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
Showing posts with label abolition of the BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abolition of the BBC. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 September 2018
Twitter Gold 009
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.
Monday, 3 September 2018
A Big Thank You! and Social Media Update
A quick word to say Thank You! to all those who participated in our #AbolishTheBBC Twitter Campaign Dry Run yesterday.
Very importantly, we also want to make a point here of thanking those of you on social media who always 'like' and share our posts. We really appreciate your efforts!
The next important date for our social media strategy is Sunday 30th. September 2018, when we will be kicking-off our #AbolishTheBBC Twitter Campaign for real. Details to follow.
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.
Very importantly, we also want to make a point here of thanking those of you on social media who always 'like' and share our posts. We really appreciate your efforts!
The next important date for our social media strategy is Sunday 30th. September 2018, when we will be kicking-off our #AbolishTheBBC Twitter Campaign for real. Details to follow.
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.
Saturday, 1 September 2018
#AbolishTheBBC Twitter Campaign - Dry Run
On Sunday 2nd. September 2018, we're organising a 'dry run' for our #AbolishTheBBC Twitter Campaign.
Our ultimate aim is to get our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC trending, but for now, we just want to give some ideas a try and also promote the Tim Price Petition.
On Sunday 2nd. September 2018, YOU can help promote our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC on Twitter by doing the following:
STEP ONE
Please add our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC to your profile description on Twitter as we have done (and add it to your profiles elsewhere if you have other social media accounts like Gab and Facebook):
STEP TWO
Then re-tweet each of those tweets, adding the campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC to these new tweets:
Our ultimate aim is to get our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC trending, but for now, we just want to give some ideas a try and also promote the Tim Price Petition.
On Sunday 2nd. September 2018, YOU can help promote our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC on Twitter by doing the following:
STEP ONE
Please add our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC to your profile description on Twitter as we have done (and add it to your profiles elsewhere if you have other social media accounts like Gab and Facebook):
STEP TWO
On Sunday 2nd. September 2018, please send the following two tweets [the difference between the
tweets is due to Twitter spam controls]. Remember to include in both tweets the petition link [https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226446]:
PLEASE SIGN AND RE-TWEET THIS PETITION TO #AbolishTheBBC https://t.co/zZ9OylUbSP— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) September 1, 2018
STEP THREESign and RT this petition to #AbolishTheBBC https://t.co/zZ9OylUbSP— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) September 1, 2018
Then re-tweet each of those tweets, adding the campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC to these new tweets:
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) September 1, 2018
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) September 1, 2018STEP FOUR
It also helps if can like and RT any other tweets you happen
to see around Twitter that have the #AbolishTheBBC campaign hashtag.
STEP FIVE
If you're really keen, include the campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC in all your tweets on Sunday 2nd. September 2018.
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!!
Friday, 31 August 2018
Have You Received An E-mail From Us?
Thank you for reading the e-mail we sent you, and thank you for visiting our site.
We'd like to stress that the most important thing you can do to help bring about change at the BBC is to sign the latest petition. Here's the link. Please share that link with your friends, family and contacts - thank you very much.
More About Us
We appreciate you taking the time to find out more about our campaign. Here we will explain things a little bit and also set out why this issue may be relevant to you and your local community.
We know you are busy, so we will try to keep this relatively brief.
As explained in the e-mail, our campaign is for the abolition of the BBC.
We summarise why we oppose the BBC in this link. The issues we take are both with the concept of a state broadcaster and with the way the BBC itself operates. It is clear to us that the BBC cannot be reformed. Reform has been promised in the past and little or nothing has been achieved.
We demand nothing less than the total shutdown and closure of the BBC and its disposal by asset sale. In doing so, Britain would become perhaps the world's first country other than the United States without a state broadcaster - a major step forward for civil liberties and an example to the international community.
What Does 'Abolition' Mean?
In practical terms, abolition of the BBC means:
- all BBC transmissions, radio and television, to cease on a specific date and at a specified time to be decided by Parliament;
- the shutdown and closure of all BBC operations;
- revocation of the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates as a so-called 'public service broadcaster'. This can be done by a government minister (under Crown prerogative), with approval by Parliament;
- dissolution of the statutory Corporation (this requires an Act of Parliament);
- receivership, break-up and sale on the commercial market of all the BBC's assets;
- the proceeds of this sale to be placed under the custodianship of a legacy trust (two government ministers as the trustees, and administered by civil servants), which will meet all continuing contractual, statutory and legal obligations whatsoever of the BBC (including commercial debts, redundancy payments, pension commitments and so on);
- for the avoidance of doubt, abolition of the TV licence in Britain (each of the Crown Dependencies, where the TV licence also applies, would make their own decisions according to local circumstances);
- the refund of TV licence money to licence payers through time-limited claims at branches of the Post Office (and perhaps other government-approved outlets); and,
- any surplus from the legacy trust to be paid annually to support community-based broadcasting and other non-state media initiatives that Parliament may wish to assist.
What Are The Aims Of The Campaign Itself?
Our primary aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as its policy.
Through this campaign, our further aims are to raise awareness of the problems with the BBC and build popular momentum for the cause of abolition - both to address what we regard as the evils of the BBC itself and also to abolish state media in this country for good, in the interests of all.
How Is All This Relevant To Local Communities?
The BBC is relevant to local communities in the following ways:
(i). Individuals and households are often the subject of aggressive, harassing and intrusive inquiries from the BBC's TV licence enforcement arm, TVL. The BBC can and does criminally prosecute individuals - resulting in fines, and occasionally imprisonment when the fines are not paid. This causes needless worry and distress, often for innocent people or people who simply cannot afford a TV licence.
(ii). There are consequences for the taxpayer in that the BBC's enforcement costs money, and the BBC is also subsidised in this regard by the involvement of the police (to keep the peace both during the execution of search warrants and when ensuing criminal fines are enforced through levy and seizure of goods), and through the involvement of lawyers, the courts, social workers and prisons, and others. Some of these costs - mainly the police and social services - have to be met from local budgets.
(iii). The BBC plays an important role in news gathering everywhere in the country. Stories from the BBC cascade down to local and regional press, and often local and regional journalists will pick up on and pursue the narrative set down by the BBC. This helps set the political tone in society. We believe the BBC's bias is generally towards the political Left and towards metropolitan concerns. Even if you are politically of the Left yourself, the concern we are asking you to consider here is that the bias results in important issues that affect the public being omitted and censored from public debate.
(iv). The BBC's coverage is generally London-centric and reflects metropolitan preoccupations. This bias, together with the sheer massiveness of the BBC, helps to stifle discussion and debate of problems and issues in the rest of the country. Furthermore, when the BBC does discuss parts of the country outside London and the south-east, it tends to be in a way that is negative and focuses on problems. Of course, there are problems and they need to be discussed, but the negativity reflects a patronising attitude that BBC people have to the rest of the country. The regions, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, do not have their own inimitable broadcasting. BBC regional operations are mere cost centres and branches of the BBC, and mostly, if not entirely, fronted by a series of journeymen presenters who are not from whatever is the relevant county or region and who are believers in the narrow social dogmas that prevail within the BBC institutionally.
(v). The BBC does not, or does very little to, celebrate and highlight the regional cultures of Britain and its heritage. Instead, the BBC has pursued a bland, anodyne, multi-cultural attitude to Britain and often presents white British cultures and ethno-nations in particular as 'problems' to be dealt with rather than unique and distinctive aspects of British life to be celebrated.
How You Can Help Us
If You Agree With Us, then please sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Please also share the petition link widely with family, friends, contacts and work colleagues. Please also consider assisting us in other ways, as explained in this link.
If You Want Change At The BBC, Not Abolition, then please sign the petition anyway, as that will help put pressure on the BBC. Please also share the petition link with family, friends, contacts, work colleagues, etc.
If You Disagree With Us, that is fair. We know that the BBC does have support and we obviously appreciate that not everybody will agree with us - in which case, thank you for your time.
Questions? Comments?
If you have questions or comments for us, or if anything is unclear, please feel free to e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
We'd like to stress that the most important thing you can do to help bring about change at the BBC is to sign the latest petition. Here's the link. Please share that link with your friends, family and contacts - thank you very much.
More About Us
We appreciate you taking the time to find out more about our campaign. Here we will explain things a little bit and also set out why this issue may be relevant to you and your local community.
We know you are busy, so we will try to keep this relatively brief.
As explained in the e-mail, our campaign is for the abolition of the BBC.
We summarise why we oppose the BBC in this link. The issues we take are both with the concept of a state broadcaster and with the way the BBC itself operates. It is clear to us that the BBC cannot be reformed. Reform has been promised in the past and little or nothing has been achieved.
