The BBC Is Indispensable…If Only I Knew What For

Let’s strip the BBC of its automatic right to the license fee and its status as ‘State Public Broadcaster’…let’s put that out to tender…’privatise’ the BBC….if it won’t change let’s change it!

 

The BBC is no longer the upright pillar of the community that it is supposed to be, and indeed still thinks it is.

It is rotten and corrupt to the core…and that rottenness starts at the very top.

Ironically  the BBC is in a similar position to Jimmy Savile, once highly regarded, respected and celebrated for good works but now brought low by the unexpected and swift unearthing of their misdemeanours which have finally caught up with them both.

The BBC is though, fighting a bitter rearguard action still trying to keep under wraps its dirty little secrets but at least for now the magic has gone and the veil lifted from the Public’s eyes and they can see ‘Auntie’ is perhaps not the lovable old girl she pretends to be.

As she hands out sweets to the kids she is throwing stones at their cat and kicking the dog….only now she has been caught doing it.  Whether that translates into demands for more openness, transparency and accountability and those demands result in concrete action by the BBC is the question.

The Mail reports that trust in the BBC has fallen below 50%…from a BBC report…

‘Public trust in BBC falls below 50% after Savile
Almost half of licence fee payers no longer trust the BBC in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, according to a poll for one of its own networks.
A survey commissioned by Radio Five Live revealed the public’s faith in the broadcaster has plunged, with 47 per cent admitting they did not believe it was ‘trustworthy’.
Just 45 per cent said they felt it was trustworthy, while the remaining eight per cent did not give an opinion.’

 

Even those across the Pond have noticed and are questioning the truth of claims of ignorance made by Mark Thompson:

‘Soon after his death, a BBC current affairs program called “Newsnight” began an investigation into Savile’s sexual proclivities. Yet despite getting at least one woman on tape who said she had been molested by Savile, the piece was killed. Then, earlier this month, a BBC competitor, ITV, ran a devastating exposé of Savile. The ITV investigation raised subsequent questions about whether the BBC had covered up Savile’s wrongdoing.
Plainly, the answer is yes. What is far less certain is how high the cover-up went.’

It certainly does look like an attempt at a cover up was put into operation….when that failed it seemed as if the top management then passed the buck….because the ‘buck’ always flows downhill…and those below, such as Peter Rippon, were set up to take the blame.

The thing is that cover ups seem to be what the BBC does…far from being open and transparent and accountable it does everything it can to prevent its inner workings and thoughts being revealed.

We probably all know that they have spent a great deal of time and £300,000 preventing the Balen Report being made available to the Public.  Why?  It can only be to ‘protect’ the reputation of the BBC…or rather the reputations, jobs, careers and pensions of journalists and management involved in reporting from the Middle East…reporting which is relentlessly anti-Israeli and thereby creating the legitimacy for terrorism and attempts to de-legitimise Israel as a nation state.

Just how much damage would such revelations do to the BBC’s image and its ability to report world wide?  Its journalists would always be regarded as no longer impartial or neutral and their ability to report would be severely limited.

So the BBC attempted to cover up Savile‘s behaviour, they have covered up anti-Israeli reports that lead to increased violence against Jews, and now they carry on in that vein by hiding the identity of people who influenced the BBC’s decision to accept man made global warming as the  ‘settled science’  and consequently to silence the sceptical critics of that theory.

It must surely be of critical importance  to know the identity of those people….who were they, where did they work and what was their interest in the subject…and what did they have to gain by having global warming presented as man made?  The pro-AGW advocates scored a huge victory in their propaganda drive in capturing the BBC whose authority, credibility and the power to influence and change people’s perceptions and actions regarding climate change is immense….that is why it is important to know who benefits , who persuaded the BBC to change its policy and what they broadcast.

All those questions go to the very heart of the matter…. the BBC cannot be allowed to make ‘game-changing’ decisions about what information they broadcast to the world without revealing exactly why they did that…it is not good enough to say that they listened to ‘expert scientists’…….that ‘advice’ should be there for everyone to see and judge as to its veracity and credibility.

