Thursday, 26 February 2015

Cleaning the BBC's Augean stables

I wonder how the BBC will report today the recommendations by MPs that are to be published in the Commons? No doubt there have already been a whole series of top level editorial meetings and the agreed editorial line has been issued to all news managers. However, if the take of the MSM on the expected recommendations is correct, the reporting will focus on the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee and the abolition of the Trust model invented in 2007. 

However, the devil may be in the unglamorous detail. Making major inroads into BBC secrecy by allowing in the daylight of the National Audit Office to the BBC's books is something the organisation has long fought. But the BBC spends £4bn a year of tax - yes, the TV licence is a tax - and taxpayers must have answer for its stewardship. Combined with FOI, this will help stamp out the horrendous financial abuses, the waste, privilege and squander of this bloated bureaucracy. 

And secondly, the expected requirement for the BBC to 'port' portions of the TV tax to independent local newspapers across the country may be the start of something interesting. As a Localist, I welcome any devolution of tax and spend from the metropolitan centre to the counties and towns of England, allowing a multiplicity of local voices to speak and be heard. The next step may be, in this multi-platform media age, the handing over of airtime to editorially independent sources. Interesting. 


Anonymous said...

I don't believe that there is a plausible way of cleaning up the BBC.

The best recipe is to shut it down. Well at least shut down everything that isn't useful as a public information channel.

Those wonderful guys and gals that currently swan around those stables suckling at the teat of public funding, will have to look for a proper job somewhere else.

john cheshire said...

My reading of the report suggests that they are rearranging the deckchairs but the bbc sails on regardless with the added benefit of getting money from absolutely everyone and no get out option. I imagine the bbc parasites are breaking out the champagne.

Mr Ecks said...

Local papers are full of snotnose Marxist trained little shites from University. All of them peddling PC bollocks and looking to establish a portfolio of PC ordure hoping they can get on what is left (no pun intended ) of the nationals. Sending Bolshevik Broadcasting Corp money to such young scum would be entirely counter-productive.

Anonymous said...

All the comments I have seen from the committee have not mentioned the inbuilt left wing bias included in the daily output (even the sit-coms.) -without fail.

Raedwald said...

ah Mr Ecks I see the danger; take that dangerous left-wing radical Jeremy Clarkson for example:

"He trained as a journalist with the Rotherham Advertiser, before also writing for the Rochdale Observer, Wolverhampton Express and Star, Lincolnshire Life and the Associated Kent Newspapers."

Nuff said.

G. Tingey said...

I really, really CANNOT UNDERSTAND the hatred of the BBC here & one or two other places.
Will someone please explain in rational terms, without bandying the words "socialist" or "communist" around with no concern for their real meanings?

[ As in Mr Ecks incoherent rambling - there are very few real M"arxist" religious believer around any more, Mr E - wakey up, please!
Thank you Radders, for pucturing that with Clarkson.
Yes, he's a wanker, but so what?]

OH & Radders ... a TAX is something you have to pay.
The TV license fee is NOT A TAX - hint - quite legally, I don't pay it.

What I do like is the finding that the BBC Trust is useless & needs to go .....

If the BBC has any bias, realy, it is still in grovelling to anyone who qualifies as a "priest" or a religious organisation.
Politicians get really good grillings, but the priests are allowed to get away with the most outrageousl lies & blackmail on air, & is anything said or done?

Anonymous said...


I loathe the BBC for its determined effort to lead the country in a direction of its own choosing.

It's pro-EU, Pro-PC, anti white and an utterly corrupt purveyor of propaganda.

Like you I legally don't pay the licence fee, and I'll bet the next "iteration" of the licence fee will have no such get out clause.

It should be broken up and sold off, but its far too useful to the establishment as a mouthpiece.

Anonymous said...

The BBC is much more than the sum of its parts: it was the nation's conscience, it was with us throughout the war and it showed the world that a publicly owned and funded national television service could be a good, and a blessed thing.

Sadly, like many other institutions we recognise as part of the national fabric, it has been infiltrated. The ruination of the BBC started in the 1960's and has now reached its peak. And so we see calls for the licence fee to be scrapped, and a subscriber-based system introduced.

They have only themselves to blame; the guilt is with those at top, the one's who are remunerated in the hundreds of thousands.


I have no answer as to why BBC News is so incurious in its reporting of the mass rape of thousands of little English girls throughout the west Midlands. I have to guess, but I wouldn't have to if they just did their job.


Raedwald said...


Agree with last post; BBC isn't conventionally biased to either 'left' or 'right' but to Big, monolithic, corporatist, Statism; to managerialism, and to benevolent centralist command and control.

So it loves Big government, big business, the EU, world government and all the things I in particular detest.

And a tax doesn't have to be universal to be a tax; road fund licence is a tax even though one can opt out of it by not owning a motor vehicle.

G. Tingey said...

But - you can still, legally, choose not to pay it.
Err .....

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Tingey being obtuse again. It's as reliable as the sunrise.

john cheshire said...

When the bbc propagandises for the Fabian Society, just before the start of children's radio broadcasting, as they did a few years ago, tells me they are Marxist through and through. They are believers in collectivism and everything they say and do is arranged to that end.

Anonymous said...

Keep BBC 1, Radio2, 3, and 4.

Ditch everything else.

Budgie said...

G Tingey, you claim not to understand the hatred of the BBC. I think you don't want to understand, there are plenty of reasons if you bother to look.

The BBC claims it is impartial. Not only is that practically impossible (not to say delusional) but eventually the BBC sometimes does admit bias, but always in the past, never now. And never at the time. The EU, the euro, immigration, CAGW, UKIP, euroscepticism, abortion, etc, you know exactly the line the BBC will promote.

It is often the same line as the Grauniad. Which is hardly surprising given how many Guardian journalists it uses. If you like that bias, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it though. As Raedwald said, it is not so much a Labour bias as a statist bias, hence the CAGW hoax promotion via 28-gate, for example.

Plantman said...

GT has boasted for years that he, quite legitimately. avoids the BBC tax (as I would call it - but he refuses to) because he doesn't watch TV. So how does he know what the BBC's TV output and values are? And how can he compare that and make value judgements of it against the output from all other providers - as BBC critics are wont and able to do?

And yes it is a tax - the shorthand name is "BBC Licence Fee" but it is in fact a tax on owning a TV receiver - why else are retailers required to record and pass on the names and addresses of those to whom they sell TV sets. It is a tax the proceeds of which go to one programme provider only, as Raedwald pointed out earlier in this thread and I pointed out in a previous bout I had with GT some years ago; the parallel is the road fund licence the proceeds of which are given to Ford only.

Alongside his visceral dislike of religion (all religion - you can always rely on GT for a pithy disparaging comment) defending the BEEB seems to be a another ever-present theme of his.

Does he have an interest to declare?

And a small, and very rare criticism of Raedwald - Clarkson is in his mid 50's so educated in the 70's and 80's - not a good rebuttal to what the polytechs with delusions of grandeur and sparkling new names have been churning out to fill the reporting desks these days