We demand nothing less than the total shutdown and closure of the BBC and its disposal by asset sale. In doing so, Britain would become perhaps the world's first country other than the United States without a state broadcaster - a major step forward for civil liberties and an example to the international community.
What Does 'Abolition' Mean?
In practical terms, abolition of the BBC means:
- all BBC transmissions, radio and television, to cease on a specific date and at a specified time to be decided by Parliament;
- the shutdown and closure of all BBC operations;
- revocation of the Royal Charter under which the BBC operates as a so-called 'public service broadcaster'. This can be done by a government minister (under Crown prerogative), with approval by Parliament;
- dissolution of the statutory Corporation (this requires an Act of Parliament);
- receivership, break-up and sale on the commercial market of all the BBC's assets;
- the proceeds of this sale to be placed under the custodianship of a legacy trust (two government ministers as the trustees, and administered by civil servants), which will meet all continuing contractual, statutory and legal obligations whatsoever of the BBC (including commercial debts, redundancy payments, pension commitments and so on);
- for the avoidance of doubt, abolition of the TV licence in Britain (each of the Crown Dependencies, where the TV licence also applies, would make their own decisions according to local circumstances);
- the refund of TV licence money to licence payers through time-limited claims at branches of the Post Office (and perhaps other government-approved outlets); and,
- any surplus from the legacy trust to be paid annually to support community-based broadcasting and other non-state media initiatives that Parliament may wish to assist.
What Are The Aims Of The Campaign Itself?
Our primary aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as its policy.
Through this campaign, our further aims are to raise awareness of the problems with the BBC and build popular momentum for the cause of abolition - both to address what we regard as the evils of the BBC itself and also to abolish state media in this country for good, in the interests of all.
How Is All This Relevant To Local Communities?
The BBC is relevant to local communities in the following ways:
(i). Individuals and households are often the subject of aggressive, harassing and intrusive inquiries from the BBC's TV licence enforcement arm, TVL. The BBC can and does criminally prosecute individuals - resulting in fines, and occasionally imprisonment when the fines are not paid. This causes needless worry and distress, often for innocent people or people who simply cannot afford a TV licence.
(ii). There are consequences for the taxpayer in that the BBC's enforcement costs money, and the BBC is also subsidised in this regard by the involvement of the police (to keep the peace both during the execution of search warrants and when ensuing criminal fines are enforced through levy and seizure of goods), and through the involvement of lawyers, the courts, social workers and prisons, and others. Some of these costs - mainly the police and social services - have to be met from local budgets.
(iii). The BBC plays an important role in news gathering everywhere in the country. Stories from the BBC cascade down to local and regional press, and often local and regional journalists will pick up on and pursue the narrative set down by the BBC. This helps set the political tone in society. We believe the BBC's bias is generally towards the political Left and towards metropolitan concerns. Even if you are politically of the Left yourself, the concern we are asking you to consider here is that the bias results in important issues that affect the public being omitted and censored from public debate.
(iv). The BBC's coverage is generally London-centric and reflects metropolitan preoccupations. This bias, together with the sheer massiveness of the BBC, helps to stifle discussion and debate of problems and issues in the rest of the country. Furthermore, when the BBC does discuss parts of the country outside London and the south-east, it tends to be in a way that is negative and focuses on problems. Of course, there are problems and they need to be discussed, but the negativity reflects a patronising attitude that BBC people have to the rest of the country. The regions, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, do not have their own inimitable broadcasting. BBC regional operations are mere cost centres and branches of the BBC, and mostly, if not entirely, fronted by a series of journeymen presenters who are not from whatever is the relevant county or region and who are believers in the narrow social dogmas that prevail within the BBC institutionally.
(v). The BBC does not, or does very little to, celebrate and highlight the regional cultures of Britain and its heritage. Instead, the BBC has pursued a bland, anodyne, multi-cultural attitude to Britain and often presents white British cultures and ethno-nations in particular as 'problems' to be dealt with rather than unique and distinctive aspects of British life to be celebrated.
How You Can Help Us
If You Agree With Us, then please sign the latest anti-BBC petition. Please also share the petition link widely with family, friends, contacts and work colleagues. Please also consider assisting us in other ways, as explained in this link.
If You Want Change At The BBC, Not Abolition, then please sign the petition anyway, as that will help put pressure on the BBC. Please also share the petition link with family, friends, contacts, work colleagues, etc.
If You Disagree With Us, that is fair. We know that the BBC does have support and we obviously appreciate that not everybody will agree with us - in which case, thank you for your time.
Questions? Comments?
If you have questions or comments for us, or if anything is unclear, please feel free to e-mail us.
THANK YOU!
Tim Price Petition & General Campaign Update
The Tim Price Petition is going respectably, but - as we expected - sign-ups have slowed-down after the initial novelty wore off. At just over 7,000 signatures, the petition has reached the natural limit of what can be achieved based on low-intensity effort. In particular, we noticed that over the last two days there have been virtually no new sign-ups without our active intervention. We are not aware of any other organised efforts to promote this petition. Taking these points together, any further progress will depend entirely on our own exertions and those of our supporters.
As of this morning, we've stepped-up our sign-up efforts and we're starting to get lots of interest again. Certainly, we want the Petition up to 10,000 signatures at some point in September, if we can. Given the radicalism of the Petition, even just 10,000 signatures overall would be respectable, though we do hope to exceed this.
We're also slowly building-up our campaign in other ways:
1. From tomorrow, we will be sending our a mass mailing to key contacts and influencers in local communities where support for the petition is strongest. This will be an e-mail in which we raise awareness of our campaign and the issues with the BBC, and ask that recipients sign and spread the word about the latest petition.
2. We intend to get our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC trending on Twitter. Over this weekend, we will be bringing together the tweeps who want to help us with this for a 'dry run' and to formally launch this aspect of our campaign.
3. We will also be developing our web and social media presence further and hope to improve the look and professionalism of our 'brand'. Some tentative steps will also be taken towards putting our campaign on a more 'legal' footing.
4. We will also be looking at ways to hone our social media strategy and work with other campaigners on lines of attack.
5. We will be expanding our presence online and looking at avenues to spread our message to a wider range of people as well as improve communication with our existing contacts and supporters.
6. We will be looking at how we can reach out to other pressure groups with similar interests, not just in broadcasting-related matters but across the spectrum of issues. Some of these, we hope, will help spread the word about our campaign and the petition; others may assist our campaign in other ways, and possibly vice versa.
7. If the petition sign-ups continue to climb, we will consider making a surgery appointment with one or more of our activists' constituency MPs in order to begin pressing our case at a more formal level. We know the reception we are likely to receive in some quarters, but we also know that at least a few MPs, especially in the Conservative Party, are (to some degree or other) quietly sympathetic to campaigns such as ours.
8. Another major aspect of our campaign at this stage is related to policy work. We intend to write to every political party and campaign group registered with the Electoral Commission, and any non-registered parties and groups of which we are aware, with a series of questions regarding their policy on broadcasting and the BBC. This is the first stage of our Green Paper process, which we hope will culminate in a consultation to be circulated among our supporters and any other interested parties.
9. Finally, we will be filing a complaint with the House of Commons' Petitions Committee regarding the handling of our original petition application. We are of the view that our own petition, which explicitly called for abolition of the BBC, was wrongly rejected. Nothing can be done about that now, but we want to seek assurances from the Committee about the handling of any such applications in the future. We also believe there are flaws in the petition process, which should be drawn to the attention of the Committee and on which we will be seeking a response and comment.
As of this morning, we've stepped-up our sign-up efforts and we're starting to get lots of interest again. Certainly, we want the Petition up to 10,000 signatures at some point in September, if we can. Given the radicalism of the Petition, even just 10,000 signatures overall would be respectable, though we do hope to exceed this.
We're also slowly building-up our campaign in other ways:
1. From tomorrow, we will be sending our a mass mailing to key contacts and influencers in local communities where support for the petition is strongest. This will be an e-mail in which we raise awareness of our campaign and the issues with the BBC, and ask that recipients sign and spread the word about the latest petition.
2. We intend to get our campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC trending on Twitter. Over this weekend, we will be bringing together the tweeps who want to help us with this for a 'dry run' and to formally launch this aspect of our campaign.
3. We will also be developing our web and social media presence further and hope to improve the look and professionalism of our 'brand'. Some tentative steps will also be taken towards putting our campaign on a more 'legal' footing.
4. We will also be looking at ways to hone our social media strategy and work with other campaigners on lines of attack.
5. We will be expanding our presence online and looking at avenues to spread our message to a wider range of people as well as improve communication with our existing contacts and supporters.
