All change at the BBC?


           Lord Hall has received a wide welcome as the new Director General. I wish him well. I trust he remedies poor journalism and the institutional bias which can disfigure the BBC’s news and current affairs output.

            It was a little worrying to hear so many enthusiasts for more EU government and  for global warming theory extolling his virtues. The rest of us who are sceptical of more EU government or who do not like the EU government we already have, will reserve judgement. The test for many at  the BBC is to understand that there is now a large chasm between their metropolitan views on the EU, carbon dioxide, immigration and the rest and where much of their audience is on these issues.

            I have a plea to Lord Hall. Could he first concentrate on the quality of journalism? Before we get into an argument about whether all sides in the main controversies are fairly represented, can we at least agree that journalists on quality programmes should read some  original sources rather than just relying on spin doctors? They should, if presenting economic arguments about debt, deficit and spending, know the main numbers and present them fairly. They should, when investigating an EU matter, read the underlying budget or document to understand its significance. When wishing to relaunch a very old story like the Welsh child abuse story, they should at least read the full public enquiry which has already reported on it, to understand it better and to see if they have anything new? When wishing to talk about climate change, they should seek independent scientific and economic advice from both sides of the argument, and not decide with forces on one side that it is all settled.

    There is clearly a political controversy about whetehr an economy recovers by borrowing and spending more or by borrowing and spending less in the public sector. It is not, however, possible to have an intelligent debate about this if the participants and the BBC expert do not know the figures or understand how much government spending there is and by how much it is increasing anyway.

             If Lord Hall recognises the need for change over these crucial issues, then I will join his fan club.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. lifelogic
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    I too wish Lord Hall well. Alas he is both an Oxford PPE graduate and, it seems, he is the choice of Lord Patten – it does not bode well. A good accountant or Cambridge engineer would have been a better choice perhaps. The Royal Opera is not renowned for the efficient use of public money after all but certainly good at spending it.

    His first action should be to halve his, and all the BBC top management salaries down the the level of private sector jobs, then he should deal with the hugely over generous pension scheme and deficit. He should go on balance the news coverage to move it away from its fake green, pro EU, more tax, more regulation, more government, vote labour agenda. Then he should get rid of all the dumbed down moronic drivel that they pump at children and adults and all the back door adverts/placements they push. He should make sure Green Peace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife fund and similar do not set their climate agenda.

    Perhaps he could even explain to BBC reporters that governments can only invest money that they have first taken off others – preventing them investing it directly and almost certainly investing rather better than government does. A net loss to the economy in general.

    He should get them all in front of a good engineer who could explain why green energy largely does not work in economic or even environmental terms and someone else who could explain the long, long history of climate change over millions of years and the lack of statistically significant temperature changes of late. He could explain cause and effect to them and negative and positive feedback systems which seem to confuse their “green” (behind the ears) reporters sometimes. Perhaps he could also get an engineer to explain to all staff why electric cars save no c02 in general and are less efficient and less convenient than conventional ones with current technology.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      I read in the Telegraph that some in Rotherham Council’s social services seem to think UKIP members are racist and thus not suitable as foster parents. Personally I would be far more concerned by support for the Labour Party, due it its high correlation with rather dim people, often with a large chip on their shoulders and suffering from the rather destructive envy of others.

      The sort of people who seem to work for the council in Rotherham. They probably think the same of Tory party membership, but perhaps would not quite say it so publicly yet.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        I assumes members of the CofE will have no chance of fostering in Rotherham on grounds of Sexism. Mind you that and worse could apply to nearly all the other religions.

        One wonders where Rotherham council stands on fostering by climate realists?

        Can we find out, perhaps with a freedom of information request, all the Rotherham prejudices for potential foster parents?

        • Bob
          Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

          Mr Redwood
          Is it against the law to discriminate against someone for being a member of mainstream political party?

          If not it could pose serious dangers for our so called democracy.

          • Bob
            Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

            According to, Joyce Thacker is a member of the mysterious “Common Purpose” organisation.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 5:20 am | Permalink

            Joyce Thacker even seems publicly proud of the council’s actions in taking these children away from their foster parents on the basis of their membership of UKIP. How may more such people work in social services?

            Clearly the needs of the children and the stability of their placements came secondary to labour’s pathetic political dogma and they still seem proud of this.

        • Alte Fritz
          Posted November 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

          Just when you thought local government had already hit rock bottom…………

        • zorro
          Posted November 24, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

          Well, this doesn’t surprise us does it?….UKIP oppose Immigration and the EU so by their (the council) definition must be racist and cannot foster (EU -ed) children, doubtless justified with the usual PC mumbo jumbo….


        • JimF
          Posted November 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

          That’s not very nice of you. Clearly Mrs Jobsworth was doing her best for the children who weren’t “UK” children (whatever that means – presumably British is not the correct word now), and the views that these parents hold on debt, the EU, education and the economy could have confused the poor little things when they entered school and were given diametrically opposite views by the teaching profession. Also, confusing these kids with ideas which lead them outside the confines of LibLabCon might help them to think for themselves, which is the last thing Mrs Jobsworth and her ilk want.

          • backofanenvelope
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:04 am | Permalink

            Apparently there is a new ethnic group – the IWB. The Indigenous White British. I am hoping for a tasteful bumper sticker!

        • Electro-Kevin
          Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

          David Cameron didn’t help.

          He was first to cast aspersions that UKIP members were racist.

          That’s what he thinks of people like me too.

          While he was brought up at Eton I was being eaten and brought up – at a South London comprehensive at the time of the 1980s race riots.

          What on earth does David Cameron know about racial integration ? Who is he to tell someone like me about tolerance ?

          • Electro-Kevin
            Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

            That was in response to Lifelogic at 9.23

          • Electro-Kevin
            Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

            Everything is out of sync on this thread, Mr R.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 5:33 am | Permalink

            He did indeed cast aspersions that UKIP members were racist. The BBC has also not given them fair airtime, I see they had about three times the vote of the Libdems in the recent election, caused by the resignation of Cameron self publicist “A woman” Louise Mensch.

        • pete
          Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

          Rotheram Councils efforts would be far better spent making sure that their schoolkids eat proper food so as to reduce future obesity problems and drains on the NHS than scoring political points.

          This is a PR victory for UKIP though, its given them lots of coverage whilst making Rotherham council look stupid

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      I agree, but on the last point that you make about electric cars may I suggest that electric vehicles including buses and taxis would lead to improved air quality in congested city centres. The overall CO2 statistics would remain the same. These so-called statistics strike me as being a bit of a red herring in any case and are probably nonsense. Cycling home (uphill) from town at night is “particulately” unpleasant as one breathes in the filthy diesel fumes from convoys of poorly maintained black cabs and the odd bus.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:30 am | Permalink

        Indeed electric cars do have the advantage of putting the pollution at the power station. But petrol cars and indeed gas cars can be very clean now. Diesel vehicles can cause a particulate problem when not modern or not maintained well.

    • Bazman
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      I think most people have realised that green energy at the moment is not green in terms of reducing carbon outputs if you as they say, follow the carbon trail and electric cars on the whole do not work. All of it is of course very expensive.
      The energy supply needs to be low pollution and sustainable the key word is sustainable and if the future there is going to be a massive market for this. China and other emerging markets look to the west for their technology so to abandon all research and subsidy to finding sustainable energy would be very foolish. This idea that burning unlimited amounts of fossil fuels can be done forever without consequence is not real even if its just for pollution reasons. As I have pointed out to you before in a non hippy way no artificial self sustaining eco system has ever been created we would be wise to bear this in mind. Fatalistic religious belief has no place as you point out and science apart from a few crackpots and your non scientific blogger Dingbat agree that global warming is real.
      The idea that tax evasion leads to more investment is another of your fantasies. The tax havens used to hide wealth from the world populations and economies in particular third world countries are in for a bit of a shake up it seems.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

        Climate change is happening and always has temperature up and down all the time. Mankind is one of very many factors in it. There is no reason to think C02 will cause some huge catastrophic warming, even if all the fossil fuel extractable from the earth is burnt.

        You say “The idea that tax evasion leads to more investment is another of your fantasies.”

