ON THE HUNT….

I see that the Sunday Times reveals how judging by the Golden Globe television awards, the prize for best free trip and luxury hotel stay should go to . . . the BBC!

It has emerged that the corporation spent tens of thousands of pounds flying directors, producers and stars from one of its leading costume dramas to Hollywood so that they could lobby for prizes at award festivals. A seven-strong contingent from the BBC1 series Cranford – including Dame Judi Dench, Dame Eileen Atkins and Imelda Staunton – flew business-class to lobby for nominations to the Emmys and Golden Globe awards last year. They and the BBC production team stayed at luxury hotels favoured by some of Hollywood’s biggest names. A second trip was made to the Golden Globe ceremony itself.

This strikes me as a criminal waste of our cash in order that the BBC can lobby for awards for itself. It’s narcissistic,indulgent and evidence of how the BBC promotes itself using our money.

FALLING STANDARDS?

Wonder what you think of the comments by Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader who announced his retirement last month, claiming and accusing producers of being too mired in political correctness to do anything about it?


Writing in The Mail on Sunday today, he says: ‘At today’s BBC, a complaint I often heard from senior producers was that they dared not reprimand their subordinates for basic journalistic mistakes – such as getting ages, dates, titles and even football scores wrong – it being politically incorrect to risk offending them.’

I think this in less than half the story. It is not the sheer amateurish of much of the current output, it is the visceral leftist bias that lies behind it. Not so sure Sissons can see that aspect of the problem. Thoughts?

T for 324?

So, you thought the BBC indulgence fest at Glastonbury was an excess?

The BBC has sent 324 people to cover this year’s T in the Park music festival, it was disclosed today. The corporation came under fire last month after it emerged that it had sent more than 400 staff to the Glastonbury music festival. Today the BBC confirmed 139 staff, with 158 freelance contractors, and 27 people from Radio 1, were all working at the three-day event – which is Scotland biggest music festival.

Well worth your mandatory license tax? A vast bloated monstrosity that needs reduced to rubble.

The legal approach

Charles Moore writes about his decision not to pay the licence fee. He’s taken every precaution- a donation to charity of the sum in question; an equivalent sum set aside in case the BBC accept his case that they are in breach of their Charter, and amend accordingly.

Of course I think he’s right that the BBC are in breach, but more precisely I think the concept of a Charter such as the BBC have (and updated just a couple of years ago) an absurdity, a political charade, a conceit played upon the conscience of the public. Moore grounds his case on the failure to remove Jonathan Ross from his post following RossyBrandSachsgate. Fair enough, I would say, yet as Moore also points out, there are many reasons to wish not to pay the BBC for the use of your television. John Kelly for example has been summoned to court to answer for his non-payment, and grounds his case on the BBC’s lack of balance in coverage of the EU.

Obviously we should watch both cases carefully. I note that the BBC renewed their charter a couple of years ago. In the new Charter I believe there is no reference to impartiality, which was one of the Labour Government’s friendly touches for the BBC; removing the impartiality clause really left sites like this one in a changed situation. Therefore John Kelly may have a problem since the BBC’s partiality is central to his complaint. Instead, the Charter talks of the BBC’s “public purposes”, which are,

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;(b)promoting education and learning;(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; (e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; (plus the promotion of digital telly)

Charles Moore is evidently basing his prospective case on the failure in “sustaining citizenship and civil society” exampled by the Ross-Brand-Sachs scandal. I think it’s a good idea to keep this little bunch of purposes in mind in all our considerations of the BBC. I have to say the new Charter was a rotten document from the beginning. The bit I quote is the most substantive part of it concerning the BBC’s responsibilities, yet where does “news” fit in to the above list? Is is “education”? Or “citizenship”? It’s hard to see where to fit the BBC’s coverage of “Global Warming” into this. Bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world is a nice soundbyte, but how does it differentiate between a tourist slot for Brazil and a report on Israel?

If I was arguing the case for either Mr Kelly or Mr Moore I would want to point out that the current Charter is utterly inadequate as a moral foundation for a compulsory tax on British-based TV owners. Then I would argue that its education is false, its citizenship flawed, its culture impoverished and its mission in the world ill-conceived and superfluous. After ten minutes of that, I would apologise for going on (as I am now, in fact), and say that the amount of rational criticism that one can make of the foundation of the BBC is evidence of the injustice by which it is sustained. The BBC’s ring-fenced status outside the democratic ebb and flow is entirely unjustified. The only comfort from the terrible inadequacy of the BBC’s charter is that it arose from the friendship between the BBC and an overwhelming Labour majority in Parliament. Therefore logically if the majority is overturned, so can be the BBC Charter, and the institution itself.

