The BBC continues on its long chosen road of opposition to Brexit, hostility to populist movements, veneration of the world of elites and international treaties, and a slavish following to everything wokeish. In interview after interview we have the same tropes and tired questions, nearly always asked from the point of view that the UK government is to blame for the world’s ills and more government and a bigger public sector would solve many of them.
All this requires an avalanche of sloppy thinking and a passion for olds over news. It also means a relish for unseen contradictions. Here’s a few questions:
Why was it so crucial to have a zero tariffs free trade deal with the EU, yet a similar deal with Australia or the USA would according to recent questions and features be ruinous?
If the BBC really is concerned about UK farming, why has it never examined the great damage done by EU policy and EU imports to our ability to feed ourselves from flourishing food producing UK farms?
Why does the BBC not recognise England and go on about England as much as it does about Scotland?
Why does the BBC persist in wanting to break England up into Euro style regions, given the way elected regional government was rejected by electors when offered?
Does Manchester which gets plenty of BBC coverage speak for Liverpool or Blackpool?
Given the BBC dislike of border fences and anti migrant policies why hasn’t it run features on the Spanish frontier at Ceuta or the long border fences and walls of central Europe?
Why has it never explored the relationship between the so called austerity policies of the Osborne era which it disliked and following the Maastricht rules on state debt and deficits?
I could go on with many more. You might like to supply some.
May 23, 2021
Why has the BBC always rubbished the English/England?
May 23, 2021
Well this was the agenda for of the pro EU politicians and the EU. The UK needed to be broken up in to four countries and England needed to be weakened and broken up into regions of the EU. This was the “hidden” John Major, T Blair, G Brown, D Cameron and T May agenda really. The BBC were going along with this castration of England and it being subsumed into regions of the anti-democratic EU. The appalling T May & the Benn Act Traitors nearly achieved this despite the referendum vote.
May 23, 2021
Yes and the BBCâs adulation of Sturgeon has helped all that on its way!
Daily, hour long party political broadcasts on BBC.
Free publicity painted as if Scotland was having a âreally good covidâ!
(BBC rubbishing England well before Brexit).
May 23, 2021
Indeed.
May 23, 2021
Why have the Tory’s imposed Mayors on us when we voted against them? We want more politicos like a “hole in the head”!
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
Well said!
May 23, 2021
Not telling fantastical falsehoods which flatter is not quite the same as “rubbishing” but you don’t know the difference it seems.
That is equally true of brexit and it is not “opposing” it.
No one – not even me – is doing that, because it is not possible to oppose retrospectively something, effectively irreversible, which was proposed and has now happened. I regret it very much, and by sober, impartial analysis it may appear that much of what is presented on the BBC appears to be that too, but that is just the facts speaking for themselves, not the mind of any presenter.
May 23, 2021
Good comment Martin but the BBC selects the facts it likes and fails to mention those of which it disapproves.
May 23, 2021
I accept that you may well be correct that the BBC gives more prominence to some facts than to others, perhaps to ones which happen to please you.
However, it must make a judgement, as to their relative importance, and that will differ enormously between someone trying vehemently to make the case that brexit is a good thing, and someone who is only interested in its material impacts on their personal existence.
The BBC will have to estimate the numbers of people in the those respective categories.
Do you think that this would be easy?
May 23, 2021
MiC
It would be easy if viewing figures, market share, customer satisfaction and having to survive by developing advertising revenue was actually needed for the BBC to succeed.
May 23, 2021
Why does the BBC have a point of view at all?
It was founded to be a neutral carrier of information, a function it has long given up all pretense of fulfilling.
It was founded because technology of the time allowed for only one national radio broadcaster and it was seen as undesirable to have said broadcaster promote one proprietor’s point of view.
There was never an attempt to create a neutral newspaper, since the multiplicity of newspapers allowed an outlet for all points of view. Today we have more broadcasters than newspapers.
The BBC no longer fulfills its original function, which function is thank God obsolete.
Sell it to the highest bidder and let it function like any other news outlet.
May 23, 2021
@Pat; Your comment is the usual BBC bashing, do you ever ask; Why does Sky News have a point of view at all, why will GB News also have an editorial line (view), after all I hardly think they will be helping PPC’s from the CPBG get elected!
“The BBC no longer fulfills its original function, which function is thank God obsolete.”
Nonsense, there is no other broadcaster who is fulfilling a PSB roll here in the UK (ITV should be but they have made it quite clear they will not and if push comes to shove they are prepared to hand back their ITV 1 frequencies. Should the BBC be doing much less, a much better, of course.
May 23, 2021
The BBC charter actually requires it to be impartial.
May 24, 2021
@Peter2; Which it is, which is why some on the right dislike the BBC, as so some on the left, they would prefer if the BBC did not act in an impartial way…
May 24, 2021
The BBC is reasonably impartial as to the facts which it might report.
However, it apparently allows the agenda for what it considers to be newsworthy to be set by largely Conservative-backing papers.
That constitutes an overarching partiality, and which is not easily seen from the inside.
May 24, 2021
You are in a small minority if you think the BBC is impartial Jerry.
They have firm policy positions on all issues as many have pointed out.
May 23, 2021
The BBC is the mouthpiece of the Establishment. What it says is what the Establishment is thinking. To the Establishment, England, and especially the English, should no longer exists. Simple as that.
May 23, 2021
+ 100 Exactly.
May 24, 2021
It is, but you are seriously mistaken as to what and who the British Establishment are.
May 23, 2021
The BBC is able to do these things because of the way it is funded. It is not reliant upon customer satisfaction. I have never understood why we have to pay the BBC to watch other self funding live channels. The BBC survives on the success of other channels.
I have made many complaints to the BBC, over the years, and they treat their complainants with complete disrespect. The BBC can never be wrong (in their eyes). They have the same attitude as the EU.
May 23, 2021
Complaints to the BBC are largely pointless. If you listen to Feedback programmes on the BBC the people complaining are nearly always exactly right and the BBC officials who dismiss their complaints nearly always totally wrong. As you say:- The BBC can never be wrong (in their eyes). They have the same attitude as the EU.
May 23, 2021
@LL; Nonsense, official complainants about the BBC editorial standards, content etc. are now handled by Ofcom, just as with any other broadcaster or channel.