        I think I meant “avoidance” but I suppose the same is true of tax “evasion” not that I would encourage it. Clearly governments rarely invest, they mainly just waste money on daft things. Beyond basic law and order and defence it is usually far better in the hands of those who are good at managing it – the individuals who made and earned it in the first place.

        • Bazman
          Posted November 26, 2012 at 10:05 am | Permalink

          What about the rest of the infrastructure health and roads to name but a few? No money no use? If all the fossil fuel were to be extracted and burned there would be no effect? How can you know2 this there is literally trillions of tons of the stuff and the burn it without any effect cannot be real? What then cleans the atmosphere. It’s like the religious sect who do not believe electricity exists. Hold these two wires my friends and we will soon disprove that theory! Blind fatalistic anti science claptrap.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 27, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink

            CO2 is not “dirty” and does not need cleaning it is a clear harmless gas and a “food” for plants. It will have minor effects on heat radiation but not a catastrophic one by any means. This is rather clear for measurements of temperatures and heat radiation in the upper atmosphere and satellites.

            Try Prof Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for some sense on the issue. Or one of the other many sensible physicists not in the pay of the AGW scam/movement.

          • Bazman
            Posted November 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

            Lindzen who is described by some as a contrarian accepts climate change is taking place and says his 2009 paper contained some stupid mistakes. He disagrees on the effect climate change will have. According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” Alfred p Sloan was a right wing philanthropist backing capitalism and the American way of life. He had often extreme right wing views. A point I suspect not unconnected with Lindzen. Piper and tune?
            You are trying to justify what you believe lifelogic. Have a go with holiday homes being good for the community and a win win situation for everyone. See how far you get. About as far as last time.

  2. colliemum
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    You write:
    “The test for many at the BBC is to understand that there is now a large chasm between their metropolitan views on the EU, carbon dioxide, immigration and the rest and where much of their audience is on these issues.”
    Sorry – this is not simply about the ‘views’ of the various people at the BBC, or opposing ‘views’ of us, their audience. The BBC has been propagating one side only on all these points, for years, and has suppressed opposing views, especially on AGW – which has and is leading to the destruction of our countryside and to an unaffordable rise in household energy bills.
    The same applies to the EU and immigration, to anything to do with the current government, and to the reporting about the conflict between Israel and Gaza.
    If the new DG cannot reverse the now well documented bias on all these points, if he cannot stop and reverse the metro-leftie ideological attitude pervading the BBC, then he should at least see to it that the licence fee gets scrapped. We should not have to pay for something which is close to propaganda – and not even propaganda for the current government, at that.

    Oh, btw – isn’t it generous of all us licence fee payers to give the new DG such lovely salary, while already paying his rather excellent pension?

    • David John Wilson
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      I agree that we should not be worrying about the views that individuals express about these subjects on the BBc.

      What we should be concerned about is the amount of airtime , particularly on the radio that the BBC devotes to internal issues like the appointment of new senior staff. In general these are of no interest to most of its audience. Even the appointment a new DG should not warrant anything more than a few minutes during the regular news. It probably doesn’t even warrant a blog here.

    • A Different Simon
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink

      The BBC’s treatment of the EU and AGW amounts to SOPHISTICATED BRAINWASHING .

      Many of the public are now desperately trying to believe AGW .

      Children in schools believe it is an axiomatic fact rather than a theory and that distorts the logical inferences they might make and their whole thought process .

      The BBC has shown it cannot be trusted so should not be allowed to screen programs to kids with all sorts of subliminal messages .

      There is a lack of presentation of the figures behind the theory of AGW . All we get down is the forecasts from something we are supposed to take as an article of faith . Why do they feel the need to dumb it all down ?

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 6:01 am | Permalink

        Children in schools are indeed taught to believe catastrophic man made global warming is an axiomatic fact rather than one of very many factors regarding climate. A theory not even borne out by current temperature readings. The BBC can hardly have any program from the Archers, gardening programs, weather forecasts, nature programs, soaps to news without it being pushed at the public. Together with the false assumption that hugely expensive “fake green” energy and electric cars are always a good thing.

      • APL
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

        A Different Simon: “The BBC’s treatment of the EU and AGW ..”

        One of the advantages of modern technology is that you can watch Russia Today for your World news, it’s not that the news is any less biased, but you do watch it with your ‘indoctrination filters’ automatically set to maximum.

        With the BBC, in the back of your mind you still have the idea that your listening to that nice old aunt Beeb, who wouldn’t dream of telling a lie. Consequently one does have to make a conscious effort to keep your bullshit filters set to max too.

        • Bazman
          Posted November 27, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

          Russia Today is biased to? What about Al Jazeera English, CNN, Fox, France 24 and a number of others avalible on satellite as well as other British News channels. Are they all bias towards what you perceive as left wing views because they do not put forward your corporate interest views and their paid liars. You need to look at your own obvious bias (etc) that when cornered is just ignored and the speech given again.

          • APL
            Posted November 28, 2012 at 7:30 am | Permalink

            Bazman: “Russia Today is biased to?”

            I don’t pay for Russia Today.
            I am not forced to pay for Al Jazeera English service4.
            I am not forced to pay for CNN international service
            I am forced to pay for the BBC.
            I am not forced to pay for Fox international service
            I am not forced to pay for France 24 international service.

            Which is the odd man out?

          • Bazman
            Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

            The licence fee is a red herring and you know it.

          • APL
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

            Bazman: ” … and you know it”

            Let’s try a little experiment. Imagine if you will, Fox news has a government privileged model of funding in this country.

            In this scenario, if you want to watch television you have to pay £120.00 pa to Fox news even if you only ever wanted to watch the BBC.

            Now I’ve no doubt you think Fox news a rabid right wing broadcaster, which is why I chose them.

            So would you mind paying £120.00 to Fox news for the privilege of watching any television?

            Suddenly that red herring, has changed it’s spots*.

        • Bazman
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

          The BBC often just puts forward the same views of other news channels so are you telling us that these to are just left wing propaganda machines. I take it you have no problem with propaganda coming from advertising revenue?

    • A Different Simon
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      Al Jazeera present a more balanced view of Israeli – Palestinian issues than the BBC .

      • Tom William
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

        Agreed. And it provides probably the most comprehensive worldwide coverage (including important UK stories) of any channel, without getting bogged down in one particular story or theme.

      • Span Ows
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

        Unbelievable as it sounds this is true.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, at a rough guess with pensions/salary/benefits and assuming he stays ten years (not just 56 days) he will have taken perhaps 60,000 dwellings annual licence fees personally. No wonder they have so little left for any decent programs, nor much by way intelligent input to their lefty, fake green, pro EU, current affairs agenda.

  3. Mike Stallard
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    The BBC is getting rather passé.
    Newsnight is full of people who ought to have been retired ages ago. The silver haired people who are in charge are, as you say, preaching to the choir. Politicians now look younger than they do.
    It is all getting very stale and, yes, irrelevant, biased and boring.
    And, as Charles Moore noted over the Jonathan Ross scandal, the fee is no longer voluntary, but a thoughtlessly imposed tax.

    Creativity and bureaucracy are total opposites. Creativity demands risk, freedom, attacking the status quo, laughing at important and grand people and explaining that, actually, the Emperor is naked.
    Which is exactly why the old classics – Monty Python – are now seen as primeval and why Dr Who is now in the jungle with Ant and Dec.

  4. Mick Anderson
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    If Lord Hall recognises the need for change over these crucial issues, then I will join his fan club

    I will require him to achieve remedial change for me to laud his appointment. Recognising the problem is one thing – starting to resolve such an entrenched matter is rather more difficult.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      “If Lord Hall recognises the need for change over these crucial issues, then I will join his fan club” – me too.

      I hope very much he is not the Lord Patten type that I fear, and that he grasps the real issues of bias/indoctrination, over generous pay/pensions/Bupa etc. and the dumbed down drivel that comprises so much of the output.

      I trust he will also move radio three away from the Classic FM that so much of it has become, get the presenters to talk rather less about themselves – just a brief introduction then play the music please. No Ken Clark Jazz either please.

      Also please put more of the better quality old programs they hold like Desert Island discs, letter from America, the early music show and the like on podcasts – as they have for the first two of these.

      Finally he should publicly acknowledge that the absurd decision to blatantly take the side of the quack science scaremongers on the global warming exaggerations was an outrage and damaging breached their remit.