Little White Lies

“I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.”
I’m not sure what the purpose of the ‘also’ is in that little gem, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s the oft-quoted soundbite from a man named Ben White who has written a book entitled “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.”

According to reviews this book really lives up to its title, brimming as it is, with fabricated quotations and half-truths. Critics say the author misunderstands and misrepresents everything about Israel, using quotes selectively and out of context; in fact performing a perfect imitation of the antisemite he doesn’t consider himself to be.

The charity War on Want is helping Mr. White promote this book to show their solidarity with suffering Palestinians and spread the word about their contempt for Israel and Jews.

Organisers of the publicity event that was held in East London’s Toynbee Hall were so afraid of an outbreak of aggression from violent self-detonating Zionist militants that they banned Jonathan Hoffman from attending altogether, and alerted the police, who remained on stand-by just in case he should initiate a disturbance by lurking outside threateningly with leaflets, which he duly did. The sight of him standing there with his leaflets must have been terrifying.

The Guardian gives Ben White a platform to proclaim the evils of the Apartheid Wall, inform the eager reader that Oxfam, Amnesty and likeminded charitable organisations agree with him, and to publicise the meeting so that all Zionist hating Guardianistas will come along to cheer him on, buy a copy of his book and protect him from Jonathan Hoffman.

What has all this got to do with the BBC? In line with their forty year hate campaign against Israel, they are doing something uncannily similar. They tell us all about Oxfam, another charitable organisation demanding the dismantling of the illegal barrier. The barrier which “Israel says is for security.”
Very concerning to them is the fact that Palestinian children have been separated from their playground and have to play in the streets. More concerning obviously than the 200 Israeli lives that were lost in 2002 before the barrier was put there to protect them.

Ben White does not mention such things at all in his “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.” Moreover, he also cannot seem to understand why some people do.

PUSHING AGW AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY

Fascinating to see here that even when the BBC is salivating over the G8 conference (aka fashionable posturing for already over sized political egos) it cannot resist the temptation to shill for AGW. Note the convenient link in the G8 story that presumes to show us how “global temperatures have risen” so reinforcing the narrative that demands we must obey Obama and the rest of the eco-loons. When it comes to climate, the BBC does not allow any debate. The starting point is that AGW is a fact, and the only issue is how much should we pay in the form of raised taxes and reduced liberties. With Robert Harrabin there to help lead the unholy (geek) chorus, is it any wonder that so many people are so spectacularly uninformed on this issue?

THE BEAT OF DEFEAT…

Ever since the US and UK led the operation to liberate (or “occupy” in BBC-speak) to Iraq from the Saddam thuggocracy the BBC were constantly seeking to undermine the operation, demanding that we “get out” of Iran, Each military death was treated as an opportunity to advance that defeatist agenda and so it is that with the focus of military action in Afghanistan the same dreary beat of defeat sounds again on the BBC. What sickens me is the way that the tragic death of each British soldier is turned into a mechanism to advance the defeatist agenda so a week that has seen seven British soldiers lose their lives is a real bumper week. On today there was an exchange between former defence minster Lord Moonie and Sir Jeremy Greenstock (not linked yet) and it reeks of the narrative. Greenstock is a particularly pusillanimous personality. The only time we ever here positive news is when the military get to speak – and that is a rare event on the BBC. The BBC opposes the UK taking part in any form of military action and it shows through in their biased and dismal reporting.

OPERATION – GET COULSON, part two!

The hand of Mandy is all over the concerted attack on Andy Coulson and the BBC continued to LEAD it’s prime time 8am news headline with the latest “update” on this non-story. My take on it is that whilst I have no time for the most of the media, including NOTW, the greater danger here lies with how the State broadcaster becomes a willing accomplice in Labour’s games. Clearly the comments by Met Asst Commissioner Yates have popped their bubble but already the narrative has shifted to suggest that Yates spoke too quickly and may be forced to eat his words. It’s a disgrace the way this sudden attack on the Conservatives – for that is what it is – has been so clearly advanced by the BBC. Some impartiality!

MORE ALARISM!

Meant to ask if anyone else heard Ed Milipede being allowed to waffle on about the doomsday effects of global warming and why it is vital that the UK coughs up loadsamoney to compensate the less developed world to its bit to save the planet. I just LOVED the unspoken assumption from the BBC that “the debate is over” when it comes to AGW and now the only question is how much shall we pay?