“The BBC can never be wrong (in their eyes). They have the same attitude as the EU.”
A bit like UK Tory govts since 1970 then! đ
May 23, 2021
I think you will find that Ofcom will only deal with your complaint after you have first exhausted the BBC complaint process.
May 24, 2021
@Peter; What is your point, exactly?! Ofcom expects nothing different with regards BBC complaints as those from other companies or sectors that it has authority over were in-house complaints procedures exist, for example as with the telecoms companies. Ofgem take the same approach, as does Ofwat.
The problem is not the fact that people first need to use the BBC’s own complaints procedure but the many broadcasters who do not have any such procedure, or if they do, bury the contact details, or at best simply have a general email address rather than a defined and clear complaints system.
May 24, 2021
At least we seem to agree that the BBC’s complaints process is unsatisfactory and as an appeal process Ofcom seems little better.
May 23, 2021
Jerry
Dare I suggest that you have an axe to grind when it comes to the BBC?
May 23, 2021
@Lester; Not at all, I have an axe to grind when it comes to the UK’s awful, superficially shallow, MSM — and the easily board ‘plebiscite’ who are the cause of the many problems!
Put it this way, if this was a Labour MPs personal site and the comments were mostly from the left and they were constantly finding fault with Sky News (or the upcoming GB News) due to mostly PERCEIVED bias, wanting the govt or regulator to find a way of neutering, better still closing the broadcaster down I would be saying much the same things.
I am actually very critical of the BBC, just not in the ways most who post to this site are.
May 23, 2021
You are not ever critical of the BBC Jerry.
May 23, 2021
By people who are often ex BBC, and who protect the BBC, like the just resigned Mr Suter. OFCOM is equally unfit for purpose, and cannot be trusted either to adjudicate the media or its proposed role as Internet censor under the forthcoming Online Harms bill.
May 24, 2021
Jerry
I for one would be very interested to hear about your criticism of the BBC because itâs not apparent in your posts?
Just one tiny criticism please!!
May 23, 2021
Lord Grade confirmed this on radio the other day. He said they are so arrogant, they cannot ever consider themselves to be wrong. The news rooms are mostly to blame and need a good sort out. They are far to big.
What do these people think now after the Bashir affair I wonder? All the people still involved in this and still working at the BBC must be dismissed and where appropriate the police must investigate. A complete shakeup is required and there will never be a better opportunity, including the licence fee, but my money is on a government fudge and a large boot into the long grass.
May 23, 2021
@graham1946; Lord Grade? Oh you mean Michael Grade (Lew Grade’s nephew), a Conservative Party life peer in the House of Lords. Who whilst controller of BBC 1 in the mid 1980s and then Chief Executive at Ch4 in the 1990s was widely criticise due to the changes he made to both (resulting in much dumbing down), who upon his return to the BBC in 2004 as BBC chairman over saw the much criticised (by the right) “Blairification” of the BBC in the wake of the Huttron Inquiry.
Make of that Bio what you wish.
One thing we will never know, had Grade still been at the BBC in 1995, or had Mr Bashir offered that interview to Ch4, given what was known at the time, would Grade have broadcast it?
May 23, 2021
@Shirley M; Nonsense, Ch4 do much the same and they are funded via paid for adverts. ITV have aired kiss-n-tell nonsense too, even Sky and their sub-net of PTV channels. The issue is not the funding method but the editorial standards and much of that comes down to how govt choose to regulate, (to borrow a phrase or two…) either ‘fair and balanced’, or ‘laissez-faire’.
May 23, 2021
S.M. +1. Exactly
Sir John covers it all, but his party is frozen in the headlights. What does the Carrie On team think?
May 23, 2021
I am sure they are delighted that the BBC continues to broadcast propaganda in favour of Net Zero, an area of policy where proper scrutiny has been woefully lacking. I was pleased to see the statement from Steve Baker MP as it was announced that he had become a trustee of the GWPF. He has grasped how damaging this folly would be.
May 23, 2021
+1. Always defend their biased position. Usually written by a foreigner to rub salt.
May 23, 2021
Without the Stalinesque licence fee, the BBC would sink into oblivion. They are so far removed from reality, it makes no sense to keep such an out-moded entity, and it needs to be put out of its misery. Maybe if we all sent our licence fee bills to 10 Downing Street with a message to say those who want to keep the BBC should pay for it, not us, and maybe to seek financial redress from those who are prolonging the BBC’s inevitable demise at our expense.
Anecdotally, and judging by the results of numerous independent opinion polls, there is a fully justified groundswell of public opinion against the BBC. The latest travesty underscores the urgent need for such an arrogant and unaccountable monolith to be killed off altogether. The BBC is full of lefties and serves no purpose other than to push their lunatic globalist neo-liberal agenda.
May 23, 2021
I complained to the BBC when Scottish, Welsh and Irish athletes where referred to as such in one of the Commonwealth Games. The English were referred to as British. When I pointed this out they did change it. But the issue is right at the core of the BBC –
There is no English representation at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Board
May 23, 2021
Cameron, May & Johnson are no better. The Scots, Welsh & NI athletes are all celebrated in their own rights whereas only the British team are invited to Downing St. No separate recognition let alone celebration for the English team who are responsible for the majority of the medals.
May 23, 2021
I do not have a question but an observation. The BBC is unfit for purpose. It has long outlived its purpose. The world of media has transformed beyond recognition since its foundation. It has no place as a uniquely privileged broadcaster. It must be required to operate on a level playing field in competition with other media channels and learn to earn its keep like everyone else.
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
The BBC absolutely continues with its core purpose, which is, I think, to suffocate enquiry and imagination in the minds of the public.
It is what is never said which has the most impact – actions speak louder than words, and the act of denying or ignoring the existence of so much – e.g the fact that having a national rail network with which people are content is quite manageable, as other countries show – quite powerfully engenders the delusion that these simple facts do not exist.
The same is true for other education systems, provision of equitable occupational pensions, fair employment contracts, and for so much more.
So it will be maintained by those in power, to whom it contributes very significantly to their maintenance of that power, I think.