We know that in fact many of those present were not scientists but from business, NGOs and environmental pressure groups……all with vested interests in getting the BBC to accept their version of ‘Truth’….Just how many sceptics were there, how many putting an alternative view?

The BBC are right now engaged in a legal battle to keep those identities hidden:

The BBC’s Helen Boaden was on the witness stand today as Tony Newbery makes a last-ditch attempt to force the BBC to disclose who attended its mysterious seminar on climate change in 2006 (background here). If the Information Tribunal throws his case out, it’s probably the end of the line.

A squad of Beeb legal staff,  including two barristers, crammed into a small court room to support the £354,000-a-year news chief against her opponent, a North Wales pensioner who was accompanied only by his wife. The case is a six-year freedom of information battle in which the BBC is refusing to disclose who attended a seminar it held in 2006.
This seminar is historically significant. The BBC’s global reputation for news reporting stems from its unshakable impartiality; even in wartime its commitment to maintaining evenhandedness has occasionally enraged British politicians (and sometimes servicemen). Following that 2006 seminar, however, the corporation made a decision to abandon impartiality when covering climate change – and that’s according to the BBC Trust. This was an unprecedented decision for the BBC in peacetime.
On what basis was this made? In June 2007, the Trust, which governs the gigantic publicly-funded broadcaster, published a report with the gnomic title From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel [PDF]. That document gives us this clue:
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].
Blogger Tony Newbery was curious as to the identity of these “scientific experts”, and filed a Freedom of Information Act request, as he outlines here in an introduction to the saga.

A decision as momentous as this must surely be accounted for and cannot be made  behind closed doors.

To do so and then to keep those doors closed, not only with this but with Balen and initially with Savile,  illustrates how far the BBC has descended into the world of deceit and politics. It is rotten to the core and that rottenness starts at the very top, with the BBC Trust who we can see to be not just a toothless tiger but a tiger which has no interest in performing its natural function……the ranks of management, from Mark Thompson down are no less wanting and are all too ready to hide significant wrongdoing at the BBC in order to protect the BBC’s reputation and of course their own skins.

Unless there is complete openness at the BBC its proclaimed values of impartiality, accountability and transparency are worthless.  If the BBC cannot be trusted, and it is patently obvious that it cannot be, then what is the point of it?

It has shown itself to be politically corrupt, working hand in hand with Labour, it has allowed its senior journalists to champion causes that promote a left wing agenda such as Occupy and the climate change lobby, it has worked to marginalize Right Wing commentators and politicians and policies by labelling them racist or just plain ‘nasty’, it has worked to censure and demonise those who argue against mass immigration, it has sought to silence anyone who has anything critical to say about Islam, it even now defends the European Union and quietly supports those who agitate for Britain to join.

The BBC is corrupt and rotten to the core.  It may produce some great programmes about animals or art but that doesn’t by any measure mean it should be allowed to pervert the democratic process by attempting to ‘manufacture’ the  Public’s social, cultural and political  perceptions, views and responses.

The BBC needs new rules on disclosure and it needs a completely separate body that looks to regulate and control it….the BBC Trust is a body that does not engender the slightest confidence in its ability or desire to hold the BBC to account.

 

Or strip it of its license fee and put that out to tender.

Let’s see if there is a real alternative to the left wing propaganda that passes for news and current affairs on the State Broadcaster and its complacent and arrogant presenters and journalists.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to The BBC Is Indispensable…If Only I Knew What For

  1. bodo says:

    News and documentaries used to be the area that the BBC claimed could not be done by the commercial sector.

    BBC news is not only biased, it is repeatedly outdone by Sky. Just about any breaking major news story will see sky first with live pictures, helicopters hovering above, sometimes before the BBC even acknowledges there is a story. The recent deaths of two police in Manchester was a case in point. Too often the BBC simply ignores major stories, e.g. the recent landing of the Mars Curiosity Rover – Sky had nonstop live coverage, BBC News was showing a extended three or four minutes prerecorded trailer promoting how good BBC News was; “unrivalled coverage of all the major stories” – I kid you not.

