The BBC Is A Home For Radical Leftists & Racists

An excellent video talk from YouTuber, Iconoclast:

Operation Target

Operation Target is concluded.  In all, we e-mailed some 5,000 individuals - including MPs, MEPs, MSPs, Assembly Members in Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and local councillors at different levels.  In the case of local councillors, we focused on the areas of the country where we believe opposition to, or criticism of, the BBC is likely to be strongest, and we restricted our mailings to Conservative and Independent councillors (plus SNP councillors in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the various unionists in Northern Ireland).

The aims of Operation Target

Abolition of the BBC has never been raised as a possibility in mainstream public discourse. The primary purpose of this exercise was to raise awareness of our campaign and to get the message into the bloodstream of society.  A secondary purpose was to start building alliances with prominent and influential local and national individuals who sympathise with us.  A further purpose of the exercise was to raise awareness about the petition and boost the signature count.

What we expected and what happened

We expected a 4% response rate - the standard response rate for unsolicited campaigns.  This expectation turned out to be more or less accurate: the response was 5%, roughly 250 replies were received.

We also expected that most who responded to us would oppose us – mainly because it’s the safest public position to adopt at this time, and politicians and councillors are by definition creatures of politic.  Actually this expectation turned out to be inaccurate.  Of the 5% who responded, the split between pro- and anti-BBC was roughly 50:50.  That said, it should be added that we are including in the 'antis' those who are merely critical of the BBC in some way, mostly about bias or the TV licence system, or both; nevertheless, such people tend to be receptive to our campaign and can be considered among our soft support.  That we received so many favourable responses was interesting and unexpected.  We thought it would be more like 90:10 in favour of those against us.

Unfortunately, the exercise seems to have had little or no effect on the petition count, which has slowed considerably.  There may be little that can be done about that, as the petition (which isn't even our petition anyway) may have reached its natural ceiling of support.  This campaign is for the long haul.

Profile of supporters

Given the broad political profile of the vast majority of those we contacted, we expect that the majority are against the BBC, but most of those will not respond to us as it is not politic to publicly oppose the BBC.

Of those who did respond favourably to us, the profile was mixed, but virtually all of them were either Conservatives, UKIP, DUP or Independent.

The major points:

-Three MEPs, all UKIP, have expressed support for our campaign.

-Two leaders of local authorities have expressed support for us.  One is a Conservative, the other - oddly - is Labour (the only Labour politician to back us: we will be keeping his details confidential).

-Several leaders of local authority political groups - mostly Conservative with one DUP - have expressed support.

-We have received a helpful response from the Scottish Government, which we will post up here and comment on in due course.

-Not one MP has backed us so far, and only one - Damian Green, a Tory MP, who opposes us - has given us anything approaching a helpful response.

-Not one Assembly Member in Wales or London has supported us, and only one has given us a helpful response.

-Of the local councillors who support us, around 120 in number, these are a mix of Conservatives, UKIP and Independents.  The age profile is also mixed: some are middle-aged, some are elderly, some are quite young (in their 30s).  Almost-all are men, but several are women.

Profile of opponents

Most of those who responded to oppose us are local councillors, and most of these are Independents, but some are Conservatives.  The age profile is typically middle-aged or elderly and the gender split is 50:50.

We received two responses from MPs, both Conservatives, and both opposed - though the response from one of these, Damian Green, was a little bit helpful.

We received one opposing response from an MEP.

Among MSPs, we received no direct response but the Scottish Government has written to us (details to follow).

Among AMs in Northern Ireland, there was no response at all; only one response, opposition, was received from AMs in Wales.

We received three responses from AMs in London, all opposed, but one of which was at least somewhat helpful.

Nature of the responses received

Most of the supportive comments railed against the bias of the BBC or the TV licence system, or both.  A few showed a more sophisticated understanding of things and raised the larger issue of how state broadcasting has affected the health of the nation.

Our opponents in nearly-all cases showed a credulous attachment to out-dated perceptions of the BBC based on how the broadcaster may have been in the past rather than the reality of today.  We received reams of twaddle about how the BBC is a 'national institution' and 'one of the great things about this country', etc., etc.  Almost-all of these responses revealed a closeted mindset that either refuses, or cannot, confront the problems in Britain and the BBC's role in these.

Some observations

A large part of British society is legalistic and conformist.  There has always been a vocal element in British society who take the view that laws and institutions should be obeyed unquestioningly.  At the same time, the media are at the centre of power and influence in this country.  Those two things mean that a powerful state broadcaster with a left-wing political agenda is quite dangerous to the nation.