  5. Brian Taylor
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    This should be required reading by all at the BBC.

  6. matthu
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Thank you, John – that needed to be said.

    But a disgrace of equal measure is the very small number of politicians who speak out about inherent bias in the BBC. This should be a very grave national issue

    Where are the political voices bringing it to our attention?
    Why does the press also ignore this issue?

    Is it because the government (and previous governments) actively encourage this bias and have indeed funded lobbying orhanisations to lobby the BBC? This has recently been exposed over climate change issues and is almost certainly true over other major issues such as membership of the EU.

    In which case THIS is the scandal that needs to be exposed.

    • Jerry
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      @matthu: It is a disgrace that few politicains speak out about bad practice in the media (not just the BBC), but then until the current issues with NI most politicains would not rock the boat because they knew that the press has had the power destroy an honest politician that didn’t tow their line.

      Hopefully this is now changing, hopefully not only will the BBC be shown a yellow card but also the print media and the commercial and subscription broadcasters, not forgetting the break up of the DVB-S subscription monopoly.

  7. matthu
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    And why are newspapers including the Independent quoting an increase of £170 per year over green policies while the BBC is adhering to the government line that it it no more than £100 per year?

    At the very least they should be explaining the discrepancy and challenging ministers.

    And we all know that the £170 per year is merely the latest increase and not the full extent of the green tax which may never be openly quantified on any bill.

    • Jerry
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

      So let me get their straight, the BBC quote the “official” (government) figure , certain other media outlets report an ‘inflated’ figure but it is for the BBC to explain the discrepancy – err, year, right…

      Surely it is for the others top explain their higher figure or for the government to to explain their figures?!

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 5:28 am | Permalink

      Green building regulations already add several thousands to the cost of new homes. Usually resulting in small, pokey windows, less ventilation and natural light, dim light bulbs with delayed turn on and a less reliable, over complex boiler with a condensation pipe that freezes up and puts it out of action just when you needed it most.

      • Bazman
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:31 am | Permalink

        The building industry like the car industry should up its game. Would you not agree? Why should I have to live in a poorly insulated home with samll windows in order for house builders to maintain their profits? The frozen condensation pipe should be routed internally to stop freezing on a condensing boiler, so don’t blame the boiler blame the installer. Unreliable some now come with five year warranties? Lighting has moved on since the early days of rubbish fluorescent light bulbs. August 1996 the first ones were sold in Tesco and they were (poor in blogger’s view). Used them ever since. As technology progress I change them now brighter than 100 watt bulbs and much cheaper than incandescent bulbs overall. Buy top brands. LED’s are next. Now in Tesco, but (allegedly poor according to blogger). How can anyone ignore such saving with electricity the price it is? Just silly old codgers.

      • Robert Christopher
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        …. And they call it progress!

        …. And we are paying for it many times over!

  8. Jerry
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    I have my fears, after all Lord Hall was the man who brought us first Radio Five-Live with its very tabloid format (needlessly entering a ratings battle with the earlier versions of commercial ‘talk radio’ ) and then launching BBC News24 with a format that could do nothing but dumb news and comment down. On the plus side, his current roll at the ROH will hopefully have dispelled any notion that the everyone has the attention span of newts, hopefully this will end obsession with sound-bite journalism.

    As for your comment about more “original sources” and less spin when researching/making programmes, spot on, leave the spin and bias etc. to the likes of Sky News and ITV’s Tonight that need the sensationalised headlines and programme content to sell advertising/subscriptions, the BBC should provide both side of the debate equally and then allow the audience to make up their own minds, in my opinion it is not for a PSB programme to reach a conclusion but simply provide the information.

    Oh and one last plea, should Lord Hall be reading, can you please stop these pointless weather presentations, they should be weather forecasts. Other than for needless padding there is no point what so ever for the presenters to keep telling us what the weather HAS been!

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

      At least they might get the past weather right I suppose – unlike so many of their projections.

      I just wish they would stop waving their hands around, like demented ham actors, trying to turn it into some sort of pathetic soap drama.

    • Tom William
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      While it is true that Sky News often bangs on ad nauseam about certain domestic UK topics, when Jeff Randall runs the news programme (7pm most nights -“Jeff Randall Live” – ) it is worth watching. He is one commentator who knows his basic facts, has knowledgeable guests and has no hidden agenda (that I can detect).

      • Jerry
        Posted November 26, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        @Tom William: You don’t detect it because he is a very skilled media person and presenter but his programme is one of the most agenda driven programmes on Sky News!

        • Tom William
          Posted November 26, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

          Which is?

          • Jerry
            Posted November 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

            @Tom William: The fact that the Sky News programme is anchored from a ‘studio’ within the “The Gherkin”, rather than a studio at their Isleworth complex, also the average guest list is such that it’s obvious that far more emphasis is placed on the -how can I put it- “entrepreneur” (or possibly customer) rather the working man or woman. Not that Sky nor Jeff Randell are doing anything wrong, just that it is not without an agenda. Also, in case others have got the wrong end of our two sticks, having an agenda is not the same as being biased.

  9. Wilko
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    Yet another example of Govt & BBC waste is the TV licence fiasco.

    About 98% of people watch TV. If only 2% don’t watch TV, why create nuisance chasing 25 million individual TV tax bills?

    An efficient govt would pay the BBC one lump direct and let the 2% non-viewers claim a TV tax rebate.

    Job done at one fiftieth of the effort, and evasion wiped out.

    Very few within the 2% could attempt to cheat, but only by identifying themselves and risking a false claim.

    • Bazman
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      Wow! Free money! I’ll risk a false claim. That would not be far from the truth.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      Indeed I got sick to death of the endless threatening letters when I had not got a TV at a home I used to have (and even an office) in the UK despite my having informed them.

      Just give them a government grant if they must and get rid of this absurd collection method. Make it about 30% of the current sum and get then to concentrate just on quality educative and intelligent output. Also get rid of the absurd playing a radio/music in work places tax.

    • Daniel Thomas
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      An efficient government in a free country shouldn’t be giving the BBC any taxpayers money at all.

      The BBC should be competing on a level playing with the all the other television companies.

      • A Different Simon
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 1:57 am | Permalink

        You have to admit the establishment have some nerve ?

        Getting the victims to pay for their brainwashing .

  10. Liz
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    BBC seems to be recruiting journalists first and foremost on a “politically correct” basis rather than their journalistic ability, which seems to be the last thing they consider and almost exclusively through one left wing media outlet.
    The sex, ethnicity, age seem to matter more than anything else – for English news anyway. Has anyone else noticed that their diversity policies do not apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where the journalists covering a news item will always be, white Scottish, White Welsh (probably only a Welsh speaker too) and white Irish respectivel?. Whilst this does not apply in England- the recent news coverage of the Church of England woment bishops row was covered by a Scot! Both Sky and ITN have better calibre journalists – if you only watch BBC news you will get a skewed view of Europe, British politics, the Middle East and Business/Finance.
    Tony Hall was a BBC News man for many years – he is not the man to cut it down to size – as it needs to be.

    • Mark
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that many who worked for Tony Hall when he was Head of News have risen through the ranks to positions of prominence since: they were evidently apples of his eye back then, as he did nothing to prevent their rise or to create a balanced cadre of rising stars. Did he indulge in a Jereboam the night of the Labour landslide?

    • forthurst
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink has plenty of English journos; they even do English news.

    • MickC
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink


      The fact that all the insiders consider Hall to be an outsider just because he spent a small amount of his time at another metropolitan elitist institution tells me he is the ultimate insider. The great and the good appoint another of their own.

      No hope for real change there!

  11. alan jutson
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Being unbiased and fair in its reporting won the BBC its original broadcasting reputation, to such a degree that if the BBC reported news, people believed it.

    Over the past few decades it would seem that this rather simple style of news reporting has been lost.

    Today it would seem it is more important for presenters to have to look and sound right, rather than them using solid facts as the core of the news or any story, and in addition we seem to have presenters so called expert opinions being offered far too freely.

    Yes the BBC does put on and produce some excellent entertainment programmes, in many forms, the News however should not be part of that entertainment.

  12. Nick
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    So you admit there is institutional bias.

    Let me remind you that the BBC charter says they have to be impartial.