May 23, 2021
Old timer
+100%
May 23, 2021
@oldtimer; You have neither a question nor an observation, you have an opinion, just as valid my similar opinion that follows; BSkyB is unfit for purpose. It has long outlived its purpose. The world of media has transformed beyond recognition since its foundation. ITV,Ch Four and Ch5 are unfit for purpose. the commercial advertising model has long outlived its purpose. The world of media has transformed beyond recognition since its foundation.
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
Agree
May 23, 2021
Indeed you cannot go far wrong if you take the opposite line to the BBC on almost every issue. To me their most appalling errors are:-
1. The totally one sided coverage of the climate alarmist agenda and the government proposed âsolutionsâ that do not even work in CO2 terms.
2. The endless puss for more and more government, taxation and regulation of everything.
3. Their desire to suppress free speech unless it agrees with âBBC thinkâ.
4. Their appointment of usually second rate people to reporting positions for reasons of flower arranging rather than ability. The appointment of arts graduates to positions requiring an understanding of science, logic and numbers.
5. The tedious and absurdly left wing (and not remotely even funny) âcomedyâ programmes.
6. Their moronic debates on the gender pay gap assuming totally wrongly that any gap is clear evidence of discrimination.
7 The lockdown enthusiasm and their total failure to even point out the many hundreds of deaths caused by the blatant anti-male gender discrimination in the Gov./JCVI vaccine priority order.
8 Their NHS religious worship (again like the bbc) unfair competition that hugely damages healthcare in the UK
9 The failure to recognise that a licence poll tax on people watching live tv given to the BBC is unfair competition and totally unacceptable.
They are wrong on all of these but then this socialist government is wrong on most of them too.
May 23, 2021
Also failing to report on the very many deaths and many very serious issues caused by the lockdown, the substantial NHS shutdowns, difficulties in even getting GP appointments, the mental health issues, the huge economic (and thus health) damage and the likes. This to give a sensible & balanced view on lockdown and on the NHS.
May 23, 2021
The chair of âThe Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committeeâ should protect our taxpayers money and publically reprimand the BBC when the reporting of news events are false or biased
May 23, 2021
+1
That would keep them busy then – as it happens several times a week
May 23, 2021
Our deal with the EU had zero tariffs as only one small part of it. It seems you donât even understand the difference between tariff free trade and a single market. Tariff free trade with Australia can never come close to compensating for our loss of the EU single market (created by Mrs Thatcher). Donât you feel shamed to know so little about how international trade works?
Reply I understand fully the costly and restrictive single market and how it differs from simple and better free trade. You clearly did not understand my blog which reveals contradictions at the BBC over whether tariffs are good or bad.
May 23, 2021
Please do reveal your numerical estimate for the previous value of the EU Single Market to the UK economy.
To help you along, according to Michel Barnier the average benefit across all of the EU was about 2% of GDP, but others pointed out that the benefit was not evenly distributed and for the UK it was only about 1%.
The odd thing is that when he was appointed as the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator it was well known that in a previous role he had produced this measly estimate, but nobody on the UK side ever said anything about it.
May 23, 2021
Perhaps Denis, we could ask the BBC dispatches or political program to check into Barnierâs benefit calculation across the Eu and to the Uk. Check the facts on it and report on the truth.
May 23, 2021
Well, his report is here:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c505dbb4-64f1-40a6-8062-ebdea6240bd4
“20 years of the European single market”
On page 13:
âEU27 GDP in 2008 was 2.13% or âŹ233 billion higher than it would have been if the Single Market had not been launched in 1992.â
But then in the table on the front page of this 2014 study from the Bertelsmann Foundation:
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Policy-Brief-Binnenmarkt-en_NW_02_2014.pdf
the gross benefit for the UK was estimated to be about half of the EU average.
And that is before the high costs of the Single Market are taken into account.
May 23, 2021
It is indeed an oddity that the EU single market + customs union is often praised as the most advanced such arrangement of its kind, yet the eurozone is consistently the most economically sclerotic region in the world, excluding the socialist basket cases. Italy for example – decades ago praised as a dynamic economy – has hardly grown at all in real terms since the formation of the euro.
May 23, 2021
The tariff was ever closer political union. Trade was anything but free.
May 23, 2021
Also, if Sir John will allow, you do not seem to understand the glaring difference between tariff free trade which will reduce costs to the consumer and the EU single market which cost the UK Tax Payer around
ÂŁ12,000,000,000 per annum.
May 23, 2021
@Shire Tory. The EU’s version of a single market is a political project where trade is used to cause conformity of thought and mind. It is coercion by an-unelected un-accountable panel of elites on a the people of Europe. The EU’s internal market creates artificial barriers to International Trade, it is isolationist not internationalist.
The UK has lost virtually nothing by leaving the block, the shabby deal agreed by the PM and the HoC approved permits the EU to sell the UK anything it wants and in terms of fishing take anything it wants from UK territory, it also permits the EU to force the break up of the UK. In return the EU refuses to reciprocate on UK trade with the EU, in the fact no deal that way around has been agreed and they are refusing to agree.
May 23, 2021
The BBC is a running sore on the original concept of impartial broadcasting. It has evolved due to it’s infiltration since possibly the 60s by an illiberal left wing faction that has become so extensive as to be self perpetuating. Boris’s stricture to mend it’s ways will fall on deaf ears because there are too many too well embeded.
The tools for correction are in government hands, principally financing. It is questionable whether government of any colour actually wishes to rectify the shortcomings of the BBC.
There are three possible courses. Leave well alone after the dust from the Diana debacle has settled. Thinking a few perpetrators in jail might change things. I disagree, the sepsis will remain. A second possibility is a government imposed night of the long knives. Claims for constructive dismisal would be too expensive and where are the line of balanced broadcasters waiting to replace them. The third course is I believe the only practical one. Hive off the news and current affairs division of the BBC to sink or swim in the commercial world, while retaining the World News broadcasting unit. This might have a salutary effect on some of the remaining broadcasters who weave their unbalanced story lines into other programming. It would reduce the BBC budget and the licence fee were it to be retained, rather than a subscription service.
I would like to think that a comprehensive cure could be effected with a return to Reithian principals, but pragmatism suggests that the BBC is well beyond the tipping point.