6. We will be looking at how we can reach out to other pressure groups with similar interests, not just in broadcasting-related matters but across the spectrum of issues. Some of these, we hope, will help spread the word about our campaign and the petition; others may assist our campaign in other ways, and possibly vice versa.
7. If the petition sign-ups continue to climb, we will consider making a surgery appointment with one or more of our activists' constituency MPs in order to begin pressing our case at a more formal level. We know the reception we are likely to receive in some quarters, but we also know that at least a few MPs, especially in the Conservative Party, are (to some degree or other) quietly sympathetic to campaigns such as ours.
8. Another major aspect of our campaign at this stage is related to policy work. We intend to write to every political party and campaign group registered with the Electoral Commission, and any non-registered parties and groups of which we are aware, with a series of questions regarding their policy on broadcasting and the BBC. This is the first stage of our Green Paper process, which we hope will culminate in a consultation to be circulated among our supporters and any other interested parties.
9. Finally, we will be filing a complaint with the House of Commons' Petitions Committee regarding the handling of our original petition application. We are of the view that our own petition, which explicitly called for abolition of the BBC, was wrongly rejected. Nothing can be done about that now, but we want to seek assurances from the Committee about the handling of any such applications in the future. We also believe there are flaws in the petition process, which should be drawn to the attention of the Committee and on which we will be seeking a response and comment.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
"The BBC Maintains The Highest Editorial Standards..." Except When It Doesn't
One of the myths propagated by BBC stooges is that the BBC (especially its news and current affairs capacity) represents a sort of Platonic elite of broadcasting. The BBC itself plays up to the notion and enjoys repeating at every opportunity, like a boring uncle at a wedding, the prideful and epithetic appellation: 'public service broadcaster'. Their insistence in this regard has become sufficiently irritating that some of us have unkindly started to question whether it's actually true - a lesson for us all, perhaps, in the dangers of over-stating one's case.
There are regular slips. Earlier this month, the BBC reported on the Scottish Government's annual public accounting statistics (known as Government Expenditure and Revenue Statistics - or 'GERS' for short), in a way that suggested the SNP administration is over-spending. This was grossly inaccurate. The BBC had conflated UK-wide spending outside the devolved government's competence with spending by the Scottish Government itself.
Of course, even the BBC's worst enemies would not demand that it should provide accurate news each and every time, and we do not make such an unreasonable demand. The BBC is a human organisation and mistakes will creep in, even when the highest standards are maintained; and, if the incident we mention here had been merely a routine embarrassment to the BBC of the sort that any sizeable media concern inevitably has to endure now and then, we would not think to bring it up. All that's needed is a correction and, if appropriate, an apology. Big deal.
Yet it seems that the BBC have reported on the GERS inaccurately in one of the past two successive years as well:
Paul Wheelhouse adds:
Here's the BBC's on-air apology for the inaccurate 2018 story:
The BBC's ideals are in rags. We are not arguing against ideals in society. Asking people to be generally honest is an ideal and also attainable and desirable. A soldier is expected to be loyal to his country, and this again is both attainable and desirable. Perhaps a difference between the soldier and the journalist is that, whereas for the soldier loyalty is an essential part of his duties - which cannot be performed correctly if he is disloyal - for the journalist, impartiality is not the essence of his trade, and unless he is simply a bare fact reporter, some partiality and bias must always creep in. Thus, media and journalistic impartiality is not just a laudable ideal, it is almost-always a Quixotic aspiration - impracticable and unattainable.
The danger with the BBC is that people continue to believe the deceit that it can be impartial. Some people even think that it is. This is actually unfair on the BBC and its journalists. BBC bias campaigners are setting the BBC on a fool's errand. Those who do so because they actually believe in the BBC's own corporate ideology would be better-off realising that it is a myth, even a lie, and settling on a case for abolition and closure. But we suspect most protest bias not because they are opposed to bias as such, but because they want the BBC to be biased towards them. The SNP politicians and activists mentioned above are an example. They are not guided by principle or by opposition to the outrage that is the BBC. Their concern is purely parti pris in nature, and so while we do not hesitate to highlight the injustice done to them, we ultimately put them in the same category as the BBC and condemn them. Theirs is a selfish and dishonest agenda, but highlights again how the BBC's Quixotic values and mission serve as a fig-leaf for vested interests of all sorts.
There are regular slips. Earlier this month, the BBC reported on the Scottish Government's annual public accounting statistics (known as Government Expenditure and Revenue Statistics - or 'GERS' for short), in a way that suggested the SNP administration is over-spending. This was grossly inaccurate. The BBC had conflated UK-wide spending outside the devolved government's competence with spending by the Scottish Government itself.
Protests and demands for an apology followed. Initially, the BBC denied there was any inaccuracy, but eventually there came an apology.The Scottish Government’s entire budget = just over half of the total amount of taxes raised in Scotland (£60Bn in 2017/18). The deficit figures are after UK Govt spend on pensions, welfare and cost of UK national debt service, Trident nukes (not wanted here) et al are added in!— Paul Wheelhouse MSP 🏴 (@PaulWheelhouse) August 22, 2018
Of course, even the BBC's worst enemies would not demand that it should provide accurate news each and every time, and we do not make such an unreasonable demand. The BBC is a human organisation and mistakes will creep in, even when the highest standards are maintained; and, if the incident we mention here had been merely a routine embarrassment to the BBC of the sort that any sizeable media concern inevitably has to endure now and then, we would not think to bring it up. All that's needed is a correction and, if appropriate, an apology. Big deal.
Yet it seems that the BBC have reported on the GERS inaccurately in one of the past two successive years as well:
Hi Paul. They lie in their headlines the same way every year. Here are Jackie Bird's opening lines from GERS day reporting Scotland in 2016 and 2017. I complained, they conceded they were wrong yet they persist. It is very deliberate and completely dishonest. pic.twitter.com/FZMPZyRzJu— Tam Jardine (@Tam__Jardine) August 22, 2018
We find this from back in 2016:The 2017 one was about public spending as a whole, not Scottish Government. So two out of three. There is a huge proportion of total spending that continues to be outwith SG control - we cannot cut spend on Trident, say, or use full welfare powers to help inclusive growth.— Paul Wheelhouse MSP 🏴 (@PaulWheelhouse) August 22, 2018
"The corporation’s Editorial Complaints Unit [ECU] has upheld a complaint relating to an item that aired on August 24th 2016.
"The item related to the GERS [Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland] report which purports to show the financial status of Scotland.
"According to the complainant, Reporting Scotland anchor Jackie Bird misled viewers when she read out the introduction to the item. Viewers heard the presenter say: “The Scottish Government is spending nearly fifteen billion pounds more than it’s bringing in in tax.
"The statement, according to the complainant, was misleading as it implied ‘Expenditure’ in GERS is by the Scottish Government, and that the Scottish Government brings in all the ‘Revenue’ in GERS. Official documents showed that £40,536M of ‘Expenditure’ was by the Scottish Government and £28,045M was by the UK Government."It looks like a pattern. Anybody who thinks the BBC does not have a partial agenda is naive.
Paul Wheelhouse adds:
We are not supporters of Scottish Independence or the SNP and its anti-white Leftist agenda, but that is not the point. The BBC's reporting here is, on any interpretation, plainly inaccurate. It implies that the Scottish Government cannot manage itself financially based on both Scottish devolved spending and UK-wide spending. This isn't the 1940s. The BBC has no right to act like some sort of propaganda department, whether it may be aiding the Left or, as here, fulfilling some sort of UK government agenda.I am often frustrated by ignorant coverage but have often shrugged it off - this goes into seriously fake news territory & given how important this issue is, this sort of disgraceful misrepresentation is totally unacceptable from a very well resourced public service broadcaster.— Paul Wheelhouse MSP 🏴 (@PaulWheelhouse) August 22, 2018
Here's the BBC's on-air apology for the inaccurate 2018 story:
— Iain #FBPE #FBSI 🏴🏴 (@jimmytabuk) August 23, 2018In the Herald:
"THE BBC has apologised on-air for bungling its coverage of Scotland’s finances after an SNP minister branded it “disgraceful” and “fake news”.
"The corporation interrupted its 1pm TV news bulletin to admit it confused the finances of the Scottish Government with those of the public sector as a whole.
"It followed a report on Wednesday about the annual Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland (GERS) statistics.
"These showed the Scottish deficit in 2017/18 - the difference between all public spending and Scottish tax income - was £13.5bn or 7.9 per cent of GDP.
"However the BBC report said the Scottish Government spent £13.5bn more than its income, which would be illegal.
"GERS public spending covers both devolved and reserved matters."
