Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 22 February 2020

Dimbleby no better than a thief

Throughout Africa, the delusion of corrupt rulers and their apparatchiks that underpins and pervades their thefts is that the organs and instruments of the State somehow belong to them because they exercise power. If you're the Nigerian Minister of Petroleum, they reckon, surely that means you're entitled to more than everyone else's share of the black gold? Why, stealing those millions must be practically legal.

And so with Dimbleby and the hereditary BBC establishment. They think they own it. They don't. Dimbleby's claim to speak for the BBC is no more and no less than mine or yours, no greater or lesser than any British citizen who has paid for every VT editing machine, every redhead light, every executive conference suite, every sound mixer and every HD camera. We all own an equal share, and we all have an equal right to an opinion about the future of the BBC.

The petulance and fury exhibited by Dimbleby and his dags is because of their grossly distorted sense of entitlement and displays a contempt for the rest of us. You don't own the BBC, Mr Dimbleby, and to pretend that you do is theft.


Bloke in North Dorset said...

The left are very quick to dismiss those on the right who are paid by organisations that are the centre of discussion or somehow involved, we should apply the same principle based on Upton Sinclair's aphorism:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Jack the dog said...

The interesting thing is their automatic assumption that switching to a subscription model will mean that nobody will want to pay for their content.

They know that, and they cynically adopt the language of protecting something precious which in fact has been irredeemably tarnished years ago.

I would have some respect for them if they came out and said "subscription model? bring it on! we can produce better content than netflix" and the absurd thing is they can - the BBC's production values in a technical sense are quite superb. It has been ruined by the woke twats at the top (like Dimblebore) and all the humanities grads in the "artistic" side. But when it puts its mind to it, and if it could drop the woke shite, it is indeed a world beater.

Mark said...

That's what is SO totally infuriating. As you say, technically the BBC is superb. Their wildlife documentaries in particular.

But they (the "woke owners" as it were) just cannot help themselves. It's this ends justify the means mentality, coupled with their belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority.

They are right and you must listen and obey.

JPM said...

Dimbleby's entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else.

He didn't make the claim that you attribute to him though - and I'm no fan.

The problem, such as it might be, seems to me rather to lie with those who perceive him as you describe, and who give him a platform in that capacity.

In this case it was the German broadcaster, amplified by the UK media's reporting it.

IcyPurplepants said...

We get the same battles everytime there is a fee negotiation or perceived threat to the Beeb.

"If we go subscriptions..."
"no more wildlife documentaries"
"no more radio 1/2/3/4/5 etc"
"no more Cbeebies"

Pick one and run with it, get the wailing people on, to wail. These people *seem* to actually believe a self-funding BBC would axe the most popular shows and channels, or maybe they're paid to...

What's-his-face was spot on on BBCQT the other night. Kids don't watch, need or want the BBC.

Subscription is their only chance to survive into the future, the support for the poll tax is waning rapidly

Unknown said...

The BBC have pushed their luck once too often in my opinion. The management board thought that were a national treasure and untouchable. It still hasn't sunk in that they are neither.
The whole Brexit issue has been a real eye opener for a lot of people who live in gilded cages.

Dave_G said...

The BBC could be saved if only they'd adopt the position they are actually LEGALLY OBLIGED TO (via their Charter).

The fact that the BBC openly and repeatedly abuse that Charter and NO ONE takes the rap for it is beyond incredulity. The Government could step up and accuse the BBC of it and DEMAND they change and change they would. The glare of publicity would be far too painful for the guilty involved in the BBC's corruption - starting at the top and working down through those that visibly and outspokenly (like Dimbo) support it.

BUT, for the Government to highlight the BBC's corruption would be tantamount to admittance that the BBC's position on (say) Climate Change is blatantly fake - it being an oft brought-up complaint against the BBC - and a shot to the Governments own foot on policies it wishes to enact to further their tax take.

So, the BBC is either exposed or it is forced into subscription and I know which option the Government HAS to take.

DiscoveredJoys said...

See Wikipedia:

"Regulatory capture (also client politics) is a corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group. When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. ...client politics “occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)."

So the BBC operating client politics with overmanning and high salaries is now perhaps a net loss for society. No wonder the people who most benefit wail the loudest. I've come around to the view that the BBC is too wedded to the comfortable life to be reformed. It must be disbanded and most funded commercially.

Val said...