May 23, 2021
+1. This “infiltration by an illiberal left wing faction… so extensive as to be self perpetuating” has happened to so many organisations national and international. So called charities, “green” groups, anti-meat groups, schools, universities, especially Cambridge it seems, channel 4, the BBC, most political parties and nearly all of government.
I see that the government is wasting money on commissioning research into whether some crustaceans, including lobsters and prawns, and cephalopods, such as octopus, are ‘sentient’. I can tell them for free. A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind – sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. So clearly they are indeed sentient!
Is fishing soon to be banned too by this new “any animals with a backbone protection”? The charities, lefties and judges with will reek huge damage with this new and very poorly drafted law. More parasitic jobs for lawyers and the likes to impoverish the productive. Is Carrie partly to blame?
May 23, 2021
I can well imagine the howls at Russia, Cuba, Venezuela etc. if they threw listeners/viewers to their programs into jail if they didn’t pay a listening/viewing tax. Surely grounds for regime changes.
May 23, 2021
I was of the view that subscription was the way to go. But since the BBC is continually losing audience due to changes within the market (eg Netflix) I have changed my mind – Leave it to wither on the vine.
May 23, 2021
Two excellent articles in the S. Telegraph today:-
The truth about British railways is that they werenât privatised enough
Matthew Lesh
Withhold your donations to woke Cambridge
Douglas Murray
I have already and will do until vice-chancellor Stephen Toope and his barm woke agenda leaves. I will certainly not give to any organisation pushing for the evil agenda of disinvesting from fossil fuels either when they are clearly so vital to humanity and the world as currently is the case.
May 23, 2021
Be aware of how delighted Zac Goldsmith was to have secured G7 agreement to no further investment in fossil fuels by G7 governments. He wants to turn out the lights.
May 23, 2021
Why doesn’t the BBC run articles about just how few of the cross-Channel dinghyists are being sent back, to either France or their homelands?
May 23, 2021
It is a topic they want to supress as they do with climate realists, sound Austrian school economists, anyone pro fossil fuels or against road blocking with bike lanes etc … Occasionally they will tell us the immigrants are all very highly qualified doctors or engineers escaping oppression… (in say France).
May 23, 2021
Hayek was forced to “clarify” that is, to retract, a central pillar of his theory – i.e., that by “socialism” he really meant command economies in the Stalinist mode, and not social democracies.
His thralls continue to use it despite that clarification to mean anything other than a right wing hell-on-Earth, however.
That’s hardly “sound” I’d say.
May 23, 2021
âcommand economies in the Stalinist modeâ like the NHS!
May 23, 2021
The NHS is not part of a command economy.
Nor does it operate one internally.
So, no.
I have plenty of criticisms of it, often the same as yours, however.
May 23, 2021
Sea Warrior
They do not run many articles on how many come here either, by dinghy or anything else, simply because they believe refugees should be able to go anywhere they like, no matter how many come or at what cost.
The fact that the vast majority are not refugees at all, but economic migrants, does not seem to matter.
As far as Ceuta goes, yes been there, interesting city, but the borders are porous, even though they actually have 12,000 Spanish troops permanently based there (not all on immigration watch) they still cannot control illegal entries either through, over , under, or around the fences, indeed the fence which goes into the sea to separate Morocco from Ceuta you can walk around at low tide, same as you can at Monaco from Italy !
May 23, 2021
Interesting that Ceuta, hollowed out from Morocco by Spain years ago, is indeed almost the Spanish example of our Gibraltar, about the same size as well, but you would never know that from the BBC news, Spain always complaining about Gibraltar, but never a peep from the BBC about Ceuta which is controlled by the Spanish on the opposite African side of the Gibraltar straights.
May 23, 2021
Alan, don’t forget their other nearby N African territory, Melilla.
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
There would be no need to report it if Priti Useless was to actually do something rather than blather on with a new policy every day, but no action. She and Boris are of a kind, thinking their hot air is action.
May 23, 2021
Why are English tax payers having to foot the bill? When are they being deported and the pull factors of free everything taken away? Any update on the health tourism being stopped or has the Government agreed a similar agreement for Brits in the rest of the world.
May 23, 2021
Any intellectual revolution would obviously infiltrate and finally take over a national broadcasting set up. If not from its inception.
Cultural Marxism has done exactly that with the BBC, eagerly encouraged by elements of every govt. since 1922, no doubt.
âWatch With Motherâ…destroy the family
âSongs of Praiseâ …dethrone God.
All the soaps and comedies…trash and ridicule our national heritage.
Once the BBC had control it could feed its audience absolutely anything!
And we have paid for it since 1946.
May 23, 2021
Everhopeful
“All the soaps and comediesâŠtrash and ridicule our national heritage.”
……to be fair that isn’t just the BBC, take a look at some of the shyte put out by C4.
May 23, 2021
Absolutely.
Think of Channel 5.
All of the rotten channels in fact. Altering our history etc.
But JR was talking about the BBC….
May 23, 2021
“Why does the BBC not recognise England and go on about England as much as it does about Scotland?”
You could ask your Government the same question.
May 23, 2021
@Old Albion. The BBC likes the un-democratic way of rule the EU encourages, the noisy SNP also preferers this method of rule – so there is synergy of desires. On the other hand the UK as a whole prefers Democracy and accountability.
More bizarrely Yorkshire is one of the many Counties that has a larger population than Scotland and doesn’t get a look in, has less representation in the UK Parliament than Scotland – even on English matters. It also receives less than Scotland in subsidies per head of population. Welcome to the unequal world of PM Johnson and the BBC when it comes to the UK
May 23, 2021
No nota# not the U.K., just England.
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
The BBC is so concerned about UK farming that it went out of its way to ensure there are non whites presenting programmes on farming in the interests of that major concern of farmers – diversity.
I donât have a TV licence. Iâm not missing much.
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
Farmers are far more practical than the BBC in these matters. They have been arranging for agricultural workers to come in from assorted East European countries for many years now: they benefit because the workers are familiar with the jobs involved. Not that the BBC would report on these realities.
May 23, 2021
After the Referendum showed 52% ‘Leave’ as opposed to 48% ‘Remain’, why did the BBC ‘Question Time’ persist in having the majority of the panel from the Remain side? Since both Remainers and Leavers pay their TV licence fee, there should been – on average – panels 50% from each side. The BBC displayed persistent and overt bias towards Remainers, but no-one in the BBC has been held to account for this.