The danger with the BBC is that people continue to believe the deceit that it can be impartial. Some people even think that it is. This is actually unfair on the BBC and its journalists. BBC bias campaigners are setting the BBC on a fool's errand. Those who do so because they actually believe in the BBC's own corporate ideology would be better-off realising that it is a myth, even a lie, and settling on a case for abolition and closure. But we suspect most protest bias not because they are opposed to bias as such, but because they want the BBC to be biased towards them. The SNP politicians and activists mentioned above are an example. They are not guided by principle or by opposition to the outrage that is the BBC. Their concern is purely parti pris in nature, and so while we do not hesitate to highlight the injustice done to them, we ultimately put them in the same category as the BBC and condemn them. Theirs is a selfish and dishonest agenda, but highlights again how the BBC's Quixotic values and mission serve as a fig-leaf for vested interests of all sorts.
How You Can Help (Version III)
YOU can help us.
Here's how:
1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition. [Note: UK Parliament will send you an e-mail with a link that you need to click on to confirm your signature to the petition. If it doesn't appear in your Inbox, please check your Spam/Junk folder].
Here's how:
1. Sign the latest anti-BBC petition. [Note: UK Parliament will send you an e-mail with a link that you need to click on to confirm your signature to the petition. If it doesn't appear in your Inbox, please check your Spam/Junk folder].
2. Share our blog posts with others: click the social media links at the foot of each post.
3. Add your own comments to our blog posts to let us know you support us.
4. Visit and click 'Like' on our Facebook Page and invite others to do the same; 'Like' and share our Facebook posts.
5. If you use Facebook a lot, add our campaign banner to your profile photo. Just save the .png image below to your computer [right-click, then Save as...], then go to the Facebook frames page and follow the instructions.
6. Follow us on Twitter, add the campaign hashtag #AbolishTheBBC to your profile description, and press 'like' and 're-tweet' whenever you see one of our tweets.
7. Tell friends, family and work colleagues about our campaign and suggest they search online for our campaign hashtag: google #AbolishTheBBC
8. Get in touch at campaigntoabolishthebbc@gmail.com, with messages of support, ideas, and suggestions.
9. We're especially keen to hear from anybody who can promote our campaign and spread the word. Perhaps you have a network of contacts or influencers who can help?
THANK YOU!
Sunday, 26 August 2018
What If The BBC Is Privatised?
Time and again we hear from the BBC’s critics that if only
the TV licence is ended and the BBC moves to subscription-based viewing and
advertising, or some sort of privatisation even, all will be well. We also see that commercialisation is now
UKIP policy. The argument is
shallow, unimaginative and misconceived, and if implemented, would leave us in
a worse situation.
To reiterate, we call for:
1. Complete abolition and closure of the BBC; all transmissions
to cease; its Royal Charter revoked; its assets broken-up, and fragmented and sold
on the commercial market.
2. A total end to state involvement in information, media and
broadcasting.
3. A new era of plurality and choice with the free market assuring
independence and standards.
These changes would be as epochal as the formal abolition of
slavery - and we purposefully draw a parallel between the two
institutions. The existence of a state-owned
and state-controlled media amounts to the perpetuation of slavery through mass psychology.
That being said, we are not mad marketeers. If a state-owned media is wrong, then so is a
transmogrified statist media owned by private interests. We do not want that either. In so far as we believe in the so-called
‘free’ market as a concept, it is in the sense that we regard it as part of the
natural order of a healthy society. We
do not want corporate media dominance – but then, that’s one of the very reasons
we oppose reforms and ‘improvements’ to the BBC.
It follows that our understanding of ‘privatisation’ is
quite different to that of neo-thatcherites.
To us, privatisation is simply a process in which state assets are
returned to the public, the most efficient means of doing this being via the
market – either through sale of the entity as one or more operating concerns or
closure followed by asset-based sell-off.
In the case of the BBC, we favour the latter. The BBC has fulfilled its mission and is now
functionally redundant. Its assets must
be sold and the proceeds returned to the public, minus any legacy contractual
and legal obligations to the BBC’s staff, pensioners and other creditors. To continue the BBC and allow it to operate
in whatever form – public or private – would be to continue a sham and a deceit
and allow the enemies of this country to run rampant.
But some will not be convinced by the case, so here we would
like to offer a vision of what broadcasting would look like under a Privatised
BBC. We consider it dystopian.
Watch this:
That’s a video from The Guardian about people who voted for
Brexit in the 2016 referendum. We see
here how unconscious biasing works. The
casual viewer might regard The Guardian’s treatment as ‘fair’. We disagree.
The Guardian interviews various individuals who are articulate and
well-spoken but in some way slightly eccentric.
Much like Nick Clegg’s feature on Wales for the BBC that we eviscerated yesterday,
The Guardian misses out the majority category and in doing so (intentionally or
otherwise) presents the viewer with a distorted picture of things. You will notice that The Guardian does not
interview the white English working class who would represent normative England. They are entirely absent from the feature. This is because The Guardian does not regard
such people as articulate or well-spoken or having the ‘right’ sort of
views. Certainly, the people interviewed
have voted Brexit and are in opposition to a large part, perhaps all, of The
Guardian’s agenda, but they are able to put across why in a way that The
Guardian and its audience finds acceptable, or at least relatively inoffensive. You will note that even in the segment with
the man in Lincolnshire in which the problem of immigration is discussed, he
negotiates around the central issues carefully in a way that must leave the
observant viewer deeply annoyed and frustrated.
The result is an unconscious biasing towards relatively unchallenging
opinions and the censoring-out of any genuine dissent against The Guardian’s
agenda. It’s a subtle process and even
The Guardian’s own journalists and producers may not be entirely self-conscious
or self-aware about what they are doing.
With this instructive example under our belts, we turn to
what a Privatised BBC would be like. We
must remember that the BBC is not a pleasant little radio and TV outlet with
nice smiley people all working fluffily in the public interest. It is a state-owned and state-controlled
diversified multi-media state conglomerate with interests in:
(i). the broadcasting of TV and radio programmes, now entirely
digital;
(ii). the production of radio and TV programmes, for the BBC itself
and other outlets (especially S4C in Wales);
(iii). news-gathering and other journalism;
(iv). the arts and creative industries;
(v). vocational and graduate training in management, broadcasting
techniques, the arts and journalism and other relevant fields;
(vi). books, magazines and other publications;
(vii). various websites.
In evaluating the option of a future Commercial BBC, or Privatised
BBC, one thing we need to do is imagine what the qualitative experience of its
output will be like under those proposed situations, taking into account the
BBC’s diversification and super-dominance.
It is by doing so that readers, we hope, will begin to understand why we
insist on abolition and closure.
Obviously the exercise is little more than educated guesswork, but we
can base our guesswork on the preponderance of what the BBC actually does now.
Here's an example which we think typifies the attitude of the BBC to the rest of the country outside London, the hip parts of Manchester, urban Bristol and its other metropolitan strongholds. In other words, this is what the BBC thinks of the native white British, using its privileged position as a state broadcaster to tell us. The message seems to be that if you voted for Brexit, you are somewhat of a xenophobe, and a bit of cad:
Here's an example which we think typifies the attitude of the BBC to the rest of the country outside London, the hip parts of Manchester, urban Bristol and its other metropolitan strongholds. In other words, this is what the BBC thinks of the native white British, using its privileged position as a state broadcaster to tell us. The message seems to be that if you voted for Brexit, you are somewhat of a xenophobe, and a bit of cad:
BBC Newsnight is not ‘news’, it is an ‘agenda’. For comparison purposes, let's zoom back to The
Guardian. Here we have an exemplar of the genre. A jumpy little
lefty with a squeaky voice, who looks like an overgrown first year university
undergraduate, runs round the English countryside patronising everybody he
meets ad hoc, snarkily inferring they are [stupid/backward] [country bumpkins/narrow-minded
provincials] because they don’t agree with his Leftist predicates:
The BBC and The Guardian are the same people. But maybe you’re not convinced?
Here’s another one from the squeaky little mouse:
The result of privatising the BBC will be that we are left
with a multi-media conglomerate that looks like a hybrid of Channel Four, LBC,
Virgin Media and The Guardian. If you need
it put to you bluntly: imagine The Guardian as a massive global multi-media
empire and you have a sense of what a Privatised BBC could do. Channel Four already tries its best to be the private sector's Leftist propaganda outlet of choice in Britain. We
don’t need another one. Imagine
furthermore this media empire retaining a Royal Charter (entirely possible, very
many private companies are chartered) and having the mission of a public
service broadcaster, with all the credibility and implied integrity that goes
with it.
In response to these points, the supposition of many anti-TV
licence campaigners goes something like this:
-The TV licence system becomes unsustainable and ends.