    What are you going to do about it?

    My view is nothing.

    Here’s a starter. The BBC on climate change. Completely biased. Complete stitch up to justify it. One of the experts being the head of comedy at the BBC.

    So why have an inquiry, and get the resignation of the entire BBC trust for failing to do something about it?

    Next, children’s programs. These should be stripped from the BBC. How can an organisation that covered up pedophilia be allowed anywhere near children?

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      More to the point much of the indoctrination on, for example, the green issue is aimed at children too young to see through it all. Even the Telytubbies has a wind turbine and green roofs – it starts early.

      • A Different Simon
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 2:07 am | Permalink

        I told my 14 year old nephew that global warming was a theory and not a fact .

        My nephew seemed to accept this but a bit later said something to the effect that “wouldn’t it be a good idea though if we could decarbonise the economy?”

        All of us who have watched the BBC have been brainwashed to some degree , even if we don’t realise it .

        • lifelogic
          Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink

          Indeed students learn and endlessly use words and phrases like, decarbonise the economy, renewable energy, sustainable future, green clean energy- but are taught nothing of the science, numbers or the economics behind them. If they were they might get real.

        • lifelogic
          Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

          They often also take the view that even if it is not true the “green” measures are a good plan anyway. They need to be taught about opportunity costs what great good could have been done with the vast money wasted on this AGW exaggeration/illusion.

    • Credible
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      The majority of child abuse is perpetrated by parents. How can we continue to allow parents near children?

      At least children’s programmes on the BBC don’t come with adverts every 10 minutes encouraging children to demand toys, junk food and plastic tat that many parents either don’t want to buy or can’t afford.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

        No they come with BBC “placements” instead.

        • Credible
          Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

          Naughty BBC.

      • APL
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink

        Credible: “The majority of child abuse is perpetrated by parents. How can we continue to allow parents near children?”

        Interesting but unfounded assertion. What is the percentage of children living at home with their parents that do not suffer abuse?

        Of all the children in the United Kingdon, what is the incidence of child abuse?

        How much of that is committed by parents?
        How much of that abuse is committed while the child is in the care of a local authority or other State institution?
        How much by a third party?

        As an aside, how much of the Child abuse covered up by the BBC over the last thirty years figures in the statistics?

        • Credible
          Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

          I think you’ve missed the point!

  13. oldtimer
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    These are all very good questions. But do not hold your breath expecting any change. Lord Hall may well be cast from the same mold as his predecessors.

    For starters, in the 1990s it was Tony Hall, as he then was, as head of news at the BBC who invited Roger Harrabin “to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialisms (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world”. It was just such a meeting that was misrepresented by the BBC Trust in the Bridcut report to justify abandoning impartiality on the CAGW hypothesis.

    I understand that Lord Hall is also a trustee of the British Council which is firmly in the AGW camp. One of his fellow trustees is Professor Steve Jones, notable for his 2011 report criticising the BBC for giving too much time to AGW sceptics.

    On this evidence it is reasonable to expect more of the same from the BBC; they will just take more care to cover their tracks. That said he appears to have been an effective leader of the Royal Opera House. Maybe wisdom will come with age.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      Professor Steve Jones is a perfectly good snail expert but needs to become rather more sceptical on the great global warming scare swindle.

  14. j goodchild
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Well said John and Collimore you were spot on. However the fact that Polly Toynbee and Chris Bryant MP are so thrilled by the appointment of Tony Hall says it all. You will never get rid of political bias while you have two left wingers at tbe top. Patten sbould go. infact i wish it could be broken up and sold off. its past its sell by date now. One or two exellent dramas do not warrent the huge salaries paid to the mainly (word deleted) workforce.

  15. stred
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    The payment of a pension greater than many professional salaries plus a huge salary with the usual extortionate contactual terms is more of the same. The woman who championed the very high payments to the ‘star’ presenters has just left, thankfully, but with a £670k pay off. The chief for journalism, responsible for the dismal standards has an even bigger golden goodbye. The Trust just signs off the agreed amounts and most members are overpaid establishment figures who are used to the racket.

    These contracts and salary levels, plundered from a state funded establishment amount to legalised theft. There should be a way of reclaiming the money under an unfair contract law, followed by prosecutions for those involved.

  16. backofanenvelope
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    This man is a BBC insider who worked there for many years. He is one of the people who have made the BBC what it is today. Biased.

  17. Bob
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    “can we at least agree that journalists on quality programmes should read some original sources rather than just relying on spin doctors?”

    According to Peter Scissons “By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.”

    He goes on to say ” the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.

    And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril. In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset — or keep quiet about their true feelings — are going to make progress.

    Moreover, making progress these days doesn’t mean just achieving the influence and prestige of a senior job with the world’s greatest broadcaster, once considered reward enough. For those breaking through into the senior ranks, there’s now big, big money and a gold-plated pension to be had

    Which is why, although there has been plenty of grumbling on the shop floor about the escalation of pay for top BBC managers in recent years, it’s muted. No one wants to wreck his or her chances of a well-paid place in the promised land. The newsroom has many talented journalists of middle rank, who know what’s wrong with the organisation, but who don’t rock the boat for fear of blowing their futures.

    Not that talent alone is enough to get on at the BBC. The key to understanding its internal promotions system is that, for every person whose career is advanced on ability, two are promoted because it solves a problem for management.”

    The best way to solve the BBC problem would be to change their funding model from TV Licensing to voluntary subscription, which will force the BBC to justify themselves to viewers and listeners, instead of a bunch of “trustees” constituted from the metropolitan elite.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

      “The best way to solve the BBC problem would be to change their funding model from TV Licensing to voluntary subscription, which will force the BBC to justify themselves to viewers and listeners, instead of a bunch of “trustees” constituted from the metropolitan elite.”

      Indeed and they could, with good management and a tight ship, do that without too much problem. They have a strong brand despite the recent drivel they push. Let the arty, fake green, pro EU lefties pay for them or let them change their agenda and we can all pay.

  18. Credible
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    You write:
    ‘I trust he remedies poor journalism and the institutional bias which can disfigure the BBC’s news and current affairs output.’
    The term poor journalism is a very sweeping statement. Are you saying that every journalist at the BBC is poor? Of course there have been some poor examples recently and it must be a top priority that that behaviour is not repeated. There may even be some general sloppyness as you suggest. However, there are also some very good journalists, some journalists who risk their lives to bring us the news at the BBC and many who I believe do their best to remain impartial.
    Lets have a look at the Conservative party. Some MPs have hardly been a paragon of virtue in recent years. Take widespread expenses corruption. Would you like to be tarred with the same brush?
    On BBC bias. Interestingly, many people I know think the BBC is too right wing in its reporting. They say, for example, that the benefit of taxation for public good is not reported and that the CBI and right-wing think tanks get more exposure than they should.
    Political views tend to follow a Normal Distribution (like a bell curve). The majority sit in the middle with fewer and fewer towards the more right or left. That’s why political parties are always trying to appeal to the middle ground for votes even if they themselves don’t really hold those views. If a journalist tries to sit in the middle they will inevitably appear to be biased to both the right and the left. Bias in someone’s eyes is impossible to avoid. The best that can be done is to try to report a cross-section of views. Now if that means accomodating the tails of the distribution to create balance, giving the more right and left wing opinions a voice, it will mean that the majority have less voice than perhaps they should.
    Please give me an example of journalism that isn’t biased. It certainly isn’t the Daily Mail or the Guardian or the so-called Independent. It certainly isn’t Sky or Fox. I get the impression that what you mean by bias is that the BBC doesn’t agree with your views. It’s always easier to see the fault in others.

    Reply I said poor journalism “can disfigure”, not that it always does. There is also some good journalism in evidence. Senior BBC figures have themselves agreed there has been some poor journalism, of which the child absue story was the worst example.

    • Credible
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink


      What is it about global warming theory that you object to? I presume you do agree that carbon dioxide keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be? And if we produce more of it there must be at least a possibility that the earth will get warmer. That it would be rather silly to not do some scientific research, given the potentially serious consequences. Of course the difficulty is that the earth system is very complicated and there are limitations to the scientific tools available. The overwhelming current weight of scientific opinion is that man-made emissions have and will warm the planet. It is possible they may have missed something and are wrong, but it seems extremely crass and unscientific to just dismiss it out of hand and rubbish it. But maybe you’ve studied the equations and know better. Personally, I think we ought to be concerned if there is even a small chance that we are doing irreparable damage for future generations.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

        There is no reason to suppose any climatic catastrophe whatsoever. One has to balance the vast costs of doing things that just might prevent a tiny risk against the real immediate benefits of using the money to do other things that we know for sure are very are beneficial.