May 23, 2021
The BBC is also so bland and boring. The recent editions of Question Time, Any Questions and Any Answers and similar are so absurdly tedious. The panellists and presenters are so bland and nearly all “BBC think” dopes. Where are the David Starkey, Douglas Murray types to liven it up. Doubtless made even worse by selection based on immutable characteristics rather than ability to say something sensible or interesting.
Interesting to hear the words of Gavin Morgan:- âClearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethicalâ, a psychologist and member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B). âUsing fear smacks of totalitarianism. Itâs not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.â
Though surely he mean a more pessimistic view of people in government, the government machine and their “experts”. Fear “as a mean of control” is what they are doing with climate too. ÂŁBillions is being spent on gov. propaganda adverts to con voters.
May 23, 2021
Agree with most of what you say here and the comments posted. The BBC is outdated, “celebraties” vastly overpaid and the news and political programmes totally biased!
I also find it strange that when we are taken to our “local” area for news and weather we are handed over to London. We live in West Suffolk some 80 miles from the capital!!
At least I can be reassured that the trains are running on time on the Bakerloo and Northern lines!!
May 23, 2021
David, how many new untried sports presenters, performers, dancers could be given opportunities by the BBC around the Country if it wasnât overpaying paying a hundred favourites. Everyone here seems to think theyâre some sort of left wing institution but I donât. Itâs not a meritocracy like the Labour Party are starting to pretend theyâre interested in too, oh no, itâs a clique, a similar preaching say the right things and youâll get on and up even if the public doesnât like watching you and viewing figures are dropping like stones. Nepotism and connections seem rife and that to me is the biggest fault.
I like the BBC, I donât mind paying my licence But I do not like the bias to the left agenda being forced down everyoneâs throat and the unfair representations of people that get screen time.
May 23, 2021
I would like the BBC ended. We cannot put up with a closed media market, swamped by a Government funded organisation, threatened on a daily basis.
Example: Johnson opened the country at the end of last year to placate his post truth Trumpy wing. A mountain of dead British people duly accumulated which they blamed on the now forgotten, Kent variant. It had nothing to do with this or any other of the hundreds of variants.
The Government got away with this drivel because the BBC were either to scared or to incompetent to crucify them, as they deserved. CNN would have banged the nails in and enjoyed the screaming !
I do not fear an open market in media, an open electoral system or indeed Free Trade with Europe and Australia. The one solitary gain form Brexit was accessing global food. Inevitably, and as I predicted they cannot even deliver that.
PS Austerity / Maastricht
Sir John Redwood has only recently decided that Maastricht was to blame for policies championed by him at the time. No country in Europe currently complies with Maastricht guidelines and no country has ever faced any actions. End of. Treat your readers with some respect please.
Reply I was a persistent critic of Maastricht austerity, running on my own slogan of prosperity not austerity. Stop lying about me.
May 23, 2021
U.K. ranks 16th and falling for covid deaths per million, behind many EU countries. Our numbers are most likely at least 25% overstated also. The U.K. independent vaccine programme, driven forward by Boris Johnson, has already saved 10s of thousands of lives, perhaps including yours. Rejoice and give thanks we have such a govt and PM in spite of you.
May 23, 2021
Richard 1
” vaccine programme driven forward by Boris Johnson”
Boris’s contributions include letting the virus in by refusing to stop flights from Wuhan and more recently India.
” Rejoice and give thanks we have such a govt and PM”
I await your comments when, thanks to our dear leader, RoI makes a grab for NI, the UK breaks up, You’re in ÂŁ40k debt for a new heating system and another ÂŁ30k debt for an electric car you were forced to buy and is practically useless and not worth a toss when it’s 3 years old. Oh and you find yourself obsolete as well because you don’t have any money left to buy the latest digital ID.
Yes, wonderful PM and government, they’re on our side and love us so much that we must be grateful and indeed we should rejoice. Maybe we could pay more taxes as a way of expressing our gratitude, I think he’d like that.
May 23, 2021
Reply I was a persistent critic of Maastricht austerity, running on my own slogan of prosperity not austerity. Stop lying about me.
Don’t worry Sir Redwood, those who betrayed this country over Maastricht are well known. You’re not one of ’em.
May 23, 2021
â Why does the BBC not recognise England and go on about England as much as it does about Scotland?
Why does the BBC persist in wanting to break England up into Euro style regions, given the way elected regional government was rejected by electors when offered?â
Blimey John, talk about the kettle calling the pot!!! The same could be said about the U.K. Government, a Tory one at that, one that was put there by England. And it could certainly be said about 553 U.K. MPs supposedly representing English seats who refuse to say the word England let alone recognise it. Your Government has gone out of itâs way to impose Mayors and devolution within England rather than to it, balkanisation and regionalisation by another name.
No doubt the BBC would say they are following the Governments example.
May 23, 2021
@JoolsB
+1
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
Jools B
“No doubt the BBC would say they are following the Governments example.”
Yes it does occur to me that despite Boris’s fake patriotism he and the BBC are likely of the same mindset, which might explain why he went back on his word concerning decriminalisation of the licence fee.
Lesson here – don’t trust anything that man says.
May 23, 2021
The BBCâs editorial policy on climate change / ban on sceptics (who in effect it categorises as âdeniersâ) makes it a very useful support body for government energy policy such that there will be no truly effective independent review of the BBC and it will continue as now. In terms of their journalists, the one exception is the excellent Jo Coburn, whose Politics Live programme is balanced and she only interrupts her guests when they woffle or fail to answer the question. One canât deduce her own political views, which reflects her welcome impartiality. I even sometimes break off at 12.15 to watch her programme, and hope to see Mr Redwood on it some time soon. Otherwise roll on GB News.
May 23, 2021
Agreed. For a BBC person she is indeed good. Andrew Neil who to me is central politically and fair and rational with it but was clearly far to right of centre and logical for the BBC. We will see how he gets on with the new channel shorly.
May 23, 2021
Yawn … as if no other UK registered MSM company has ever made editorial errors – if the Murdoch empire here in the UK for example can survive intact after the criminal actions of a few rouge people at the NotW then why not the BBC?