-It is then replaced by subscription-based viewing and
advertising.
-The BBC then crumbles (a bit like ITV Digital did) because
of insufficient viewers and subscribers.
This seems cogent enough, but a moment’s thought should tell
you that it doesn’t hold. The thinking
is errored as soon as it comes up against what we know about the reality of the
BBC’s institutional values and its broadcasting. You don’t just change those things by
changing the structure. Even a public to
private shift won’t change it. The BBC
already in effect operates much like a commercial entity. Thanks to the John Birt era (an appointee of
Thatcher), a large part of the BBC’s revenues and operating circumstances are
commercial and resemble how a private company would function. Yet still the BBC
is incurably Leftist and metropolitan; in fact, the more ‘commercialised’ the
BBC has become, the worse its culture.
But then, why should that be a surprise?
Lots of private enterprises operate in this way and neo-liberal economics
often goes hand-in-hand with social liberalism.
There was always a great congruency and alignment between Thatcherism
and the social liberal Left.
Furthermore, we must consider the BBC’s accumulated
strengths. Whatever else may be said
about the BBC, the following has to be conceded:
- The BBC is a prestigious brand with global market penetration and worldwide recognition. Literally virtually everybody in the world, across cultures and languages, knows who the BBC are and broadly what they do.
- The BBC has had the benefit of nine decades of public investment, in its brand, its technics, its production values, its buildings, its talent.
- The BBC has a loyal following of many millions, and there is a hardcore (mostly Left, but many from the political Right) who will defend the BBC come hell or high water.
- The BBC has become intrinsic to the managerial-state, and each reciprocates the other with support and patronage (and probably bribes and favours too). That will remain the case even if it is privatised. Think we’re wrong? Take a look at how privatised utilities work: they are in effect state bodies operating under the auspices of private capital, and in the case of some post-privatisation entities, the private sector status is nominal. Suffice it to say that anybody who thinks commercialising or privatising the BBC in whatever way is a solution or would end its influence on the country is just being naïve.
Like it or not, those are facts or conclusions from facts.
Our view:
The BBC won’t crumble if the TV licence ends. To the contrary: the BBC can and will thrive
without the TV licence, and we think the BBC’s senior management (who aren’t
stupid people) know this and privately want the TV licence system torn up for
good. They won’t say so publicly because
they know why the TV licence still exists, despite its obvious ridiculousness. It serves the interests of their political
masters.
To be clear, the reason the TV licence remains in place is
because it suits the political class.
For them it’s the perfect system:
-It allows the government of the day to exercise strategic and broad tonal control over the BBC, its output, its institutional culture. As a hypothecated tax, it also avoids the problem of accountability and answerability that there would be if the BBC were funded out of general taxation. Note, however, the rider below.
-It allows the government of the day to exercise strategic and broad tonal control over the BBC, its output, its institutional culture. As a hypothecated tax, it also avoids the problem of accountability and answerability that there would be if the BBC were funded out of general taxation. Note, however, the rider below.
The important rider is that a move to a directly-funded BBC
would be the easiest evolutionary option and explains why other broadcasting
systems that have abandoned their license tradition have immediately took up
direct funding models – it’s the path of least resistance, despite its
difficulties. It avoids a big legal or
parliamentary showdown. Abolition, in
contrast, requires great political and moral courage and foresight. Commercialisation and privatisation are
legally and administratively quite tricky, politically-controversial and play
into the hands of the relevant public broadcaster, which has a brand and whose elite management (and their private capital cronies and associates) want to be
enriched thereby without state meddling.
Taking all the above into consideration, we hope you can see
why an abolition campaign is needed.
Most of the alternatives don’t bear thinking about, but rest assured,
they will be on the agenda should we reach the point where a
boycott/non-payment campaign threatens the sustainability of TV licensing.
Denmark Ends Its TV Licence...But Keeps Its State Broadcaster
Denmark scraps its media licence:
"Denmark is joining the growing number of European countries that have scrapped the licence fee for public broadcasting.
"The Danish government has agreed on a new media agreement that is expected to come into effect on January 1, 2019. The new measures means a cut in DR’s budget of 20% and will do away with the TV/media licence. The measure was taken by the VLAK government with the support of the Dansk Folkeparti party."General taxation will now fund DR (the Danish Broadcasting Corporation).
Thus we have a re-run of the Australian experience: a
successful campaign to end the TV licence results in an even worse system, in which
every taxpayer in Denmark must now fund the state broadcasting conglomerate,
regardless of whether he watches its output or even watches TV at all. Yet another pointer for those in the anti-TV licence camp
who think that ending the licence will mean the end of the BBC. It won’t.
Friday, 24 August 2018
The Problem of Apathy
A YouTuber called ChilliJonCarni argues in the below video that the TV licence will never be scrapped.
Our comments on the video:
1. First, while we completely oppose the TV licence and agree that non-payment is the right tactic, we believe political campaigning should be focused on the BBC itself. We argue for abolition rather than reform. It is our view that reform, including ending the TV licence, will only make matters worse.
2. Petitioning is not an automatic law-making process. You don't collect 125,000 or however many signatures and then simply secure the desired change in the law. Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes. Petitions are just a method of campaigning and Parliament is free to accept or reject the case made in a petition. We explain more about petitions here.
3. The issue with the BBC as a state broadcaster isn't that it can take over the airwaves and dictate editorial content in times of national emergency. In fact, even in an entirely private sector broadcasting environment, we would expect there to be provisos in place that reserve state control of the various media outlets for the purposes of emergency broadcasting, as part of the usual civil contingencies. The real issue with state broadcasting is the influence that it has on society under normal, everyday circumstances. State broadcasting is offensive in concept and indubitably leads to political influence on the broadcaster and its content. That is the problem, not the extreme, fictitious scenario referred to in the above video.
4. The issue with bias - to the extent that exists - is not that the government-of-the-day is dictating to the BBC what it should broadcast. Nobody with a proper understanding of the matter would suggest that the government does that in most ordinary circumstances. While we do call the BBC a state broadcaster, we acknowledge that there is editorial and operational autonomy. What we do say, however, is that the BBC is a state broadcaster because the government can and does set the tone and institutional culture of the BBC, influences key appointments and uses its own appointees to determine the BBC's strategic direction. Furthermore, in extraordinary and unusual circumstances, it is open to the government to intervene more closely in the BBC's editorial policies - usually this happens in times of war (most recently, that we know of, it happened during the Iraq War of 2003).
5. It is perfectly true that the BBC, as a massive bureaucracy and state media conglomerate, is a source of lucrative employment for the political elite and the broader Left, and we make that point ourselves as part of our case for abolition. But again, the issue there isn't specifically that the relevant people are paid a lot - they could be paid a lot elsewhere, the Left have bases in the private sector too - it is more fundamentally that the BBC is a base of support and secure employment, contracts and prestigious titular roles for the Left, and acts as a pivot for the Left's cultural war against the rest of the country. The line of 'Look at how much they pay Gary Lineker or some ex-government minister' is a good populist talking point, but at the same time, we can't really begrudge the BBC for paying people their market worth. (Note: How 'market worth' is defined and determined is quite another matter - some of it may well be pay-offs and bribes, and some of it certainly is subtle influence-buying).
6. This man, ChilliJonCarni, has sadly slipped into being negative and defeatist. We hope we are not being too harsh in saying so, and we hope he recovers his enthusiasm, but he is basically telling anti-TV licence campaigners (and us, by extension) to give up any active campaigning and instead just rely on not paying. We disagree. If anything, we think the time is ripe to step up the campaign of non-payment and resistance. Our only point is that the political direction should be explicitly towards abolition and a campaign with that goal is needed, with a street movement, petitions, posters, events, legal activism and policy work. The aim will be to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as policy, and thereby head-off the BBC and influence the strategic direction of the debate once it becomes clear that the TV licence system is no longer sustainable.
7. It is true that the political and parliamentary system is rigged and there are very strong vested interests among the political class in keeping the TV licence system and the BBC itself. The outrageous 2017 parliamentary debate - mentioned in the video and also mentioned several times on this blog - demonstrates this, but that is not a reason to give up.
There will have been a time during the mid-19th. century when anti-slavery campaigners in the United States were convinced that they would never succeed. They will have been told that slavery is natural and that there are too many vested interests in the American South against abolition and so emancipation will never happen, but it did and the slaves were legally freed. Likewise, campaigners for women's suffrage at the turn-of-the-century will have been told that female participation in public affairs is unnatural and wrong and that there are too many vested interests ranged against it, but they didn't give up, they carried on - and eventually won.
We were once told that Britain's withdrawal from the European Union would never happen, that too many people favour the EU, that business is vested in our membership and that anybody who proposes withdrawal is a fruitcake. Yet here we are in a national conversation about how to withdraw from the European Union - not whether to, but how to.