        The overwhelming evidence is: no climatic catastrophe is likely to result, slightly warmer is far better than slightly colder and the money can be far better spent on clean water, food and basic medical care than on reducing c02 emissions.

        • Credible
          Posted November 25, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

          Ah, well what we do about it is a whole different matter. There is a different between the science of climate change and what is done to mitigate against that change given the best estimate of what will happen. You talk about a ‘tiny risk’. Is it a tiny risk? Well it might be or it might not be and it depends on what you mean (a tiny risk of what?), who bears the brunt of the effects and over what timescales. Your crystal ball is either much clearer than others or contaminated by prejudice.
          Probably, all the carbon will be burnt anyway because of the imperative to keep economies going.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

            The BBC types are the ones claiming to have the crystal ball and that they can predict the weather in 100 years. I say spend now on what we know saves lives now and adapt if we need too later.

            As you correctly say all the carbon will probably be used anyway and co2 is only one of countless factors in changing climate. We also know that more c02 and warmer is generally good for crops and plant growth.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

            The BBC types are the ones claiming to have the crystal ball and that they can predict the weather in 100 years. I say spend now, on what we know saves lives now and adapt if we need too later.

            As you correctly say all the carbon will probably be used anyway and co2 is only one of countless factors in changing climate. We also know that more c02 and a bit warmer is generally good for crops and plant growth.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

            Credible: “I presume you do agree that carbon dioxide keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be? ”

            Probably on balance a little warmer than it would be, but the system has countless feed backs, huge complexity and many determinants – who is to say this slight increase would not be rather welcome?

      • APL
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        Credible: “I presume you do agree that carbon dioxide keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be? ”

        No, that’s what the sun does. If you want a greenhouse gas, you should be looking at water vapour. It is present in the atmosphere in much greater concentrations that CO2 and has a much greater influence on the atmospheric conditions than Carbon Dioxide.

        • Credible
          Posted November 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

          I’ve never lived on a plant without a sun shining. Have you?

          On water vapour and CO2 lets use an analogy. Imagine you have two bills to pay. One is large, the other is smaller. If the smaller bill keeps increasing year on year, you run a bigger risk of falling into debt even if the other remains unchanged.
          In the climate change context it is more complicated of course because one bill may affect the others in ways that are difficult to predict and that is why the problem isn’t easy.

          • APL
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

            Credible: “I’ve never lived on a plant without a sun shining.”


            Credible: “On water vapour and CO2 lets use an analogy.”

            No, I can give you actual percent measurements.

            % CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.0387
            %H2O in the atmosphere, 1-4%

            The variation in water vapour accounted for by how hot it is at a given location, so the Sahara might be 1% whereas the Pacific Ocean may have 4%.

            Credible: “If the smaller bill keeps increasing year on year”.

            Yet there is no evidence that increase in the smaller bill is linear – all the historical record indicates that CO2 remains within strict bounds – then you may reasonably discount the likely-hood that the behavior of several billion years will be changed because of a couple of coal fired power stations.

            In any case, should it be, let’s build nuclear power stations.

          • APL
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

            Just one more thing.

            The Martian atmosphere is 95.3% Carbon Dioxide, the viking orbiter provides estimates for the surface temperature of Mars to be between 27C to minus 147C.

            With 95% CO2 you’d think it’d be a little hotter than that if there was anything to your scare theories?

          • APL
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

            One more thing ….

            Martian atmospheric free water vapour – almost none.

          • Credible
            Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

            In response to the replies by APL below.

            Even if the H2O in the atmosphere was 50% but it didn’t change it would cause no change.

            No analogy is perfect. That is why I stated that the atmosphere is more complicated because of interactions – and as you say these may be non linear. That is why the problem is difficult.

            Actually hotter air can hold more water vapour, which means that the air over the Sahara should have a higher water content than the Pacific (at least during the day). It doesn’t because (amongst other things) the air is in contact with the sea which is a lot wetter than the desert.

            Mars is on a different orbit further away from the sun!!
            What is the actual amount of CO2 per cubic metre on Mars? – it puts the percentage in context. (The surface pressure on Mars is less than 1% of that of the Earth).

            Again, it is not the amount but the change that matters.

          • APL
            Posted November 26, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

            credible: “That is why the problem is difficult.”

            Yep, the atmospheric condition has many variables, not least external, for example variations of solar radiation relating to solar activity. Then there is the attenuating effect of cloud cover ( gaseous H2O ) on the radiation reaching the surface, the impact of evaporation of H2O from the surface and radiation of that energy and latent heat energy into outer space.

            But all these things according to the warmists are dwarfed by the potential impact of raising the concentration of Carbon Dioxide from 0.0387% to 0.04%.

            Credible, that ain’t credible.

      • Tom William
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink

        Have a look at the website “Watts up with that” if you want to know what is really going on with the climate.

  19. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Why is Lord Patten still involved with the BBC? Can’t anyone sack that (man)?

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 26, 2012 at 10:03 am | Permalink

      Why is he involved with anything at all given his record? Simple, Cameron appointed him and he seems to still even now have his full support.

      • APL
        Posted November 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

        lifelogic: “Why is he involved with anything at all … ”

        He is a EUrophile, with a pension. He does what his paymasters tell him to do.

  20. David Kelly
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Hall will change nothing in the BBC’s ‘culture’ (I prefer the word ‘disease’) of troughing and right-on politics. It was noticeable that his appointment met with the approval of Labour politicians like Harman, and BBC insiders like Yentob and Dimbleby. They know nothing will change substantially, if at all. At a time when the BBC needed an outsider more than it has probably ever done, the BBC Trust made the most cowardly choice it could have made.

    Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

  21. Electro-Kevin
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    There was virtually no representation of the traditionalists’ view when it came to the recent CofE vote on women bishops.

  22. Neil Craig
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    I regret I cannot share any “trust” that the BBC will cease to be the (words left out) propaganda organisation it is.

    We have yet, nearly 2 weeks after it broke, to see any sort of apology or even explanation for the fact that the entire BBC organisation has (misled), continuously and deliberately about having 28 “leading scientists” giving the “best scientific advice” as justification for their propagandising and censorship of dissent over warming. Indeed they are simply censoring any reporting of a scandal, far more important than Savile, which has (been reported on line)

    Le4opards rarely change their spots and a “Ministry of Truth” provably willing to continuously tell any lie and censor any fact in the (chosen) cause is not going to turn into a decent free one without being totally disaassembled.

  23. NickW
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Whilst I agree with everything that Mr Redwood says, it needs to be pointed out that what Mr Redwood is asking for is compliance with the BBC Charter and Agreement, which can be read here;

    The requirements for accuracy and impartiality in the reporting of News are clearly stated, along with requirements for “Openness and transparency” which were breached when the BBC refused to say who was at the Meeting which established Editorial policy on the reporting of climate matters. (See 23.f; Charter)

    The BBC must NOT be used to air the views of the Trust on any matter except Broadcasting itself. Which means that neither the BBC nor the BBC Trust is allowed to use the BBC’s programming to disseminate their personal views on any matter.

    The BBC Trust must; (Charter 23c) “carefully and appropriately assess the views of licence fee payers;” (Although having assessed those views the present Charter does not require the BBC to take any action once those views are known).

    The starting point for both Parliament and the new Director General is to read and understand the Charter and the Agreement and to comply with both of them. The new DG needs to make a formal statement detailing the areas of non compliance and the action he intends to take to rectify them.

    We have, (as always) a failure more of Regulation, than legislation, although some changes to the legislation may be desirable when it is renewed, to give clarification and remove uncertainty.

    Note that the Government is not required to give ALL the Licence fee revenue to the BBC. Parliament can withhold money from the BBC if it breaches its Charter or Agreement.