Our host hits the hard right’s nail firming on its head when he complains that the BBC broadcasts “opposition to Brexit, hostility to populist movements, veneration of the world of elites and international treaties, and a slavish following to everything wokeish” rather than being sycophantic to only the policies he or others prefer. This is pure politics, not some concern about decency in journalism, the hard right see the BBC as a proxy for the left, whilst ignoring their own far more biased proxies…
Even if our host is correct above, again, why pick on just the BBC, Ch4 is far worse, and even the blind have to fund that wholly owned Statutory corporation! The often companied about TVL funding method is a red herring, no one is being forced to watch broadcast TV, the radio reception licence was abolished 50 years ago, whilst much non BBC content is available online as a catch-up or streaming service which requires no TVL.
May 23, 2021
Jerry
The BBC is supposed to be impartial, it isn’t. Clearly you have difficulty understanding that simple concept.
“Even if our host is correct”………..he is.
May 23, 2021
@steve; In the UK all broadcasters are meant to be impartial when it comes to political and controversial issues, that doesn’t mean they have to have balanced broadcast-time though, just that both side of the argument must be allowed/put. For example I might not like how the BBC presents the Climate Change debate, or for that matter how Sky News presents it either, but neither breaks the broadcast code – but if they did then the problem can be dealt with by stronger regulation, not taking station(s) off air!
As for your last sentence, that is an opinion, other peoples mileage may differ. đ
May 23, 2021
Jerry
“that doesnât mean they have to have balanced broadcast”
If it is unbalanced, it isn’t impartial.
Jeez.
May 23, 2021
@Steve; Wrong, try actually reading the broadcast code! Also I said said ‘broadcast-time’.
It is quite acceptable to say, interview Boris Johnson this Monday, Keir Starmer next Monday, Ed Davey the Monday next, and so on through all the party leaders, or do so in any order, and this was common before the tabloid slanging matches that are the televised Leaders Debates.
Someone could be interviews for 55 Minutes, bumble their way though, saying little of substance, the opposite opinion could demolish the argument in the remaining 5 minuets, is that a balanced interview?
May 23, 2021
Steve
Jerry has issues when it comes to the BBC!
May 23, 2021
@Lester; LOL Reading the replies to our host blog today I am not alone, 99% of commentators have “issues when it comes to the BBC”, the one person who doesn’t posted an OT comment about the price of fish!
May 23, 2021
By “issue” you mean people that dare to have opinions different to you Jerry.
May 24, 2021
@Peter2; “people that dare to have opinions different to you “
How ironic, given your current contrary (t)roll against anything and everything I say!
May 24, 2021
You slur anyone you disagree with as troll or hard right Jerry
Time to stop being so childish.
May 23, 2021
My question is why the opprobrium has been heaped on to the ex-Director General, Tony Hall, who oversaw the years later inquiry into the Bashir interview, rather than on to John Birt, the DG and editor-in-chief who was in office when the interview actually happened?
Ideas, anyone?
Oh, sorry it’s “Baron John Birt”.
I’ve probably answered my own question.
May 23, 2021
It’s also ‘Lord’ Hall, MiC, who has stood down from his position at the National Gallery following his shaming.
May 23, 2021
@MiC; Lord (Tony) Hall was head of News and Current affairs at the time of the Bashir interview, sorry to say but the buck is very much in Lord Hall’s lap on this, more so than the then DG, as much as the later’s chairmanship created a culture that became toxic.
May 23, 2021
Thanks Jerry – I’d missed that important point.
There are ways of getting rid of troublesome – to the Establishment – DG’s too, as Greg Dyke could relate.
May 23, 2021
Re your last paragraph; but we are being forced to pay for it!
May 23, 2021
Editorial errors!
Forging bank statements?
The News of the World was closed down by its owners.
Are you therefore in favour of parts of the BBC closing?
Channel 4 can provide whatever programmes it likes Jerry.
It survives on revenues from adverts.
And indeed “yawn”…you and your “hard right” slur again Jerry.
A cliché response to attack anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you.
May 23, 2021
@Peter2; “The News of the World was closed down by its owners.”
Again please read what actually I said. I would have no problem if Panorama was taken off air, I would have no real problems if BBC One channel in its entirety was taken off air, my anger is that some are suggesting the entire BBC should in effect be taken off air, when by comparison the Murdoch empire here in the UK carried on after the NotW scandal, no one suggested The Times newspaper should also close, nor its involvement in BSkyB.
“Channel 4 can provide whatever programmes it likes Jerry.”
Not it can not, regulation wise, Ch4 along with all the other broadcasters, should be complying just as much as you expect the BBC to.
“It survives on revenues from adverts.”
Irrelevant, no one is being forced to pay the TVL fee (these days), other options exist, as I pointed out.
“A clichĂ© response to attack anyone who dares to have a different opinion to you.”
More “whataboutery”. I note though you do not object when others call people “Marxists”, a clichĂ© response to attack anyone who dares to have a different opinion, ho-hmm…
May 23, 2021
Firstly I am not calling for the end of the BBC Jerry.
Secondly your comments on Channel 4 is missing my point
Yes I know they cannot broadcast just anything they like, but within the rules that apply to them, they have to generate revenues from advertising and sponsorship to survive.
Unlike the BBC.
I dont call you or other people on here Marxists Jerry,so your last point is irrelevant.
You however regularly call people hard right when they are making a post which you disagree with.
May 23, 2021
@peter2; Still on your contrary (t)roll then…
“Firstly I am not calling for the end of the BBC Jerry.”
Read what I actually said, “some people”…
“Secondly your comments on Channel 4 is missing my point [..//..] they have to generate revenues from advertising and sponsorship to survive.”
No I did not, if anything you missed my original point. Ch4 has exactly the same regulatory, taste and decency, duty of care, legal (libel/slander) responsibilities as the BBC, they even have a PSB remit, they are owned by the same entity, the UK State. Both are in effect funded by and large from the public via a non discretionary method yet SOME PEOPLE only ever pick on the TVL fee & BBC for criticism.
“I dont call you or other people on here Marxists”
No, and I never said you do, again try reading what I actually said, but nor do you call those who do out in the way you have taken to baiting me for using the opposite hyperbole.