We must fight on. One day we will win.
Our comments on the video:
1. First, while we completely oppose the TV licence and agree that non-payment is the right tactic, we believe political campaigning should be focused on the BBC itself. We argue for abolition rather than reform. It is our view that reform, including ending the TV licence, will only make matters worse.
2. Petitioning is not an automatic law-making process. You don't collect 125,000 or however many signatures and then simply secure the desired change in the law. Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes. Petitions are just a method of campaigning and Parliament is free to accept or reject the case made in a petition. We explain more about petitions here.
3. The issue with the BBC as a state broadcaster isn't that it can take over the airwaves and dictate editorial content in times of national emergency. In fact, even in an entirely private sector broadcasting environment, we would expect there to be provisos in place that reserve state control of the various media outlets for the purposes of emergency broadcasting, as part of the usual civil contingencies. The real issue with state broadcasting is the influence that it has on society under normal, everyday circumstances. State broadcasting is offensive in concept and indubitably leads to political influence on the broadcaster and its content. That is the problem, not the extreme, fictitious scenario referred to in the above video.
4. The issue with bias - to the extent that exists - is not that the government-of-the-day is dictating to the BBC what it should broadcast. Nobody with a proper understanding of the matter would suggest that the government does that in most ordinary circumstances. While we do call the BBC a state broadcaster, we acknowledge that there is editorial and operational autonomy. What we do say, however, is that the BBC is a state broadcaster because the government can and does set the tone and institutional culture of the BBC, influences key appointments and uses its own appointees to determine the BBC's strategic direction. Furthermore, in extraordinary and unusual circumstances, it is open to the government to intervene more closely in the BBC's editorial policies - usually this happens in times of war (most recently, that we know of, it happened during the Iraq War of 2003).
5. It is perfectly true that the BBC, as a massive bureaucracy and state media conglomerate, is a source of lucrative employment for the political elite and the broader Left, and we make that point ourselves as part of our case for abolition. But again, the issue there isn't specifically that the relevant people are paid a lot - they could be paid a lot elsewhere, the Left have bases in the private sector too - it is more fundamentally that the BBC is a base of support and secure employment, contracts and prestigious titular roles for the Left, and acts as a pivot for the Left's cultural war against the rest of the country. The line of 'Look at how much they pay Gary Lineker or some ex-government minister' is a good populist talking point, but at the same time, we can't really begrudge the BBC for paying people their market worth. (Note: How 'market worth' is defined and determined is quite another matter - some of it may well be pay-offs and bribes, and some of it certainly is subtle influence-buying).
6. This man, ChilliJonCarni, has sadly slipped into being negative and defeatist. We hope we are not being too harsh in saying so, and we hope he recovers his enthusiasm, but he is basically telling anti-TV licence campaigners (and us, by extension) to give up any active campaigning and instead just rely on not paying. We disagree. If anything, we think the time is ripe to step up the campaign of non-payment and resistance. Our only point is that the political direction should be explicitly towards abolition and a campaign with that goal is needed, with a street movement, petitions, posters, events, legal activism and policy work. The aim will be to persuade a major political party to adopt abolition of the BBC as policy, and thereby head-off the BBC and influence the strategic direction of the debate once it becomes clear that the TV licence system is no longer sustainable.
7. It is true that the political and parliamentary system is rigged and there are very strong vested interests among the political class in keeping the TV licence system and the BBC itself. The outrageous 2017 parliamentary debate - mentioned in the video and also mentioned several times on this blog - demonstrates this, but that is not a reason to give up.
There will have been a time during the mid-19th. century when anti-slavery campaigners in the United States were convinced that they would never succeed. They will have been told that slavery is natural and that there are too many vested interests in the American South against abolition and so emancipation will never happen, but it did and the slaves were legally freed. Likewise, campaigners for women's suffrage at the turn-of-the-century will have been told that female participation in public affairs is unnatural and wrong and that there are too many vested interests ranged against it, but they didn't give up, they carried on - and eventually won.
We were once told that Britain's withdrawal from the European Union would never happen, that too many people favour the EU, that business is vested in our membership and that anybody who proposes withdrawal is a fruitcake. Yet here we are in a national conversation about how to withdraw from the European Union - not whether to, but how to.
We must fight on. One day we will win.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
Whatever else we may say on this site, it is unlikely we
will ever suggest that the BBC is short of journalistic talent. The problems that the BBC embodies and causes
are mostly not due to a lack of capability, and the people who appear on the BBC’s television and radio programmes are generally
among the best anywhere in the world at what they do. The BBC’s sins are due to it being a state
broadcaster and having an institutional culture that is Leftist and
metropolitan and that is blind to, or ignores, provincial concerns. This is especially so when the concerns come
from the ethnic group that the BBC despises most of all, the white British, and
especially from the socio-economic group the BBC hates: the white working class.
Now and then, the BBC’s journalists will put their abilities
to good use. Some time ago, Newsnight
ran a series of short features on problems in northern England, and this turned
out to be among the best work that programme has ever produced. It left some of us feeling poignantly sad because
we wondered how this country might be different today – and better – if the
BBC, which styles itself as our ‘public service broadcaster’, had actually
sought to be just that, fulfil its public mission and report critically on this
country’s problems.
Here’s another good feature recently broadcast on Newsnight,
this time about problems in Sweden:
It’s painful to watch the people interviewed in that clip carefully
avoid the central issue. The reporter
does some of that as well, but at least he makes an attempt at some proper
journalism for a change. Should we
praise the BBC for this sort of work and undertake to abandon our campaign if
they promise to ‘reform’ and ‘change’ and turn over a new leaf, so to speak? Is it a case of ‘better late than never’?
We think not, and it’s to the above video clip that we
return to explain why. To credit the BBC
for this report would be akin to praising an arsonist for setting fire to a
building simply because he had the good manners to alert the fire
brigade. Imagine furthermore that our
hypothetical arsonist only does the right thing after waiting for the building
to be burnt out and reduced to a pathetic shell. That analogously describes what the BBC have helped
inflict on Britain. The journalist’s
work is good – we must give credit where it is due - but he has done nothing
that has not already been done by scores of independent media, while people
like him at the BBC were probably calling them racist and bigoted. He is not even playing catch-up. The BBC are just covering their backs, and
perhaps also strategising a retreat and ‘row-back’ from the obvious failure of the
Left’s grand social engineering project.
We are also struck by the fact that we have not seen the BBC
do anything remotely similar in their coverage of Britain. We can’t help but think that the reporter’s
decision to cover problems in Sweden is an analogue, a decision taken – perhaps
unconsciously – because he knows he could not portray an English town in the
same way. Britain has the same problems
as Sweden and the BBC knows this very well, and if the BBC had actually
fulfilled its public mission and sought to report on these issues when they
were coming to light and ordinary people were complaining, the relevant problems might
never have arisen in the first place.
The role of journalists, after all, is to use their critical and
observational skills to alert society to problems. Whatever else may be said about them, the BBC’s
journalists are not lacking in skills or intellectual abilities: their problem
is that they are beholden to hothouse social dogmas and this colours and
influences their reporting. The
distortion is evident even in the above clip.
The poor policeman who appears early on obviously knew the
truth but dared not state it plainly, while the reporter was slyly goading him
and tried to make him look stupid. This
same reporter would call him racist and have him booted out of his job if he
actually told the truth. We wonder
whether this See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil tendency found among
ordinary people and petty officials like the police might have something to do
with organisations like the BBC and the bullies who work for it? The reporter then snidely concludes the
feature by implying that people with concerns about Sweden – it could be
equally be Britain, and that seems to be the import – are being lulled into a
fake narrative. We will certainly credit
the reporter for a degree of professionalism and for attempting to fulfil his
duties properly, but even he cannot entirely let go of Leftist social dogmas.
This is why we focus on the BBC. Broadcasting is not an esoteric issue, it is
a powerful tool and in the right hands can be used to do good. The misdeeds and indiscretions of the BBC go
to the root of the problems in this country.
Imagine if the BBC had done its duty over the last few decades and had
reported on the problems of mass immigration and the lack of public consent for
it. Imagine if, back in the 1980s, the
BBC had started reporting on Pakistani Moslem grooming gangs. Imagine if back in 1992 the BBC had given
balanced coverage to the Maastricht negotiations and the issue of European
integration. Where were the BBC reports
about white displacement or the concerns of the white working class in areas of
east London, the West Midlands or parts of West Yorkshire?