Our opposition to the BBC is not just a matter of a broadcasting.  The quality of programming is an important, but minor, consideration.  This is really about power and influence: who holds it and what is done with it.  Our view is that, given the technological realities, and in view of the damage done by the BBC to British society, state broadcasting should be abolished in this country for good and all media should be independent and private.

Politicians and local councillors are politically-minded, so we would hope that they would think about the BBC not just as a broadcaster but as a political issue.  In a way, our campaign is an acid test of the intellect and imagination.  Some people can't see beyond the end of their own noses, and unfortunately, many of the elected politicians we contacted failed the test.  They don’t grasp that our campaign against the BBC is really about power.  They think that this is just about the BBC, they imagine us to be right-wing rotters and spoil-sports or worse, and they oppose us because they like the BBC and hold a sentimental attachment to it.  Whether due to low intellect, ignorance, arrogance or an agenda of their own, or some combination thereof, they cannot see the bigger picture.

Why does all this matter?  The trusting, law-abiding, myopic nature of the white British people has been taken advantage of.  Consider these findings from Migration Watch:

Migration Watch UK said the scale of illegal immigration was “considerably worse than the government admits and very little is being done about it”, in a 22-page report which notes that the number of people thought to reside illegally in Britain exceeds one million. 

Looking at visa overstayers, detected clandestine arrivals (persons who, for example, arrived illegally by lorry), and failed asylum seekers who do not leave the country, the think tank calculated a gross addition of more than 105,000 people to the illegal immigrant population each year.

With only about a third (35,200) of this figure deported or leaving the country of their own accord each year, Britain has been seeing a net rise of around 70,000 to its illegal immigrant population each year, equating to 700,000 people in a decade. 

Commenting, Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “The scale of illegal immigration to Britain is a scandal that has gone on for too long. 

“The government must not cave in to opposition attempts to ‘weaponise’ Windrush against legitimate and effective measures to tackle overstaying. These measures are supported by nearly 80% of the public, and rightly so.”

Where was the BBC investigation into immigration numbers and their effect on British society?  Isn't the BBC supposed to be the 'national broadcaster'?  The truth is that the BBC has for decades censored this issue by omission and has thereby helped the British state to suppress legitimate concerns.  Other issues have been treated the same way: where was the BBC report on mass child grooming during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, or even 2000s?  There wasn't one.

The BBC must go.

The BBC Is Already A Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that’s what we call a business model! 

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

Twitter Gold 007

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

— Warren Whyte (@CllrWarrenWhyte) August 23, 2018

Resistance News 001

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

— JobCentreSUCKS (@DWPscumbags) August 23, 2018

What If The BBC Is Privatised?

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

To reiterate, we call for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this:

    

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

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

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

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

(iii). news-gathering and other journalism;

(iv). the arts and creative industries;

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

(vi). books, magazines and other publications;

(vii). various websites.

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

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

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

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

Here’s another one from the squeaky little mouse:

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

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

-The TV licence system becomes unsustainable and ends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our view:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Non-Payment Is A Tactic, Not A Strategy

The clip is valuable for the information and perspective it offers, and we must credit the BBC with allowing such a debate on its own airtime.  Nick Ross is quite knowledgeable and articulate on the subject.  He argues against the TV licence, calling it "anachronistic", "increasingly archaic" and heading for redundancy, and assumes that the BBC want to keep it.

Ross is right on the first point (with the caveat that the TV licence is already redundant), but we think he is wrong on the latter point – the BBC’s senior management want to get rid of the TV licence, if anything more than the non-payers and protesters/campaigners do.  They are not afraid of competition.  Why would they be?  They have eight decades of public investment in a world-class brand behind them and (generally-speaking) world-class journalistic and broadcasting talent at their immediate disposal.  Really, the idea that the BBC is afraid to lose the TV licence is completely ridiculous.  Commercialisation?  Subscriptions? Privatisation?  These don't scare the top people at the BBC, whatever they may say in their press releases.  There is no lack of vision and no "risk aversion".

The real reason we still have the TV licence is, oddly enough, down to politics: it gives the government political control over the BBC, without the downside of accountability and answerability for its output that there would be if the BBC were funded out of general taxation.  That, in one sentence, is what this is all about.  The BBC is, properly-understood, a state broadcaster, and the TV licence is the perfect arrangement for politicians. 