The BBC received 'EU funding' which should never have been allowed in an UNBIASED enforced funded media channel. It is common knowledge that the EU only continues funding if the recipient never criticises the EU. The BBC bleat that EU funding is a mere micro part of their total income doesn't wash. Micro or not, it is clearly enough to ensure the BBC is pro-EU biased along with all its other leftie-luvvie biases. Yes the BBC is first class with drama, wild life documentaries and various other productions, but it also relies too much on repeats, reality and cookery programmes and smug leftie comedians. And their biases are blatantly pushed down our throats at every opportunity. The public rightly object to being forced to pay for propaganda.

John in Cheshire said...

The BBC's arrogance and deluded sense of superiority as well as the way it is funded, is a mini version of the EU. They never accept they might be wrong, they always believe they know better than everyone else. They consider we plebs as cattle to be milked whenever and as open as they feel like it. And like the Bourbons, they forget nothing and learn nothing.

They cannot be negotiated with, they just need to be destroyed.

Andrew Douglas said...

JIC is right.

Close it down.
Sack the staff.
Burn the buildings.
Salt the ground.

When the snowflake justice warriors realise that we are serious, they will shut up (for a bit), but the 'national conversation' will become an actual conversation rather than a transmission. And imagine the impact on all the other cultural Marxist institutions.

Tony Bennett said...

Well Sir I turned 75_last month and applied to a free license ,still wait.
Yes it should be subscription it's a bloated organisation that has no right in the modern world it see Need is and Amazon making money and the because of greed wants that as well

JPM said...

Yes, Val. V The BBC used to get about seven hundred thousand pounds a year from the European Union, to encourage decentralisation and job distribution. You can read that it in its published accounts. That is about one five-thousandth of its income from the licence fee, and it is absolutely unconditional on its editorial content. Brexit Party, and ex-ukip MEPs on the other hand, got very nearly all of their revenues, including lavish expenses and allowances from the European Union. They would have cost us well over twenty million pounds for the full term. So by the what-passes-for-logic of your post, that should mean that the Brexit Party are five thousand times more pro-European Union than the BBC.

Tony (Somerset) said...

The country does need a national broadcaster, but not one with a huge load of bells and whistles as in the case of the BBC. Slim down to one TV News TV and radio staion, one music station (radio) and possibly one documentary/discussion station, all to be paid for from government funds. Everything else should be sold off. And why oh why do the Beeb think we need such a large number of pop music stations ?

Anonymous said...

The pathological wokeness is not limited to the BBC

Disney paid George Lucas $4.2BN for the Star Wars IP;they have then processed to destroy it by making films that alienated the fans

Star Trek is worse - the latest abomination ST Picard is offensively bad.

They just cant help themselves. Its a narcissistic pathology.

Dave_G said...

The BBC is and will always remain the propaganda arm of the Government and, as such, will never disappear to an extent that its influence or coverage will be lost.

Even the threat of PpV is meaningless to its survival for the BBC will always have the licences for the spectrums needed to give 100% coverage and those licences will never be given up to anyone that refuses to tow the line of Government propaganda.

Whatever funds are necessary to maintain the BBCs function will ALWAYS be made available and the current 'telly tax' may well simply be replaced by a broader access to public taxes that is 'hidden' from view.

Not enough emphasis is made of the biases from the BBC - we should be talking about its corruption of science (refusal to platform alternative views on MMCC for example) and/or political leanings and forcing change there instead of arguing about subscription which the BBC could sort themselves in an instant via PpV or advertising revenue if they were THAT bothered.

Smoke and mirrors.

DiscoveredJoys said...

I really think we should change the language. In stead of a licence fee we should talk of a telly 'tithe'. Something we are obliged to pay to our 'betters' whether we use the service or not. You have no say in how a tithe is spent - even if it is used in ways you don't approve.

With a subscription or advertising revenue basis of funding you can at least signal your disfavour by walking away.

John Brown said...

The immense coverage of the BBC coupled with its anti-British/pro-EU bias has left the EU and Europeans puzzled by Brexit and the recent GE and this will continue in the forthcoming trade and relationship negotiations between the UK and the EU. Expect the BBC to take the side of the EU.

On the other hand, it should be recognised that had the EU and UK elites not been fooled by their own and the BBC’s bias they would not have allowed the EU referendum to take place.

I do find it paradoxical that whilst the BBC is willing for UK residents to be given a criminal record and be sent to prison for watching any TV without a BBC licence they are quite content for millions of viewers outside of the UK to watch their programmes free of charge via Freesat or VPN/iPlayer.