  24. Alan Wheatley
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Lord Patten, being interviewed on Radio 4, said in relation to his experience for the job that Lord Hall ticked both boxes, journalism and the arts. So we know to expect a continuation of the bias towards that which appeals to the BBC Establishment.

    Continue to dispair over poor quality programmes on technical subjects such as science, technology and engineering.

    The Current excellent series on BBC in which David Attenborough looks back over sixty years of wildlife broadcasting shows what can be done if the right people with the right expertise, imagination and drive are allowed their head.

    The BBC should set up a dedicated section for specialising on the sciences and engineering, as they did with wildlife at Bristol, and I would have thought the new facilities at Salford provided an ideal opportunity and location to do just that.

  25. i albion
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Flying the St George’s Flag on St Georges Day would get you knocked well and truly off their list.

  26. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I think that we need to end this false doctrine about the BBC’s ‘independence’. It is funded by licence holders, i.e. by taxpayers, and is therefore a State run organisation. As long as this is the case, the government is entitled, nay obliged, to ensure that the bias is eliminated. The simplest method is to get rid of the BBC Trust in its entirity and make the appointment of the Director General a decision for the Secretary of State for Media & Culture. Forcing the BBC to accept some advertising revenue would also help the taxpayer; this could be a temporary measure until the public sector deficit has been reduced to reasonable proportions.

    • Tedgo
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

      The BBC should be restructured to be like Channel 4, that is a publicly owned service provider but paid for by becoming a subscription only service. This is now possible with the completion of the digital changeover.

      Viewers would only have to subscribe if they wanted to watch the BBC.

      To prevent damage to other TV channels no advertising should be allowed.

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Far better, the Trust to be elected by the licence fee payers.

  27. forthurst
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    “can we at least agree that journalists on quality programmes should read some original sources rather than just relying on spin doctors?”

    Can we agree that the BBC have the skills to construe “original sources” on all the topics on which they pontificate? Do they have the skills to interview the authors of such sources?

    Do the BBC employ many other than Eng Lit grads like Paxman whose major skill is point scoring? Has the BBC become little more than a Red Top promoting the Frankfurt School agenda?

    Does the BBC use its unnecessarily large income other than to pay unnecessarily high incomes and salaries to unnecessary layers of unnecessary management? How many layers of drones did not prevent the McAlpine fiasco?

    Is the style of journalism employed by the BBC obsolete, now that people who are not professional journalists can present on the Web, writing based on knowledge and research rather than paraphrase or precis of puff.

  28. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Hopefully Lord Hall will last longer than 54 days.

    The BBC has given Economists – such as Professor Steve Keen, a voice on Hard Talk – which in my view is a step in the right direction.

    But they are blinded by people who receive Nobel Prizes – such as Paul Krugman, who in their eyes are “Experts” – “Experts” who had no idea that the Financial Crisis was coming and even if they did, didn’t relate excessive debt as the cause.

    Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize – only because he wasn’t George W Bush. Shortly after receiving this “Peace” Prize, he helped Bomb Libya (words left out) and did nothing when Gadafi was (killed) on the World News Networks. The Ends, it seems always justify the Means.

    Inaccuracy and Partiality are now trade marks of the BBC. They have lost the skills of Journalism and only repeat – parrot fashion; whatever the Government or Banking system tell them without any Critical Scrutiny unless it goes against interests of the established view point.

    Robert Peston’s fairy story regarding how Banks Work is an example of how mis-information is produced by the BBC. Most people on this website are capable and willing not to accept what the BBC tell them and analyse it to see whether it actually makes sense. Robert Peston thinks that Banks take in Depositors’ money and then lend that out without creating new money. ( I think he has a different view – ed) If that is the case, then why is the British Public bailing out the Banking System?

    People make judgements and decisions based on information – if that information is inaccurate and/or biased, then the judgements and decisions that result from that flawed information and data will equally be flawed.

    The Bank of England regularly makes flawed decisions based on the flawed measure of inflation – CPI, which does not take into account Housing and Energy Costs, and replaces more expensive foods with cheaper foods, giving the impression that inflation is lower than it actually is.

    George Entwistle was thrown to the wolves by his Editorial Staff at the BBC who are (poor journalists). 54 days is not long enough to get to grips with the Problems at the BBC. John Humphries (words left out) Hopefully Lord Hall will view incompetence and arrogance of his Editorial and Journalistic Staff with much more Shark Like Eyes and get rid of these people – perhaps then we will then realise that George Entwislte was tied up with Employment Contracts and so couldn’t sack people and had to go through a lengthy and expensive disciplinary procedure with these so called “Professionals”.

    The BBC is a dead duck, there are far better and informative News outlets out there. A shame but true.

    • sm
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink

      I agree Steve Keen should be invited to give his insights into how the the banks work in practice and what potential solutions he could suggest.

      If Mr Peston could be as good as to arrange and allow him to speak that’s about as much as you could expect from the BBC. Obviously Mr Peston or another drone could ask intelligent questions but we would hope he would allow the alternative view to be outlined to the viewers in a cogent fashion.

      Given i dont subscribe to the BBC , i dont watch much TV except perhaps non live streams from other broadcasters.

      I only hope technology and clever tax lawyers find options to enable mass avoidance. Or people just boycott the license fee.. legally of course.

      • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
        Posted November 27, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Steve Keen’s certainly knows how the Banks work, he was one of the few to predict the Financial Crisis – unlike Paul Krugman.

        “Where Does Money Come From” is a Book produced by “New Economics Foundation” and “PositiveMoney”. It focuses on how the UK Banking System works and is a standard Text Book in some University Courses.

        It explains how Banks Create what we call “Money” and the Treasury denies is “Money”, as the treasury only believes the BoE creates money – they are probably right.

        This means that our Savings aren’t really Money at all. We save each others Debt.

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted November 26, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

      The BBC has also given Ben Dyson (PositiveMoney) a voice on BBC Radio 4

      Another step in the right direction.

  29. Expat
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Bravo Zulu Mr Redwood. I agree with everything in this excellent article. As for BBC bias, it is mind blowingly rife in the news area , indeed commentators and interviewers seem eager to display prominently their left wing credentials. To take a recent example, last Wednesdays Lunchtime News reported Miliband’s taunt to Cameron that the voters of Corby had spoken for the whole country etc. The BBC report stopped there but as we all know, Cameron’s response completely demolished Miliband. The BBC bulletins at 6pm and 10pm made grudging mention of the response but continued to give major prominence to Miliband. Question Time is so biased that I won’t watch it anymore. Something has to be done but appointing an ex newsman as DG is hardly a solution.

  30. Alan Wheatley
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Any Questions used to be a good listen of a Friday evening on Radio 4. I am becoming less and less inclined to bother. Yesterday was a good example of Jonathan Dimbleby using the programme as an opportunity for HIM to interview the panelists, putting to them his own questions. Another example of the public being badly served by a BBC programme.

  31. Muddyman
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    It is generally accepted that the BBC is biased, but is that bias toward a goal rather wider than the narrow political one?. Could it be that its propaganda is toward supporting the aims of United Nations Agenda 21 and those of Common Purpose (an adjunct of UN21 development).

  32. Well well well
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Pity that Tony Hall is very unlikely to read John’s article and if he did will not act on it to any great extent. I always find it strange that the media outwith the BBC never challenges it. I suppose they all have too many skeletons and don’t want to rock the boat. Sad

  33. The PrangWizard
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    The BBC cannot be reformed, It is law unto itself. A state within a state. How do you change an organisation which has so many thousands of people controlling news and current affairs output.

    The BBC needs to be dissolved and replaced with ‘a station for every nation’.

    Tolerance has been stretched too far already and there are too many oilies speaking for the BBC. MPs who believe there is a serious problem should speak out more forcefully and more often about the bias and its partialities in the House, and demand remedies. Maybe they have, (I wish I could keep up with everything) but it hasn’t worked, so do it again. Cite examples and demand change now. How long do you give this man, only to realise he’s going to do nothing (etc).

    Otherwise it’s more of the same and we’ll be here again in a few months whining on impotently.

    As you have said elsewhere Mr Redwood, MPs still have powers, and have more influence than the people, we only have bricks, and I’m sorely tempted on a number of issues to throw one or two.

    We discussed the issue of rebelliousness in a piece just the other day. Does that only apply to the issue of the EU?