May 24, 2021
Jerry
By saying “some people” in direct reply to me is a sly way of connecting that comment to me.
Ditto your regular use of “hard right” when you read any post you disagree with ot using your “(t)roll” comment when anyone dares to respond to you.
Channel 4 is not funded by “the UK State”.
You are being ridiculous.
May 23, 2021
I didnât think C4 news was funded by the licence fee anymore Jerry? You donât have to buy Sky – I donât. I stopped watching C4 news in the hope that the advertisers if viewing figures dropped would have to make the corporation think again about its lopsided anchors, I would like a balanced set of anchors not all left wing attack dogs that pass on their opinion rather than the news.
The BBC should make itsâ digital offering around the World for subscription like Netflix do to boost itâs funding.
May 23, 2021
@a-tracy; Oh dear…
Tell me, what did you not understand about my last paragraph?
You seem not understand that we are all financing for Sky, just as we do ITV, Ch4 & 5, the BBC is actually the only broadcaster in the UK were we do have a choice whether to fund it or not, no one has to watch broadcast TV, as I pointed out. I would have no problem with subscription channel broadcasters who financed their operations solely on subscription sales or PPV, rather than channel packages and/or advertising.
May 23, 2021
One can avoid buying things advertised. As I do a certain brand of potato crisps.
May 23, 2021
@NLA; Only if you know the ownership of brands, and where retailer advertising is concerned it might be impossible to avoid a funding Commercial TV, short of moving, or copying Tom & Barbara Good of Surbiton KT5…
People can totally avoid both the TVL fee and subscription TV fees, if they choose, it is to all intent impossible to totally avoid paying for Commercial TV, many channels that some can not watch because they are hidden behind the subscription pay-walls already rejected.
May 23, 2021
a-tracey
Please remember Jerry will never accept any criticism of any idea of any change for the BBC
His idea is if you buy fish and chips you are paying for the other commercial TV and radio stations because they have adverts on their broadcasts.
Ridiculous as we all know, but Jerry is convinced he and only he is right.
May 23, 2021
No I donât understand Jerry, tell me how I fund Sky when I never watch it at all?
No we donât have a choice on funding the BBC even if we donât watch the BBC and only watch the others on freeview.
As I say I would probably pay my subscription to the BBC but I donât agree with your point. One can choose to pay for Sky nor Not, one can choose to pay for Netflix or not, but we are tied to the broadcast licence fee that I understand only the BBC gets Direct revenue from?
May 24, 2021
@a-tracy; “No I donât understand”
Most BSkyB and many Sky channels carry paid for commercial adverts, which bring in additional and not insignificant funding, those are funded via your retail/business purchases, in the shops or online etc. You have a choice about watching Freeview (broadcast TV), there are other options theses days, as I originally pointed out.
May 24, 2021
This is a bizarre argument from you. Jerry.
You are therefore claiming that if I buy anything, you think that in the price I am paying is a certain amount added for that product being advertised on commercial TV.
What at a farmers market?
At a car boot sale?
When I purchase the millions of products that do not advertise at all on TV?
When I buy stuff from other countries that dont have SKY?
Also I can tell you of my experience in business where our campaign budget for advertising increased sales so much the resulting extra revenue paid for the advert campaign and meant we could reduce our selling price.
There was no advertising element in the costing affecting the price you would have paid.
This isn’t uncommon.
May 23, 2021
There is a difference. If you donât like the murdoch owned media donât buy it. If you watch tv without paying the BBC poll tax you go to gaol.
May 23, 2021
@Richard1; That is just a “whataboutery” smokescreen, there are many entertainment, sport and news options these days if you do not want to watch broadcast TV, as I pointed out..
May 25, 2021
Technology will easily mitigate the remainer establishment BBC once the over the air monopoly is rescinded. So they wont!
Without a BBC license fee and monopoly. Netflix could have been a startup from the UK.
The diversity of freeview channels is quite extensive and because it over the air is easier & cheaper to consume. The ability to watch catchup is not as extensive as the “live over air” and internet output is not as easily obtained without certain other infrastructure and costs.
I do not watch “live broadcasts”or even own a TV. I would have liked to have watched the Funeral of HRH live and other similar national events. But watch delayed clips later, because i will not willingly fund the BBC. It also helps to channel my resolve.
May 23, 2021
Agreed. For a BBC person she is indeed good. Andrew Neil who to me is central politically and fair and rational with it but was clearly far to right of centre and logical for the BBC. We will see how he gets on with the new channel shortly.
May 23, 2021
Even the blind have to pay the BBC tax, they get only 50% off it seems.
May 23, 2021
@LL; Your point being what? The blind only need a TVL if they ‘watch’ broadcast TV, they can use a TV to receive digital radio without, there are also degrees of blindness, but someone with no TV set in their home still pays for TV channels that air commercials.
May 23, 2021
People want to watch broadcast tv- for some lonely people it is their only companion. The point is not whether people are forced to watch it, but why should one broadcaster above the others get a tax for it and the public be forced to pay it. On the other hand with subscription tv, it costs a fortune and we still have to sit through a quarter of all programmes watching adverts.
May 23, 2021
@graham1946; Your argument is one for making all TV free to view, and has merit (if you don’t mind watching more adverts than programmes), all channels be finances by commercial advertising alone. Why should a keen golfer, say, be made to pay twice, once to get a basic Sky subscription, a ‘tax’ for channels they do not want, do not watch, and then pay again to upgrade to the Sports package? Not sure if BSkyB/BT will be very supportive of any such legislation…
May 23, 2021
No, you don’t need to watch more adverts than programmes for free to air. ITV, before Sky etc came along managed perfectly well with the kind of advertising they still do. The problems came when so many commercial stations came on stream that the advertising revenue was stretched. Then Sky came and with its financial muscle, because you pay twice with subscription and adverts and started buying up all the major sport and quality programmes. I personally wouldn’t have Sky at all, 900 odd channels of mostly junk, but my wife likes some of the American things so there we are and I spend more time on the computer or playing musical instruments.
May 23, 2021
@graham1946; ITV (+ Ch4 & 5) do not cope very well in the current TV advertising climate, that is why a few years back they asked Ofcom to increase the time allowed for advertising within programmes breaks, to try and sell enough airtime to cover costs, it is also why Ofcom allowed both programme sponsorship and product placement.