    As for documentaries, every week there seems to be a programme dedicated to attacking some aspect of government policy, Yet when Labour was in power as literally cannot remember a single programme critical of government. The few documentaries that did touch on politics were usually entirely supportive, e.g. their foreign aid “Africa season”, something which even the BBC now admits threw any idea of impartiality out of the window, or the several documentary series made by Evan Davies on immigration.

    This week’s programme attacking the government…

    BBC4 THURS. 9PM.
    The Year the Town Hall Shrank
    New series. Documentary following the effects of the austerity-driven budget cuts on Stoke-on-Trent and the wider repercussions for the city’s residents.

       48 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      I wonder if they will ask the question of the councillors (as any investigative, impartial journalist would): ‘Well you’ve told us what you’re cutting, but what aren’t you cutting? How did you prioritise?’

      In fact, I’ve never heard this question asked by any BBC interviewer, on any programme, anywhere, at any time. But to me, having been brought up on good old 1950′s common sense, it’s the effing obvious one to ask.

         6 likes

  2. Alex says:

    Our gutless and corrupt politicians will never allow the demise of their most important mouthpiece and this is what disgusts me… the foreign aid swindle, the turning a blind eye to unfettered immigration, the pathetic throwing away of our sovereignty to the EU and so on – our politicians just don’t listen and this coupled with public apathy colludes to keep the likes of the useless BBC in office. I noted tonight they are back at their smug worst after the Savile affair… that disgusting episode will be forgotten about by our brainwashed 24/7 media-junky populace, who move from one story to the next like sheep.
    The only way to get rid of the BBC is to organize some type of mass demonstration leading to a refusal to part with the TV License direct debit. Either that or vote for a party which will put an end to their useless ways. Perhaps the mass civil strife which is heading our way in the future because of the imposed multiculturalism will bring an end to the BBC… who knows?

       66 likes

    • Earls court says:

      I hope when the SHTF the BBC, politicians and the other assorted socialists freaks are the ones that suffer and no one else.

         29 likes

    • Mice Height says:

      Very true. Hunt is my local MP and I had numerous written exchanges with him whilst he was in his previous post, and he would do nothing but heap praise on the BBC.
      The best way to hit them is in their pocket. Since I stopped paying my licence fee, I’ve encouraged a dozen friends to do so as well.
      12 x £145 is at least half an hours wage for some talentless auto-cue reader at the bloated, wasteful Beeb!
      I shall continue with my campaign nonetheless.

         22 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Never mind, at least your hard-earned dosh is keeping Emily Maitlis in £1175 cocktail dresses.

           8 likes

      • royof the rovers says:

        I have posted many links to this website to Mr Hunt over the past three years.I have had two replies all saying that they cant get involved in the editorial business of the BBC.
        Like I told them “ITS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO CHOICE REGARDS THE TV FEE.” As usual it fell on deaf ears.
        I also told them that they deserve to lose the next election as they wont listen to people like me regarding the bbc.

           8 likes

      • TPO says:

        Hunt was my MP too until I moved to Canada. I tackled him once over taxation in Sainsburys’ car park in Godalming. He just briskly walked off.
        When I emailed him and suggested that he didn’t have to knee jerk in support of every BBC Editorial Guideline Unit utterance he ignored me.

           6 likes

    • Mark Stroud says:

      I must beg to differ on many of the comments about BBC anti-Isreal bias. I would like to have the time to spend a week monitoring all BBC output as I am sure it would paint a different picture. I obviously hear different content to many of the respondents on this blog. Endless news stories about some Asian or Muslims in Bradford are being investigated by the security forces emblazoned as headline news. The follow up story of no charges being bought because there were none that would stand up in court fail to be mentioned (due to lack of editorial space) Stories from the muslim world often purport to show they care about some poor lady who has been persecuted but the subliminal message is that Islamic countries and regimes are just barbaric. I hear heartwarming stories of Hebrew writings, cooking and Jewish contributors constantly putting themselves in the best light possible. Not much airtime is devoted to the extreme barbarity and cruelty dealt to the Palestinian people constantly.