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      You change the organisation responsible to the Trust by having Trust members elected by the license fee payers.

  34. pipesmoker
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    I agree and having listened to the BBC World Service for over 50 years, back in the 1960’s I would have taken most of it’s broadcasts as gospel compared to Radio Moscow, VOA and other shortwave radio stations. Paid for by the Foreign Office attempts to get it under Aunties wings should be resisted at all costs.

    I have long given up on the BBC for impartial journalism and wildlife programs. The MSM is not much better just recirculating stories?

    With the exception of the WS it should be sold off and compelled to compete in the market for it’s audience rather than be paid for by a poll tax? That would concentrate a few minds.

    I would still have to pay, the long haired mate would insist on it for their drama.

  35. Iain Gill
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Isnt he another PPE graduate, I tell you they must be brilliant the folk that join that course, more likely its down to back scratching amongst the elite classes

    If I was running the country I would ban anyone who studied PPE from working in the public sector or quasi public sector in this case

  36. Demetrius
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Today, Saturday, I tried to put Tony Hall and the BBC into some sort of context. Will he go down with the ship?

  37. Alte Fritz
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Whatever Lord Hall’s qualities, I think he will need a team of tough helpers to reform the mess the BBC has become.

  38. English Pensioner
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    In that Lord Hall was in charge of BBC’s news services before he left for his present post, and that the biased journalism has certainly been present since Mrs Thatcher came to power if not before, I don’t hold out any great hopes for change.
    He could, of course, show there is going to be change by ordering the publication of the BBC’s internal report on allegations of bias in its reporting of news in Israel and adjoining countries.

  39. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    BBC’s Nick Robinson (words deleted) said in relation to David Cameron’s Trip to the EU: “What many will describe as failure, David Cameron has described as “progress.” ”

    So Nick Robinson (words deleted) thinks that David Cameron’s restraint at throwing money down the EU Toilet of failure, is somehow a failure?

    Q: How do you know when a BBC Reporter is being biased ?
    A: Their lips move.

    Good for David Cameron – don’t let those EU Technocrat’s get our money, They’ll just throw it at banks and Brussels Expense Accounts.

    No doubt Nick Robinson was a Gordon Brown supporter during the interview he gave him as the subject of throwing away half the Nation’s Gold wasn’t asked and Nick Robinson even was made to look ignorant by the (words deleted) Politician, spouting nonsense that the City of London had less Rules than Wall Street being the reason that we were not so badly affected by the Financial Crisis.

    A constructive debate about how to correct the economy cannot be carried out if the BBC only wheel out the current crop of neo-classical economists who didn’t predict the financial crisis. People like Paul Krugman thrive on accolades and Institutional Recognition, but not on truth and recognition from their theories being based on reality.

    Gold bugs, Monetary Reformers and Classical Economists look at Money, Debt and Banks in the Economy. People like Paul Krugman do not understand the relevance of debt to a Debt Crisis. The BBC doesn’t care that these so called “Experts” didn’t predict the crisis nor know how to solve it.

    The BBC’s bias towards the Banking Industry, Neo-classical Economists and the European Socialism of Corporate Interests (as they are a large Socialised Corporation) helps them make full use of their Creative Arts Department as they are now using those skills in that department in their News and Educational Broadcasting as they are very creative with the truth.

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      Nick Robinson grabs a protestors banner and tramples all over it.
      Nothing Justifies this act by Nick Robinson – a non- abusive protestors sign saying “Bring our Troops Home”, and “Cut the War and not the Poor”.

      What does this say about Nick Robinson’s views?

    • Bob
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      ” the subject of throwing away half the Nation’s Gold wasn’t asked”

      Google: “Revealed: why Gordon Brown sold Britain’s gold at a knock-down price”

      It’s an article by Thomas Pascoe in the Telegraph.

      I’ll post the link below, but Mr Redwood might delete it, in which case just google as above.

      • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 11:58 pm | Permalink


        Another reason why the Banking System needs urgent and sustainable reform.

        Even more disturbing about this story is that the Bank in Question requiring Gordon Brown’s assistance wasn’t even a UK Bank – that would have been bad enough.

        Why would Gordon Brown feel obliged to dump British Gold (etc) ?

        I’m surprised more people around the Country aren’t demanding that a public enquiry about this be opened and Gordon Brown’s real motives be investigated. We have to discourage this type of …. behaviour for the good of the public purse. etc

  40. Headhunter
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Hear, Hear! It would be a good thing if some of the Beeb’s junior presenters learnt how to pronounce words like ‘adjutant’. There is an implied duty to educate, as well as to inform and report impartially.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      How did they do it?

  41. uanime5
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    The test for many at the BBC is to understand that there is now a large chasm between their metropolitan views on the EU, carbon dioxide, immigration and the rest and where much of their audience is on these issues.

    Do you have any studies which support your claim or any proof that other broadcasters are more in tune with what the average person thinks about these issues? I trust your not claiming that the BBC is biased because they don’t support your view on everything.

    can we at least agree that journalists on quality programmes should read some original sources rather than just relying on spin doctors?

    Only if minister provide useful information rather than spin.

    When wishing to talk about climate change, they should seek independent scientific and economic advice from both sides of the argument, and not decide with forces on one side that it is all settled.

    John no matter how many times you write this rubbish it’s still rubbish. Science isn’t something where there’s a spectrum of opinions and you can chose which one you like the best, it’s where people conduct tests and draw conclusion from the results. There aren’t scientists on both side of the argument because climate change deniers don’t have any scientific evidence to back them up. As the scientific evidence shows that climate change is happening it would be farcical for the BBC to ignore the scientific evidence simply because it doesn’t fit with a politician’s ideology.

    Also any economic advice on climate change doesn’t make the science wrong.

    There is clearly a political controversy about whetehr an economy recovers by borrowing and spending more or by borrowing and spending less in the public sector. It is not, however, possible to have an intelligent debate about this if the participants and the BBC expert do not know the figures or understand how much government spending there is and by how much it is increasing anyway.

    It’s an even bigger problem when the minister or minister’s representative doesn’t understand this either.

    Perhaps to make these programmes more accessible to the public at the start of each programme they should explain the terminology and the basic issues so people who aren’t economic experts can understand what everyone is talking about.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      Also how did the vote on allowing prisoners to vote go?

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 1:44 am | Permalink

      “Science isn’t something where there’s a spectrum of opinions” has to be one of your best lines yet.

    • Bob
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      “Science isn’t something where there’s a spectrum of opinions and you can chose which one you like the best, it’s where people conduct tests and draw conclusion from the results. “

      Now you’ve jumped the shark!

    • Edward
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      You are missing the point. You are entitled to your views on these subjects as you are just a citizen. I have a different view to you and that is also OK because I am just a citizen.
      But the BBC has a charter and that charter requires it to be unbiased and impartial.
      Impartial is the big word here.
      It is clear that the BBC has taken a position on a number of controversial current political topics and this makes the BBC in breach of its charter and it it time for the new DG to address this.

      PS You are wrong on your comment that there are no scientists who hold sceptical views on what used to be called global warming.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, most sensible scientists (at least those not in the pay of the AGW movement) do not take the AGW exaggerations remotely seriously, in my experience.

        They understand that predicting the future of complex, chaotic systems without even knowing many of the future variable inputs is, to say the least, rather difficult.

  42. Derek Emery
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    The BBC is a state paid for organization that has never had to make a profit in its life or even understand what the word “profit” means, and to just spend the given money. It is therefore exceptionally attractive to left – liberals because it fits perfectly with their thinking based on central decision taking and money there for the spending.

    It would be totally amazing if the BBC wasn’t already stuffed to the gunwales with left liberals and it would beyond belief for it not to select a Director-General with those beliefs. It doesn’t even need to be an the job spec – it you are not a left liberal you will not be asked.

    It would be totally amazing if the majority of the BBC staff did not believe in the EU because all decisions are taken centrally by the ruling elite.

    It would be unbelievable if all UK public offices were not also stuffed to the gunwales with left liberals such as quangos.

    Nobody should be surprised that foster parents were stigmatized for being members of UKIP and had their three foster children taken away. How can anybody who does not believe in central control in all matters make a suitable foster parent? Ask any Guardian reader.
    Membership of a party that does not support the EU is totally beyond the pale for our public servants.