The solution is abolition and closure of the BBC for good.  Anything less plays into their hands and will just leave us stuck with a hybrid Channel Four/LBC-style left-wing media conglomerate with a super-dominant market position.  In that scenario, the BBC will go on forever. 

Bring down the BBC by not paying for your licence?  We can almost hear the laughter at Broadcasting House.  “Go ahead!” will be the response.  Myoptic personal tactics like non-payment are fine as far as they go, but not enough.  On its own, that will drag us into a scenario similar to Australia, which ended its TV licence, only to continue with state broadcasting but funded out of general taxation - a much worse system.  Or it will lead to commercialisation, which will put the BBC in an unassailable position, free to continue with its campaign to undermine and destroy Britain under the guise of a prestigious brand with a "public service remit".

We need a political strategy for complete abolition, and it needs to start now, not 10 or 15 years down the line – otherwise the end of the BBC will be like Brexit: another stitch-up.  As Ross says in the clip, the private sector providers, ITV and Channel Four, are quite able to fulfil the necessary public service obligations, so far as they are commercially practicable.  We have no need for the BBC.  It has completed its mission and should now be dismantled.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for finally accepting that I should do what I think is relevant. You, likewise, should do the same. Thank you very much.

— Campaign To Abolish The BBC (@AbolishTheBBC) August 22, 2018

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

The Seven Deadly Sins Of The BBC

Here are the seven REAL reasons the BBC must go:

(i). the existence of a state broadcaster is offensive in concept and inimical to a plural society;

(ii). the BBC’s public mission is patronising and condescending in a society characterised by information multiplicity and in which people are overwhelmingly literate, educated, and informed;

(iii). the BBC manifestly cannot fulfil its public mission anyway;

(iv). the BBC is a subversive organisation that openly and without embarrassment attacks the white British, is undermining the country, and provides a base for the Left's cultural struggle;

(v). the BBC is an archaic monolith, established as a fairly modest institution during the 1920s, then greatly expanded during the Second World War as a propaganda arm of the state, and now modelled on post-War era institutions that would be more at home in the old East Germany or the former Soviet Union;

(vi). the BBC is unresponsive to, and does not reflect, its putative market; and,

(vii). the BBC is too large and dominant and its existence undermines media plurality and stifles enterprise.

These problems are institutional, cultural and inimitable to the BBC and cannot be cured by reform, such as ending the TV licence.  In fact, reform will make matters worse, as it has done every single time in the past when the BBC promised to reform itself. 

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.

Why Ending The TV Licence Will Not End The BBC

Until the mid-1970s, Australia had a mandatory television and radio licence, much like we still have in Britain.  The Australian version was abolished by the Whitlam government after a successful public campaign against it.  An attempt later in the same decade by the Fraser government to restore licence-based funding was withdrawn after further public opposition.

Anti-TV licence campaigners sometimes cite the example of Australia as justification for non-payment and civil resistance as tactics for bringing down the BBC, but a closer examination of the Australian experience will show why a campaign for abolition of the BBC is vital.

As in Britain, the Australian licence system funded the major public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).  The problem is that on abolition of the licence, the Australian government decided that ABC should instead be funded out of general taxation.  This, surely, was a defeat.  Australians are now saddled with the worst of all worlds - a state-owned broadcaster funded out of taxes, and probably next-to-impossible to get rid of: a situation you would think better-suited to the former Soviet Union than a supposedly liberal-democratic society. 

We think the same could well happen in Britain unless there is a strategy for something to replace the BBC.  Our proposal is that the BBC should be dissolved and dismantled and replaced with a free market. 

Toppling the TV licensing system may seem like the easier approach, but that is only because it does not in and of itself threaten the Establishment's precious dogma of ‘public broadcasting’.  For evidence of this dogma, please watch the 2017 parliamentary debate on the TV licence.  In that debate, it is openly and explicitly acknowledged that TV licensing is a bad system, but it is justified nevertheless on the basis of the old Churchillian dictum because of a religious belief in the BBC.  Every single speaker believes in the dogma of public broadcasting and facts, arguments and reason are subsumed in favour of upholding this dogma.

We are clear that, at least in a British context, ending the TV licence will not end the BBC itself.  The elite will just change the funding method and keep the show on the road.  That's what happened in Australia; it's what will happen here too, and we may yet even see the day when the BBC is funded largely out of general taxation.