      Their investigative journalism is very selective as has been exposed by the Saville affair. When for example are the BBC going to do any kind of objective documentary of the inconsistencies of the 9/11 official story, probably never. If you want to hear a more balanced and informative view of the middle east an politics then you can learn a lot more from Al-Jazeera and Russia Today than from any western based broadcaster, especially AUNTIE……

         2 likes

  3. Brian says:

    An excellent piece Alan but the often answered question that gets no practical answers is “How?” I have yet to read or hear of one realistic step forward in the process that should have started ages ago, when the BBC became infiltrated with left leaning socialists keen to undermine everything that generations of British people have fought and died for.

    The BBC spent an inordinate amount of licence payers money at every occasion it could during the Leveson Inquiry to hit Murdoch using the line of “unhealthy media domination”. Such hypocrisy when you look at the number of BBC radio, television and internet channel outputs of so-called “news”. They have no competition! And so, as witnessed by its selective coverage and interviews regarding its role in creating the monster Savile, it will continue in its untouchable arrogance, supported by the leftist interest groups it serves. And sadly, the question of how to do anything practical about it remains unanswered. I despair!

       42 likes

    • ltwf1964 says:

      stop paying the tv licence

      simples!

         21 likes

    • Amounderness Lad says:

      The BBC have a virtual monopoly on In-depth News, Current Affairs and Socialist – sorry, I meant Social Comment when it comes to Radio Broadcasting for the simple reason that it does not lend itself to Commercial Broadcasting.

      It is perhaps time that a reasonable proportion of the Licence Fee, that is assuming we are still going to have that Broadcast Tax imposed on us, should be removed from the BBC Funding and given to at least two other National Commercial Broadcasters to be spent on providing similar length News, Current Affairs and Social Comment programmes with a strict control on their quality but not content.

      At the moment the BBC Monopoly on those programmes, along with their blatant bias, gives their propaganda output far to much political influence especially when it comes their very selective choices of interviewees.

         19 likes

      • Doublethinker says:

        I think that you have hit on something that the Consevatives might just run with. They seem to have zero interest in getting rid of the BBC and license fee . I suppose this is because they fear both the mighty attack that the BBC would unleash on them and, mistakenly I think , the way the public would react to the loss of the BBC. However, your idea of using a portion of the license fee to set up some other well funded news and current affairs broadcasters may be more politically acceptable to them, whilst still going some way to redressing the bias of the BBC. It would be politically difficult to argue that using some of the license fee to create a greater diversity of news and current affairs outlets and viewpoints wasn’t in the public interest. Even the BBC would surely welcome the phrase ‘greater diversity’ after all they have been ramming it down our throats for years.
        One problem though would still remain, viz, how to stop the still state funded ‘new broadcasters’ always siding with the view of greater state spending being a good thing. So would they really be independent or would they be always crying out for more state spending and so become organs of the Labour Party like the BBC?
        Any ideas how to prevent this?

           10 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Brian

      In the last licence review, under Labour, David Elstein – a highly experienced TV executive – put forward detailed plans to reduce the size of the BBC and to move its revenue to a subscription basis because the technology makes this perfectly simple.

      His ideas remain valid.

      Any good civil servant should be capable of taking that sort of idea, maybe flesh out some transitional arrangements – and produce a real political plan. Any half-sensible Tory Minister would see the political benefits of reducing the burden of the licence fee – a wholly regressive tax – and would realise the dangers to a frfee society of having such a monolithic organisation dominating our culture and our news programming.

