil resistance and we openly support and agree with anybody who refuses to pay it.  Anti-TV licence campaigners, whether avoiders or evaders, have our sympathy and support.  They are persuing an effective tactic that could, if it gains ground, put considerable financial pressure on the BBC.

Our point, however, is that there is a need for an overarching strategy.  We think that without this, campaigns to end the TV licence alone, while perfectly understandable and satisfying in their own way, may ultimately prove to be counter-productive - and may even strengthen the BBC's position in the end.  Those who rest on proposals to end the TV licence system tend to think that commercialising the BBC through advertising or subscription viewing, or a combination of these, will either reform its internal culture or, if not that, then will at least mean that the general public are not forced to fund its output.  They tend to assume that the BBC can, in effect, become another Channel Four: a commercially-operated, nominally-public broadcasting body.  

With due respect, our view is that this is the wrong approach in strategic terms for the following reasons:

1. The BBC needs to be looked upon as an enemy bureaucracy.  It is a base of employment, cultural struggle and moral and financial support, etc., for the Left in Britain, and perhaps always has been.  For that reason alone, it is important that the BBC as an organisation in and of itself is attacked, brought down and destroyed for good, not just reformed.

2. Strategically focusing on the TV licence system is the wrong approach because simply demanding that the BBC reform itself financially puts the initiative with the political and media elites, who can then come up with a new funding model that satisfies those who object to the TV licence system.  The result will most likely be a continuation of the BBC in its present form, possibly even funded out of general taxation.  If that happens, it will be a complete humiliation and defeat for anti-TV licence campaigners as we will all be in a worse position than before; but even if an entirely commercial funding model is found and agreed, the BBC's future will then be assured and all the problems it causes will continue.

3. The example of Channel Four proves that the model of notional public ownership combined with commercial operation will not work. Channel Four is a left-liberal backwater, its output mostly fringe, but it still has some effect on the national culture.  Likewise, the BBC's dangerous tendencies will only continue, even if commercialised.  It is also worth noting that the BBC is already part-commercialised, but that seems to have had no effect on its poisonous culture and ethos.  If the BBC is fully-commercialised and marketised, it will retain its place at the centre of British civic life and as part of the Establishment, and will continue to damage the country and public debate.

4. The vision of a 'commercial BBC' is inherently paradoxical.  A broad-spectrum public service broadcaster cannot also be a commercial broadcaster, as advertising and viewership pressures will ultimately take priority in broadcasting decisions, to the detriment of its putative public mission.  Channel Four only succeeds because it is allowed to cater to a niche audience.  No doubt a Commercial BBC would re-structure and adjust itself to audience capture, which would then raise questions about how it will also fulfill its manifest public mission.  You may ask: Why should this be a problem?  Whatever else they may be, the BBC Board and its executives are politically-adept and will find ways to reconcile the conflicted mission of a 'commercialised' public service broadcaster.  Consequently, a Commercial BBC will potentially be even more powerful and abusive than it is today.  The BBC Board and executives will be able to defend their funding model as entirely commercial, and therefore unassailable, while also using their public status to subvert British life still further. Not that we're suggesting the BBC fulfills its public mission as it is, and it must also be acknowledged that the BBC has pandered to viewer whims for a very long time (the Points of View programme was/is an example of this), but that only reinforces our point that a Commercial BBC posing as a public service broadcaster - with all the dignity and credibility this implies - would be harmful to British public life.