  43. Alister McFarquhar
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    BBC change with Hall? No chance

    It seems to be dominated by elitiist liberal Guardianista thinking undiluted by a sense of responsibility for fact checking as JR and many comments suggest

    Climate Armageddon, zero growth, economic suicide by Energy policy and Carbon phobia

    This is underpinned by Jacks alright as current salaries and perks testify

    The Trust must be wholly committed to this PC view

    cant anyone read temperature data? No warming since 97 while carbon dioxide rises sharply

    Cant anyone ask for a estimate of fuel saved by WF when back up on running standby is deducted from ludicrous nameplate capacity

    These policies help ensure no growth for forseeable foture

    ensuring wellbeing and happiness for BBC staff

  44. Ian Hills
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    The BBC should definitely reopen the Jersey child abuse inquiry,, closed down far too quickly by the island government, and by the BBC too. I understand John Hemming MP has been kicking up a stink about the UK government not showing enough interest, either.

  45. David in Kent
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    You are hard to please, John!
    In asking for informed and balanced journalism written by people who understand what they are writing about you are asking for a revolution at the BBC.

  46. John Doran
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, you must qualify as a member of the optimists club.
    Lord Hall is an ex BBC man.
    If he fails to immediately institute the reforms you’ve mentioned, will you then call for the break up of the BBC propaganda machine?
    For a view of the BBC I recommend James Delingpole’s blog
    ” Thank God for Jimmy Savile”
    We live in interesting times.

  47. David Langley
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Well done John bang on. As you know a lot of us have asked for better BBC reporting both factually and fairly with better representation from all points of view but hosting from an impartial and informed basis. More strength to your elbow when discussing this with your peers.

  48. wab
    Posted November 24, 2012 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    One thing I would like the BBC to do is to have a series of programmes on the physics of climate change, which each one dedicated to some scientist or other debunking all the crackpot climate change denialist nonsense that perpetually circulates, head to head with one or more well known denialists. Let the denialists put up their usual conspiracy theories (and all the rest) and let the scientist explain why it is all nonsense. Of course, let the denialists have plenty of time on the programme so that they can hang themselves with their own ignorance. Much as I don’t like his programmes (too dumbed down), Brian Cox would be the obvious scientist to front such a series, even though he is not a climate scientist. Maybe James Delingpole on the other side, if he’s not afraid.

    Then there could be a follow up series of programmes discussing what should be the economic and political way of dealing with climate change. The denialists are on much safer ground here, but unfortunately they make themselves look so foolish with their anti-scientific drivel that they have little credibility even on this front. Perhaps Nicholas Stern on one side and Peter Lilley on the other.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

      Where on earth would they find any decent physicists to defend the absurd exaggerations of catastrophic global warming. Perhaps Brian Cox (I understand from the BBC that he only got a D at maths A level so he might perhaps be taken in by it) but any others?

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

      Try Prof Richard Lindzen for a sensible atmospheric physicist line on the issue.

  49. Credible
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Would anyone on here be moaning if the BBC slant suggested that there should be swinging cuts in public expenditure, that foreigners should be sent home, that we should leave Europe, have tax cuts for the rich, privistse the NHS and education, bring back hanging and stop benefits?
    It would still be heavily biased, but none of you would complain.

    Reply: I would, as I do not want the BBC to have a single view on these topics, but to present the sides and arguments fairly.

    • APL
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      Credible: “Would anyone on here be moaning if the BBC slant suggested that there should be swinging cuts in public expenditure .. ”


      In order to do that with integrity the BBC would have to make the case that in an environment of swinging cuts in public expenditure it could not justify its own privileged funding model. Instead of setting the mood music and running commercials exhorting the ‘unique way the BBC is funded’ it would be making the case for even more swinging cuts and privatization of its own services.

      That would be an intellectually honest and coherent position.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

      I would certainly complain, they need to take a balanced view that reflects all opinions. Anyway, I certainly do not want capital punishment, foreigners to be sent home or all benefits to be abolished.

  50. Max Dunbar
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    If you see Lord Hall in purely black and white terms then membership of his fan club is a shade under £50. Membership fees for the Ed Miliband fan club are similar funnily enough. The Cameron club is considerably cheaper and the Alex Salmond fan club is cheapest of all and available at pound shops.

  51. pete
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Well he’s got a job on his hands, best of luck to him.

    The BBC organization has become far too big in my opinion and powerful – they say power corrupts and clearly when you create a big publicly funded entity like this it will attract metropolitan leftie types like flies round ****. Supposed to represent the whole country but in reality pushing their own agendas – sound familiar?

    It seems to me like much of the public sector they have forgotten that they are there to serve the public in an open, honest and transparent way rather than themselves, the BBC is the epitomizes this. This culture got markedly worse since Blair’s days – we see it everywhere, I could give similar examples of my local council, useless, power hungry, incompetent and bossy – all paid for by you and me.

    I would advocate splitting drama etc from News and Documentaries, turning the drama side into a proper commercial entity supported by the license fee until it can stand on its own two feet – channel 4 and 5 can do it so why not create a company called BBC Drama?

    You don’t need BBC News 24/7, there is enough news – this could be done with one channel which mixes itself with documentaries and bit like CNN.

    They need a tough independent governance structure to oversee news reporting independent of the BBC itself (isn’t this what the BBC Trust is there for?) making them provide open and honest reasoning and evidence to show why they report as they do.

    Built into this governance there needs to be some sort of enforceable appeal process that is acted upon (not ignored) so when someone like JR questions a news story because the reporter has shown that he or she has failed to understand the underlying issue the story or left facts out it is put before a panel and the results made public – those behind this will soon get weeded out and exposed, what is wrong with open transparency?

    Using lawyers to silence someone because he wants to put into the public domain the names of a group of climatologists which helped form the basis of climate change reporting by the BBC says it all for me – Stasi, Stalin you name it. If they are being honest and open as required by their charter what have they got to hide?

    – I know there are things like “right to reply?” but something beefed up external to the BBC is needed, the best way to hold an organisation to account is always from the outside rather than internally which can be all to easy to manipulate.

    I’m not holding my breath though…….

  52. Alan Wheatley
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    When I scroll through the programme guide of an evening I find that 90% of what interests me is on BBC television or radio. I do not want to loose that because of their poor coverage of current affairs.

    Reform the BBC through the election of Trust members by the licence fee payers.

    • Bob
      Posted November 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      “Reform the BBC through the election of Trust members by the licence fee payers.”

      What possible objection could anyone have to this idea?
      (apart from the BBC with a staff not far short of the British army).

  53. Robert Christopher
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    John, I addition to your suggestions, it would also help if the BBC ensured that that “the journalists on quality programmes” should have some background knowledge, and even experience, of the subjects under discussion. To have arts educated people discussing ‘climate change’ without a smidgen of knowledge in any areas of concern, such as science, statistics, economics, mathematical modelling or business, is preposterous! They don’t have to be experts themselves, but they often appear like fish out of water; frightened that they won’t understand responses to questions and, unable to delve deeper into the problem under discussion, change the subject. I am sure that you have experienced this yourself!

    There is one particular ex-Music teacher who, when he is discussing finance, currency and business matters of national importance, yes, of national importance on the national broadcaster, sounds as if he is reading a script that he knows he will never understand.

  54. Jon
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    There has been a lot of praise for this decision. There are two changes I want to see as its quite clear that non BBC entrenched people will be appointed to the post.

    1. The Trust.
    The appointment of a professional chairperson to guide the executive. I suspect the Trusts appointees are partly there as a reward for past service and sycophancy rather than for professional guidance for a large corporate enterprise.

    2. Sucession planning
    One of the jobs a chair has is to encourage succession planning and a broad talent pool. Something the trust clearly did not do. As they won’t consider outside appointees to the top job they should appoint from the outside at middle management level and above and for those people to be potential directors.

    The Trust has been a skip for patronage. With 12 trustees why are so many ex government and council employees?

  55. Jon
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    second sentencence should have had …quite clear that non BBC entrenched people will NOT be appointed to the post.

  56. Jon
    Posted November 25, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    BBC does some great programs of electricity, archaeology, engineering, transport, environment, culture, physics and astro physics, art, cooking, history, politics and Math.

    None on economics??

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page