         7 likes

      • Doublethinker says:

        Thank you. I have just read his interview with Alan Jay way back in 2005 and , as you say , it is a very sensible way to deal with the BBC monopoly. Why doesn’t the government implement some of those ideas? They must be crackers or the BBC must have some secret hold on them.

           3 likes

  4. chrisH says:

    And what depresses me is that-according to that poll-50% or so , of our population still think that the BBC is to be trusted!
    God-how dumb do we do as a nation-this means 1/2 of everybody I knows is prepared to condone a nonce organisation, that paid Russell Brand to abuse a survivor of Kristallnacht: and is “intensely relaxed” about the BBC monkeys and autocue spuds not paying taxes like, we the little people that are forced to pay them.
    Random halving of the Christmas card list-if they`re THAT stupid, then they`ll probably not notice anyway.
    Goebbels could only have dreamed of such bovine fodder to mould with so little effort…this lot at the BBC don`t even have to be clever or sly any more.
    After 70 years or so, there`s a longitudinal study to be had-if you were an EU leader or useless Labour creep, you would move heaven and earth to keep the BBC squitting in the water supply as it`s doing.
    Unbelievable.

       34 likes

  5. London Calling says:

    The bBC is not afraid of bloggers, but it is afraid of other voices in the “mainstream ” media. Despite the BBC’s constant ridicule of ” popular right wing” press like the Daily Mail (cue: roll eyes, lefty comedians ever at the ready to mock, still read by ten times more people than The Guardian) and The Sun, it’s the BBC’s exposure as a Paedophile Support Agency that is haemorraging their support. It should have been the global warming swindle, the Renewables crooks, Marx and Islam, shilling for Labour, The Balen Report, Obama-worship a thousand other reasons, but it takes only one.
    Just as it took income taxes, not murder, to down Al Capone, Savile will destroy the BBC, from the grave. It is the media that run Savile’s unwinding and it can’t be covered up now police charges are laid. That is what is petrifying the bBC. Perhaps America will extradite Mark Thompson to face trial about what he knew and when. The Murdoch shoe on the other foot.

       46 likes

  6. Dinsdale says:

    The BBC was once an impartial news reporter, it has made some excellent documentary’s too. I mean few would argue that point on a David Attenbrough series. Thing is other channels can do it better, and cheaper, and if wildlife is not exactly your thing, then don’t buy it.
    The days of the beeb are over, for those who want it then fine pay for it, for those who don’t perhaps its time we were given the option to unsubscribe. Its not difficult sky seem to manage ok, you buy what you want and dont get what you dont, nothing is forced.

       22 likes

    • Derek Buxton says:

      I seem to recall that there were questionable tactics used by Attenbrough on his “nature programmes”, faking film seems to ring a bell. Mind you his polar bear dying out was a scream. fake from start to finish.

         5 likes

  7. Alfie Pacino says:

    Sorry for cross-posting but the following really is an indictment of BBC political bias, well worth a read

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1953/exclusive_bbc_left_wing_political_bias_illustrated_through_uk_political_funding_revelations#.UJFmzfiGi7I

       23 likes

    • Stewart S says:

      Don’t apologise ,that’s a great link (interesting and important)
      links like this help ordinary working mugs like me find the news that the BBC censor.
      Keep posting

         20 likes

    • Alex says:

      Good find, mate!

         17 likes

  8. Ben says:

    We keep being told the BBC produces “world class” content. This seems to be the primary reason against privatisation. But surely, if it does indeed produce world class content then it has nothing to fear at all from a subscription based funding arrangement rather than the current poll tax funding. Surely a significant proportion of current viewers would subscribe to see this world class content. What have they to fear?

    Without proving, in the marketplace, that their content is indeed world class, we have only the word of the self-interested liberal elite that the tax we pay to fund the BBC is worth it. This is the real crux of the matter. I think that most folk know that without the licence fee money funding it the BBC would end up a shadow of its current self. If not, then what have they to fear?

    What does that tell us about the “world class” programming that the BBC undertakes?