Yes, we eventually heard from the BBC about these issues,
but only inadequately, only through the BBC’s own warped frame of values, and
only when the problems had developed into crises of such magnitude that even
the BBC couldn’t any longer hide them by omission. Likewise in Sweden. Suddenly a sole BBC journalist turns up and
interviews a few people, comes to a lot of sweeping conclusions, listens
sympathetically to a white working class Swedish man he would probably sneer at
and call racist in private, and we’re supposed to be impressed? We are
in little doubt that had the BBC done its job over the years, such reports
would be unnecessary. As it is, the BBC
is a veritable Curate’s egg: it has got to the stage that any ‘good’ it does
cannot compensate for the bad and even, as here, only serves to highlight the long-unaddressed
inadequacies and smouldering grievances and resentments of normal people who
look on in bewilderment and disgust at this organisation’s mendacity and hypocrisy.
That is not to exclusively blame the BBC for this country’s problems of
course - there are many villains in this tale - but it is to highlight the power and privileged position of a large
media organisation such as the BBC. The
BBC has let this country down and must now pay the price: it must be closed
down for good. Any shallow attempt now from
the BBC to appease genuine concerns from the public should be met with the
scorn and derision it deserves. Yet we
know that a large part of the public fall for this stuff. As an indication, look at the comments on
YouTube under the above video. The
praise demonstrates the power of the BBC brand and the enduring legacy of the
Reithian principles: it’s not that the public really think that the BBC stands
for impartiality and high journalistic principle, it’s that they think the BBC
should and can stand for these things and they seize enthusiastically on any
exceptional instance when, as here, the BBC does a halfway honest job. This is dangerous because the cold reality is
that the BBC no longer stands for these things, if it ever truly did, and it
can’t. It is a propaganda machine that
hides behind a favourable public perception to push its insidious narratives.
Thursday, 23 August 2018
It's Public, Until It's Not
The good thing about a campaign for abolition is that it figuratively
separates the men from the boys on both sides of the debate about the BBC. It’s odd that nobody has ever before
campaigned explicitly for abolition and closure of the BBC. We are the very first, and while we have
received strong support from some, and equally strong opposition from others, there
are large numbers on both sides who have been left confused by the concept of
abolition. Some anti-TV licence campaigners
actually are in the BBC’s corner and, unable to support us, they will be
exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Conversely, many defenders of the BBC will be faced with a difficult
choice.
If the BBC really is a public body and a public service broadcaster, then surely we, the public, should be able to decide to abolish it
when we have no further need for it. Yes? From that perspective, abolition of the BBC
would be the culmination of its mission.
Having fulfilled what it set out to do, and having no further useful
function in society, it can be abolished.
As such, its assets must be realised and returned to we, the
public. Rather than allow the private
sector to take over and benefit from 90 years (and counting) of public investment,
we should have it placed into receivership and its assets (equipment, film
archives, buildings, vehicles, etc.) broken-up and sold. Its buildings can be sold or leased on the
commercial market or to residential developers.
Its vehicles can be flogged to fleet owners. Its back catalogue of ‘excellent programming’
can be sold to one or more other broadcasting companies, many of whom should be
delighted to have rights to the archive.
And so on.
At this point, the BBC’s stooges protest that the BBC must
go on! Instead of returning the
BBC’s assets to the public - where they belong, assuming the BBC is what they
claim it is - they proceed paradoxically to say that the BBC can be commercialised
or privatised, despite its functional redundancy. Thus, the meaningless of
all the ‘public service broadcaster’ fig-leaf hogwash is exposed, and the consistency that would require these people to side with us and call for abolition is abandoned. As long as it suits them, they tell us the
BBC is in the public service, and when it doesn’t suit them, it’s suddenly not
a public service broadcaster after all. The
attachment is not to values and principles, but to an organisation that
provides employment and support in a cultural struggle by the Left against the
rest of the country. This explains why
the BBC, itself an anomaly in an era of digital technology, still stumbles on. There are too many vested interests in it to
face up to reality. Instead, they will happily allow the BBC to transmogrify into the even deeper sham form of a private sector 'public service broadcaster' - despite the fact we already have a plethora of them already: mainly the ITV network.
The inexorable logic is for abolition, and a successful
campaign for abolition is an essential chess move by those of us who genuinely
oppose the BBC. The BBC is the enemy and
must be closed down for good. Anything less plays into their hands.
The Limitations of Anti-TV Licence Campaigns
One reason we emphasise here and here the reality that the BBC is a state broadcaster is because it is important not to fall into a discussion framework set down by the BBC, in which they are merely a 'public service broadcaster'. They are also a state broadcaster. Part of resisting the BBC properly is refusing to accept the lingo and conceptual reference points they and their stooges impose on us. Thus, we reject assertions that the BBC is a 'independent public body', or similar. Whatever the textbooks, the glossy brochures and the university professors may say, we know that the BBC is, in reality, a state broadcaster. For all effect, they work for the state and their service is imposed on us.
This point is also relevant to discussion of strategy and tactics against the BBC. Anti-TV licence campaigners assume that if the TV licence becomes unsustainable, then so will the BBC, but we reject this logic because it doesn't follow. In fact, it would be much easier for the BBC and the government-of-the-day to maintain 'public service broadcasting' simply by funding the BBC through general taxation, as happens in Australia and a number of other countries. And even if all public funding options are rejected, we do not see how commercialisation of the BBC would represent any improvement. Surely that makes matters worse, as it would make the BBC's position unassailable given that there would no longer be a controversial funding system in place to support it. Commercialisation will turn the BBC into an LBC/Channel Four-style left-wing media conglomerate writ large, the only moderating influence being the Royal Charter.
Thus, we are singularly unimpressed by UKIP and its policy of abolishing the TV licence and switching the BBC to subscriptions. While UKIP, like most in the anti-TV licence corner, are not exactly apple polishers for the BBC, they are helping the Corporation when they should be calling for it to be dismantled for good. Commercialisation plays right into the BBC's hands. It would allow the BBC to become profitably self-sustainable while continuing to pursue its damaging agenda.
We can only imagine that UKIP's cop-out is due to a sense of political caution and, especially, a fear about how they will be treated and portrayed in the media, especially at Television Centre, should they say they want the BBC abolished as policy. We think this fear is misplaced. The difficulty with any sort of political timidity is that it plays into the hands of opponents. We know the BBC will treat UKIP and its candidates like dirt anyway. Why not fight back? Why not put some fear into the BBC for a change? A policy of abolishing the BBC would be truly radical and ground-breaking, and could be a populist rallying point around UKIP, showing that the party means business in dismantling the enemy bureaucracies of the Establishment.
A related question to ponder is why the TV licence fee is maintained, when it is self-evidently ridiculous. The plain oddity of the imposition is normally skirted over in public discussions, with acknowledgements that it is a bad system but the least worst option. But why would the BBC itself want to maintain such a system? We think it's not really the BBC that wants to keep the TV licence. It's the political class. The TV licence is a method of political control over the BBC, in addition to the Royal Charter. If one looks back into the history of the BBC and the reasons for its existence, it has always been about political-state control of broadcasting - its raison d'etre. The more astute people within the BBC and among its defenders realise this and would see the BBC commercialised in some way, as that would assure the future of the BBC as a so-called 'public service broadcaster' and allow it to continue poisoning and undermining the country with its subversive agenda without the same level of state oversight. Conversely, there will be others within the BBC who are tribally affiliated with the state and who may resist further moves towards independence.
Politicians quite like the TV licence system because of the leverage it gives them over the BBC. They set the amount of the licence fee each year and can exercise influence over the general direction of the BBC and the tone it sets. A tax-funded system would, we suppose, have similar attractions, and for that reason, we do not hold out much hope that anti-TV licence campaigns on their own could bring about a desirable outcome. An Australian-style system looks more likely, which would lumber us with the BBC forever.
The real solution is abolition.
This point is also relevant to discussion of strategy and tactics against the BBC. Anti-TV licence campaigners assume that if the TV licence becomes unsustainable, then so will the BBC, but we reject this logic because it doesn't follow. In fact, it would be much easier for the BBC and the government-of-the-day to maintain 'public service broadcasting' simply by funding the BBC through general taxation, as happens in Australia and a number of other countries. And even if all public funding options are rejected, we do not see how commercialisation of the BBC would represent any improvement. Surely that makes matters worse, as it would make the BBC's position unassailable given that there would no longer be a controversial funding system in place to support it. Commercialisation will turn the BBC into an LBC/Channel Four-style left-wing media conglomerate writ large, the only moderating influence being the Royal Charter.
Thus, we are singularly unimpressed by UKIP and its policy of abolishing the TV licence and switching the BBC to subscriptions. While UKIP, like most in the anti-TV licence corner, are not exactly apple polishers for the BBC, they are helping the Corporation when they should be calling for it to be dismantled for good. Commercialisation plays right into the BBC's hands. It would allow the BBC to become profitably self-sustainable while continuing to pursue its damaging agenda.