Some non-payers will respond that if a mass campaign of non-payment builds up then confidence in the BBC will be fatally undermined and it will have to fall, but what this forgets is that:

(i). different people will have different motives for non-payment; some non-payers even enthusiastically support the BBC, they just don’t want it funded with a TV licence; and,

(ii). the BBC has strong support from a large and influential minority of the population who will push for reform rather than abolition.

In view of these factors, and considering everything in the round, our view is that a political strategy for abolition is needed.  Our aim is to be persuade a major political party to adopt abolition as policy.  

Obviously none of the above is to rubbish non-payment campaigns.  Obviously civil resistance tactics help and non-payment (for varying motives) is becoming popular.  It may be that a civil resistance movement against the BBC now gains ground.  We hope so.

In summary, what we think is that:

Intentionalist non-payment and civil resistance are tactics.

A political campaign for abolition is strategy.

The two things go together, and each needs the other.

 

Without the non-payers, our case for abolition may be weakened, so we are hoping that the non-payment campaigns can step up their pace.

Conversely, without a strategy for what happens after the TV licence system ends, you could well find that the BBC’s position is stronger than ever, either funded out of general taxation or on some commercial basis.  Those who doubt this would do well to pay close attention to the 2017 parliamentary debate and reflect on what we have said here.

Why A Campaign For Abolition Is Necessary

We are the only campaign group that is calling for the abolition of the BBC – that is to say, our goal is that the BBC should cease to exist.  All other campaigns demand something less than this, normally one or a combination of the following:

1. that the BBC’s funding should be reformed through ending the TV licence;

2. that the Royal Charter should be revoked and the Corporation should be commercialised; or,

3. that the BBC should somehow stop being biased.

Starting with 3, we do not believe it is possible for any media organisation to be unbiased.  The goal is unrealistic.  The BBC is biased, but this is perfectly understandable: it reflects the people who work for it.  The BBC has to be defended somewhat on this point because once it tries to become ‘unbiased’, it will be playing a fool’s game in which it can’t please anybody.  We do criticise BBC bias, indeed it is at the centre of our concerns, but only on the basis that it reveals the shallowness of the Corporation’s notional goal of impartiality.  The Corporation has been set an impossible public mission that looks more and more chimeric as the technical and commercial realities of the digital age move apace.

Regarding 2, this is the subject of the latest anti-BBC petition (link - The Tim Price Petition). We have already made it clear that we do not believe this Petition goes far enough. Merely revoking the Royal Charter still leaves us with the BBC as a going concern, and the problems and potential dangers we cover below in relation to 1 also apply to this option.  Nevertheless, we are actively giving this Petition our support as a step in the right direction.  Should the Petition gain sufficient signatures for government attention or even be considered for parliamentary debate, we will be putting the case for abolition very strongly.

Turning to 1, we oppose the TV licence and we support and sympathise with all non-payers.  We believe passive resistance in particular is crucial to the eventual abolition of the BBC, but our point is that there needs to be an overarching strategic alliance for abolition, otherwise all that will happen is that the BBC will be reformed in a way that favours the elites: the worse-case scenario is a Corporation funded out of general taxation, the best-case is a commercialised Corporation funded by advertising or subscriptions, or both.  

Either 'reformist' funding scenario fails to solve the real problems.  The Corporation would be entrenched in British public life under a reformed structure, leaving us in a worse position than before.  In some ways, a fully-commercial BBC would be the worst of all outcomes because a revitalised Corporation could easily attract investment and unfairly dominate commercial broadcasting as an entirely profit-making enterprise.  This would be on the back of investments made over decades by the taxpayer, more or less at the point of a gun.

We come back, then, to the real problems, which are that:

(i). the BBC manifestly cannot fulfil its public mission;

(ii). the BBC is a subversive organisation that is undermining the country; 

(iii). the BBC is an archaic monolith, modelled on social-democratic era institutions and unresponsive to its putative market; and,

(iv). the BBC is too large and dominant.  

The 'reformers' who complain about the TV licence or BBC bias do have a point, and we are not trying to start an argument with them, but our aim shouldn't be to help the BBC by reforming it to make it run better and thereby cause even more damage to the country.  The BBC is an enemy bureaucracy and a waste of money.  Wouldn't it be better and fairer to dismantle the BBC and return the money recovered and saved to the public?  We think so.

Is abolition a realistic goal?  Emphatically yes!  We have seen with Brexit that populist campaigns can work.  Our aim is to persuade a major political party to adopt complete abolition of the BBC as its policy.  This in turn can only be achieved by creating a popular momentum in favour of abolition.

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.