       27 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The primary reason given against privatization is the vital “editorial independence”, from either government or sponsors. The license fee gives them the freedom do whatever they like without having to worry about the great unwashed deciding not to subscribe and cost them revenue.

         12 likes

      • Guest Who says:

        ‘the vital “editorial independence”, from either government or sponsors’
        And absolute immunity from any accountability from those compelled to fund them in a near unique exception to market forces based on service delivery or product quality.
        However, that ‘vital independence’ appears less certain when it comes to winks and nudges and implausible market rate uncuriosity in corridors or across restaurant tables. And, of course, when CECUTT gets ‘involved’, even to the extent of bringing in a member of the family to offer a finding on the family name.

           5 likes

  9. Sinniberg says:

    Dear bBBC, hello.

    Over recent years as I viewed and listened to the BBC it was obvious, but not obvious if you know what I mean, that something was seriously amiss and it was only when I stumbled across your website that the scales fell from my eyes.

    The level of it’s bias, brainwashing and anti-Israel propoganda is truly frightening.

    Since discovering this website I try to tell people about it and about the BBC’s bias but alas, the sheep just aren’t interested…..and besides it’s THE BBC…..

    I just wanted to submit a post to encourage you to keep going. Alan, I notice that you put a lot of time and effort into the cause and it must feel like an uphill struggle at times and very tiring, but more power to your pen.

    The sooner this behemoth is slain the better.

       44 likes

  10. Highgate Massive says:

    Scrap the fee/tax now! I would definitely subscribe, and then unsubscribe if I felt the b-BBC did not fulfill my broadcasting requirements, as I do with Sky. At the moment they get nothing from me!

    Excellent piece, Alan

       30 likes

  11. fitzfitz says:

    The BBC must be reformed – not dismantled . We cannot allow these cultural marxists to be responsible – through the consequence of their bias – for submitting us to a service with commercials.

       2 likes

    • Earls court says:

      All the Cultural Marxists at the BBC should be hung from lamposts for teason against the people and Great Britian.

         13 likes

      • London Calling says:

        Not enough lamposts around (Hideously) White City and Bush House, EC. Worse, piano wire in short supply now every pianist now does it on a laptop.
        Burning at the stake was good enough for yesteryear traitors, and there is no shortage of firewood.
        Personally I would like to see all Environment correspondents strapped to the rotor blades of wind turbine. What goes around..goes around, and round, and round…

           9 likes

  12. DP111 says:

    One way to make our politicians listen, and I mean really listen, is to to show, even in the opinion polls, that we intend to vote for some other party other then the Lib/Lab/Con coalition.

       16 likes

  13. chrisH says:

    I myself would like to see the BBC-it`s charter, its contracts and all its licence gathering agency agreements to be stuffed into a gold coffin.
    I would then let it lie(it`s good at that if nothing else) in state for a day on Tracey Temples desk, before getting driven up to Leeds.
    Then it would be tipped into Saviles grave, with all BBC management having to apologise to Sir James for being even worse than him…at least he could put a record on a turntable, whereas Beeb management would struggle to find their holes.
    And then . we would film it for an Arena Special; claim an Arts Council grant for the whole performance then encase Media City in a concrete sarcophagus until Rupert and his lovely family chose to do Dibnah on it for the rest of us.
    How arty, edgy and rebellious!

       11 likes

  14. Lynette says:

    Take the “experts” the BBC uses – an actual complaint from December 2003 is of interest .

    It was a programme which traced the progress of monotheism as the progress of civilisation without including Judaism.The BBC admitted that it’s rejection of the complaint had “been reached after seeking expert advice although such specialist advice had not been taken.” Subsequently an “international respected scholar” reviewed it and had said that that the ommisision of any reference to Judaism” was historically problematic” but that there was no evidence that the programme damaged Jews or Judaism.