We can only imagine that UKIP's cop-out is due to a sense of political caution and, especially, a fear about how they will be treated and portrayed in the media, especially at Television Centre, should they say they want the BBC abolished as policy. We think this fear is misplaced. The difficulty with any sort of political timidity is that it plays into the hands of opponents. We know the BBC will treat UKIP and its candidates like dirt anyway. Why not fight back? Why not put some fear into the BBC for a change? A policy of abolishing the BBC would be truly radical and ground-breaking, and could be a populist rallying point around UKIP, showing that the party means business in dismantling the enemy bureaucracies of the Establishment.
A related question to ponder is why the TV licence fee is maintained, when it is self-evidently ridiculous. The plain oddity of the imposition is normally skirted over in public discussions, with acknowledgements that it is a bad system but the least worst option. But why would the BBC itself want to maintain such a system? We think it's not really the BBC that wants to keep the TV licence. It's the political class. The TV licence is a method of political control over the BBC, in addition to the Royal Charter. If one looks back into the history of the BBC and the reasons for its existence, it has always been about political-state control of broadcasting - its raison d'etre. The more astute people within the BBC and among its defenders realise this and would see the BBC commercialised in some way, as that would assure the future of the BBC as a so-called 'public service broadcaster' and allow it to continue poisoning and undermining the country with its subversive agenda without the same level of state oversight. Conversely, there will be others within the BBC who are tribally affiliated with the state and who may resist further moves towards independence.
Politicians quite like the TV licence system because of the leverage it gives them over the BBC. They set the amount of the licence fee each year and can exercise influence over the general direction of the BBC and the tone it sets. A tax-funded system would, we suppose, have similar attractions, and for that reason, we do not hold out much hope that anti-TV licence campaigns on their own could bring about a desirable outcome. An Australian-style system looks more likely, which would lumber us with the BBC forever.
The real solution is abolition.
Weasel Words of the BBC's defenders
The Left have gone through seventy-three years (and counting) of selective pressures that have brought them to the top of Britain's Establishment. That means they are clever. Many of them have high verbal intelligence especially.
Among the weasel formulations they use to give the BBC sentimental and emotional pull with the public are the following, all of which have been put to us:
"The BBC is the national broadcaster"
The BBC is a state broadcaster. The difference is crucial. The BBC is not this fluffy, harmless broadcasting organisation loved by the nation. The BBC is owned by the state. Furthermore, many of its directing Board are government appointees, its senior management appointments are approved by government ministers, the government sets its terms and the government settles the TV licence fee and awards it grant aid out of general taxation. It is conceded that the BBC operates largely autonomously and has editorial independence, but political control of the BBC is undeniable and ineluctably leads to the government setting the political tone at the BBC and influencing its institutional culture and values. Furthermore, there is a long and disreputable record of editorial interference and meddling from governments at key moments in history.
The BBC is a state body that is imposed on us and those who resist are bullied. The funding of the BBC is ultimately enforced by the state - with the threat of court summonses and prison as the final sanctions. No other broadcaster imposes itself on the public in this way. If we decide we don't like Sky, we simply don't watch it, settle up our bill and we need have nothing further to do with that broadcaster. If we decide we don't like the BBC, we must still fund it anyway, or ultimately face imprisonment. That is outrageous.
"The BBC has nothing to do with the state. It's a public service broadcaster"
This is the weasel formulation used by the BBC themselves. Notice the fluffy, nice-sounding phrase, 'public service broadcaster'. It's intended to trick you into not examining the true reality of the BBC, which we have already outlined. These dishonest people want you to think that the state's ownership and control of the BBC are only notional, when the reality is a little bit more complex. It is also intended to deter you from thinking any further about the matter. For instance, you may wish to consider exactly what this phrase 'public service broadcasting' really means.
As we have explained elsewhere, if public service broadcasting means being impartial, balanced, diverse and upholding the highest production standards, etc., we have seen nothing to tell us that only the BBC can do those things, if it can do them at all, or that any decent commercial broadcaster cannot uphold such values to the extent that they are practicable. In short, public service broadcasting is not the exclusive province of the public sector and the BBC is hardly doing a good job in what is supposedly its own specialist field.
The truth is that the BBC is flawed. We think it should be abolished.
Among the weasel formulations they use to give the BBC sentimental and emotional pull with the public are the following, all of which have been put to us:
"The BBC is the national broadcaster"
The BBC is a state broadcaster. The difference is crucial. The BBC is not this fluffy, harmless broadcasting organisation loved by the nation. The BBC is owned by the state. Furthermore, many of its directing Board are government appointees, its senior management appointments are approved by government ministers, the government sets its terms and the government settles the TV licence fee and awards it grant aid out of general taxation. It is conceded that the BBC operates largely autonomously and has editorial independence, but political control of the BBC is undeniable and ineluctably leads to the government setting the political tone at the BBC and influencing its institutional culture and values. Furthermore, there is a long and disreputable record of editorial interference and meddling from governments at key moments in history.
The BBC is a state body that is imposed on us and those who resist are bullied. The funding of the BBC is ultimately enforced by the state - with the threat of court summonses and prison as the final sanctions. No other broadcaster imposes itself on the public in this way. If we decide we don't like Sky, we simply don't watch it, settle up our bill and we need have nothing further to do with that broadcaster. If we decide we don't like the BBC, we must still fund it anyway, or ultimately face imprisonment. That is outrageous.
"The BBC has nothing to do with the state. It's a public service broadcaster"
This is the weasel formulation used by the BBC themselves. Notice the fluffy, nice-sounding phrase, 'public service broadcaster'. It's intended to trick you into not examining the true reality of the BBC, which we have already outlined. These dishonest people want you to think that the state's ownership and control of the BBC are only notional, when the reality is a little bit more complex. It is also intended to deter you from thinking any further about the matter. For instance, you may wish to consider exactly what this phrase 'public service broadcasting' really means.
As we have explained elsewhere, if public service broadcasting means being impartial, balanced, diverse and upholding the highest production standards, etc., we have seen nothing to tell us that only the BBC can do those things, if it can do them at all, or that any decent commercial broadcaster cannot uphold such values to the extent that they are practicable. In short, public service broadcasting is not the exclusive province of the public sector and the BBC is hardly doing a good job in what is supposedly its own specialist field.
The truth is that the BBC is flawed. We think it should be abolished.
Wednesday, 22 August 2018
Fan Mail 005: Wolf In Sheep's Clothing Edition
In and of themselves, petitions don't bring about change, or are unlikely to. They are part of a wider campaign. It's a way of raising awareness, a way of prompting dialogue with legislators and the government, and leads to other campaigning opportunities, etc.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
We agree with non-payment campaigns, but a strategic campaign is also needed for abolition.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
Thank you. We have the distinct impression that you do not sympathise. We guess from the slightly sneery, sarcastic tone, the arrogance & the EU flag in your profile that you are basically a lefty who just LOVES the BBC & wants more of it. We will not stop until the BBC is gone.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
We'll be the judge of it - the flag in your profile is a clue. But our point is that ending the TV licence in and of itself will not be enough. We explain why on our site. However we know that some anti-TV licence campaigners are wolves in sheep's clothing.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
Being a Conservative voters does NOT disqualify you as a Leftist, as anybody who has a passing familiarity with British politics will know.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
Thank you for finally accepting that I should do what I think is relevant. You, likewise, should do the same. Thank you very much.
And we know we won't be getting any help from you! You miss our point that the very fact somebody like you can support the Conservative Party says it all and vindicates us. The Left have captured the major institutions and voluntary bodies of this country.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
You've literally stated that you vote Conservative. That means you support them. Voting is a type of support. You didn't say that you once voted for a particular candidate who happened to be Conservative, etc.. You said you vote for them. So you support them. Case closed.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018
Fan Mail 003
No problem, Barry. We will not be deterred, though. We will not stop until the BBC is dismantled.
— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 21, 2018
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
"But They Do Make Wonderful Charles Dickens Dramas..."
Do we really need this?
Apart from the human cost, remember that your taxes go to pay for all
the enforcement (TVL itself, the police who attend search warrants, the courts,
lawyers), and your taxes pay to keep some people in prison for non-payment - not to mention the
related costs of social work and lost economic activity. All of which is, in effect, an additional BBC subsidy.
Monday, 20 August 2018
Twitter Gold 005
A Guardian readers club. Abolish the BBC. Public broadcasters are an anachronism.
— ♊️ Kevin Taylor (@solstice1962) August 17, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)