       10 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘there was no evidence’
      The problem with weighing evidence is that you have to trust the system to ensure all facts are presented to judge them.
      The BBC no longer can be relied upon to do that at all.
      £142.50 to be served only what the BBC feels we need to know, and at that often ‘enhanced’ still further by their ‘analysis’, seems a very dubious deal to be compelled to pay.

         13 likes

    • chrisH says:

      Sounds right to me Lynette.
      To talk of monotheism without the wellspring of that unique line of thought not being referenced as Judaism definitely sounds very much what the BBC does-would do-and is doing each and every day.
      I know of a Nazi-era Bible that manages (in its sick way) to excise Judaism from both Old and New Testament…and to remove the Jewish character and content from Jesus, Paul and all the others really shows us that without Judaism, there`d be no Christianity…simply would not, could not ever make sense.
      You reminder only confirms what Balen would probably say if it were ever published and not “Saviled” (fiddled with) before we got to read it.
      The BBC hate Israel-which is why we must love it and stand up for it, warts and all.
      Better warts that bone cancer that BeebIslam is fast turning out to be.

         4 likes

  15. deegee says:

    Has anyone noticed that while the BBC News defines the Middle East in its most inclusive definition including North Africa and Iran its Business Report defines itself as Getting behind the issues of trade, business and economics in the Gulf. exclusively?

       2 likes

  16. Daniel Smith says:

    One reason why the Saville revelations are so damaging for the BBC is that it strikes at the very heart of the ‘golden age’ narrative. Yes British TV may be crap but how much worse would it be without Aunty Beeb! Look at what it achieved before Thatcher crassly commercialised the whole television industry!
    The revelation that its golden age was actually a golden age for paedophilia and other nastiness has truly shocked many of its blind supporters. They remember these much loved programmes and now feel almost personally violated by the BBC.

       16 likes

    • chrisH says:

      All those tired and hoary retrospectives on BBC3/4 to furiously edit now that Savile is in loads of them.
      After Glitter and King…those Lord Chamberlain scissors and blue pencils that they used to mock in the early 60s are back with a vengeance for them to locate.
      Any chance of an undercover reporter going into the BBC to see how they`re rewriting their cultural take on history-how to splice Strummer from Savile in effect?
      Don`t be surprised if Major gets a buffing up before the HIGNFY jokes, now that Miliband gave the BBC its steer yesterday-the BBC are THAT desperate to be in “Eds Gang”…they followed Gary, but got Ed instead…no wonder they`re cross and confused eh?

         7 likes

  17. harryurz says:

    Did anyone notice Auntie switched the last two episodes of BBC1′s “New Tricks” last monday (29th) with the previous week? The episode originally planned for 22nd October had a sub plot of girls disappearing from care homes- presumably the BBC decided to delay the showing for a full week to avoid any upset being caused to Savile’s victims? How very considerate…….

       6 likes

  18. Backwoodsman says:

    Great post Alan, pretty much covers all the bases.
    The next step is for someone with the tech skills to put together a “don’t Pay For The bbc” website and start giving some major online exposure.

       3 likes

  19. Dinsdale says:

    I really don’t know why they cant just scramble the BBC. After all we are all on digital telly now, so its easy to do. Then the Licence acts as your subscription, don’t buy a licence and they simply scramble the channels. rather than making you a criminal. Much the same way as I cant get sky movies at home (I don’t want it so I don’t pay for it). There may be some issues about radio funding following this, but lets face it, TV owners have been funding BBC radio listeners since 1971. I do often have people saying to me “but the bbc should remain free to view” – think those people miss the point somewhat.

       5 likes

  20. royof the rovers says:

    anyone know what happened to Noel Edmonds and his refusal to pay the license fee. It was even on the BBC news I think at the time.

       0 likes

    • Dinsdale says:

      he says he does not have one, but the TV licence people say his address does. Its one that was not fully answered I think.

      I guess I can honestly say “I don’t have a TV licence either” Though they will leave me alone (my wife who lives here does)

         0 likes

  21. Earls court says:

    We need a final solution to the BBC problem.

    P.S. Can any of you BBC cokeheads and sodomites work out my play on words with that statement?

       1 likes

    • Nicked Emus says:

      Oh Earls, you are a one. It is because of people like you that I get so much pleasure from this blog. More powerto your elbow — although you have been a bit remiss on the lake of fire stuff.

      Back i n the country for a couple of days before heading off again — I know you all miss me.

         5 likes

      • Earls court says:

        Yes I miss you.

        Are you going to the US election.

        Be careful the blacks are saying all over the internet they will riot if Obama loses.

           6 likes

    • wallygreeninker says:

      Earls Court – you are doing nobody any favours by offering opponents low hanging fruit with such silly statements. As it is, one of our resident trolls gets a chance to treat us to something resembling a ridiculous minds-eye vision of a camp, narcissist accosting, mocking and berating a guy on the high street wearing a sandwich board saying ‘repent – the end is nigh’ before accusing all the passers-by of being dispensational premillenialists.

         4 likes

      • chrisH says:

        The man fears God and knows his Bible.
        He will know that “judgement begins with the house of God”(1.Pet 4.17)-and so I won`t join those who might denounce the excesses as perceived.
        Who knows?…Savile may yet have a greater chance of acceptance in heaven than Thompson, Patten and that quisling catholic of convenience…Blair!

           1 likes

  22. George R says:

    “Jimmy Savile:
    “BBC internal inquiry hasn’t asked Mark Thompson for evidence.
    “The BBC’s inquiry into why a Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuse was scrapped has yet to contact Mark Thompson, the Corporation’s director-general at the time.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9649710/Jimmy-Savile-BBC-internal-inquiry-hasnt-asked-Mark-Thompson-for-evidence.html

       3 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      Maybe they are starting at the bottom, and working their way to finding no one talked to anyone… at least than they can recall… so on balance everyone involved in fact got it about not wrong.
      Several CECUTT investigations have foundered on the BBC ‘discovering’ two directors were responsible for split aspects created by their own system, with each pointing at each other, meaning the corporation is rather practised at dropping things on the basis it all happened in some mystery limbo and so no more can be done.
      However this black hole still remains within the corporation, so they need to face up to the fact that if no market rates can be held to account, then the system is rotten.
      And the person who carries the can for that… is… unless it’s another unique, at the top.

         0 likes

  23. John Anderson says:

    One reason the BBC should be “indispensable” is to provide us with accurate news on the US. Some 900 of the Letters from America by Alastair Cooke are now being put on the Radio 4 website – younger people here will then be able to hear what real quality, real impartiality used to sound like.

    You could dispense with the entire BBC coverage of the US election and not really lose anything. It has all been superficial, biased – and often wholly inaccurate.

    More and more pundits are now saying that Romney could beat Obama in a landslide. And they use mountains of polling data to support their case. Plus lots of indications from the 2 campaigns – where they are advertising, which states they are visiting in the closing stages. Romney and Ryan are now attacking states that previously were assumed to be firmly in the Obama fold, not worth visiting or spending money on.

    Pennsylvania, for example. Pennsylvania !!! Or Wisconsin. Or Minnesota.

    I want Romney to win. But I want him to win big – toi have a strong mandate to deal with the awful problems Obama is bequeathing. And I want to see and hear how all the BBC idiots explain it away.

    People should truly resent being forced to pay for inaccurate news and biased political commentary.

    NOWHERE has the BBC suggested that Obama could be badly beaten. Not even as a possibility.

       3 likes

  24. Moise Pippic says:

    One way to pressure Parliament to change the BBC structure eg by making a reduced license fee available for cultural programming only, whilst separating BBC news and current affairs programmes into a subscriber based commercial organisation, would be for single issue candidates whose platform would be advocating the reform of the BBC, to stand in those constituencies where the sitting MP has only a narrow majority. The threat of losing ones seat might eventually concentrate the minds of MPs to consider the issue of BBC reform.

       1 likes