Sky only has financial muscle through expensive bulk sales, sorry, channel packages, but even there many of the sub-net of channels included can not survive alone on their share of the subscription fee, they to need adversing and have similar issues to ITV/CH4 & 5.
If we want less TV adverts, we need far less TV channels airing paid for adverts, meaning the price for such airtime increases.
May 23, 2021
They can choose to have it.
Or they can choose not to have it.
Sky have numerous options and alternative packages.
Choose one you like Jerry.
Or dont.
May 24, 2021
@Peter2; Yet more “whataboutery” from you.
What law makes me watch broadcast TV!
It is my choice if I do, like driving on the public highways, if I choose to do either I have a legal duty to pay the relevant statutory fees etc.
May 24, 2021
If I want to watch any live TV I first have to pay for the BBC
Even if you have no desire to watch BBC programmes.
It isn’t “whataboutery” Jerry.
Saying there is no law forcing me to watch TV is ridiculous pedantry.
I want to watch live TV
May 23, 2021
Jerry, you have swerved around the point that as a State broadcaster, the BBC is meant to be politically unbiased. I have no problem with differing political views being aired – they should be forensically examined, along with the Governments and Administrators that implement them.
Without looking back too much through rose-coloured spectacles, there was a time when Panorama was actually given a whole 60 minutes to investigate major issues. There was a time when hard-hitting interviewers didn’t interrupt their subjects simply in order to raise their own profiles. There actually was a time when the BBC apparently believed it had a fairly large slice of intelligent listeners and viewers …
May 23, 2021
@SM; I have not swerved around anything. Yours is a common misconception, the only difference between the BBC and other broadcasts is the BBC’s PSB remit, all broadcasters (TV and radio) are required to be balanced (unbiased).
Your criticism of the BBC, Panorama, is fair, but remember that this interview was 25 odd years ago, at the tail end of when the BBC was being forced to become far more “ratings” orientated, broadcast what is popular, not necessarily factually detailed, thus the BBC started to copy and compete with what ITV, Ch4 and (by the 1990s) what Sky) did, the most obvious examples of this trend were Eastenders and the importing of an Australian soap opera!
I would have no problem if the BBC were to do much less, much better, for less money, even to the point of reducing its-self to a core service, PSB needs to be protected.
As comparison, ITV broadcast two ‘problematic’ programmes at each end of the the 1980s, ‘Death of a Princess’ and ‘Death on the Rock’, many suggest that both programmes resulted in their makers (ATV and Thames respectively) loosing their ITV franchises as they came up for renewal, but at no time was there any serious suggestion ITV its-self should be closed or their revenue stream stifled.
May 23, 2021
Trouble is, the presenters now see themselves as stars and for some reason reading an autocue seems to attract huge salaries and most don’t do what Andrew Neil does – research. They mostly just give their own opinions and since most went to the same universities have the same views.
May 23, 2021
@graham1946 “most [presenters] donât do what Andrew Neil does â research. They mostly just give their own opinions and since most went to the same universities have the same views.”
The irony, most commentators on this site don’t do any (basic) checks either half the time, and as most share the same politics such assertions do not always get called out.
Neil is no better than his peers, when compared to people like the Dimbleby’s, Paxman, Day, Frost, Walden et al, even Pilger, if we go slightly off piste -I don’t necessarily agree with him but he delivers a though proving documentary or what ever.
May 24, 2021
Neil is way better than his peers (ie those doing it now in this context). The ones you mention don’t even do it anymore and several are dead, so what’s your point? This site is for people’s opinion, whatever and however they think. If everything here had to be backed up by research and facts, there would be no argument and what a boring place it would be. Half your stuff would not get on either if this was the case. When questioning someone in public however, research is essential and clearly a lot of the current presenters don’t bother.
May 24, 2021
Gosh how clever you are Jerry.
No one on here can consider the pressures on them or the effect their political opinions have on them other than you.
Only you in the UK is so unbelievably intelligent that you haven’t absorbed anty biased opinions.
Well done Jerry.
May 23, 2021
jerry note – from TV site you need a licence – ‘
If you watch or record programmes as theyâre being shown on TV, ON ANY CHANNEL.
May 23, 2021
@Dennis, A very simplistic interpretation of the law, in practice it is more complex, more so when considering catch-up services.
May 24, 2021
jerry – I should think you are right but that bold statement in on the TV licensing website.
May 23, 2021
So claiming that another media organisation is as bad makes it ok for the BBC?
May 23, 2021
@Freed.H; Not at all, that was my point, but many on the right do want just that, ignore what other media organisation do or have done but now want the BBC castrated, if not put-down!
See my other replies further up.
May 23, 2021
You have to wonder what the results of elections and referenda would be if we had a level playing field and didnât have the âpublic serviceâ broadcasters, especially the BBC, relentlessly pushing the left / woke line. I suggest the government presses its advantage and gets rid of the license fee, moving to a subscription and advertising model, perhaps with the cheap bits such as radio and the world service just paid for out of direct taxation.
I also suggest the BBC is organised as a normal company with a board of directors. The articles should stipulate that it must offer political balance. By which we do not mean presenters and interviewers should pretend to be neutral, they obviously arenât. It should mean an obligation to give approx equal airtime to opposing views on topics of public interest. (This could allow eventual privatisation with shares distributed free to taxpayers, a policy likely to be so popular the left will not dare oppose it.)
May 23, 2021
@Richard1; During parliamentary elections and referenda the law is explicit, there is a level playing field, this is why BSkyB had to black out Fox News during the Brexit referendum for example, nothing to so with any PSB obligation (which is quite different set if requirements).
May 23, 2021
I don’t want a subscription and advertising model – one or the other for me. I’d rather pay a few more pounds per month than have programmes interrupted every few minutes. It can be done, ITV do the adverts only one. To pay both is just a rip off to make big money for the broadcasters.
May 23, 2021
My presumption is always in favour of free trade, but I am by no means a free trade fanatic and recognise that it has its downsides. But I also recognise that after seven decades of systematic global trade liberalisation the economic impacts of most special trade deals are now very limited. At most the overall effects are “marginal” – that is where I would most likely place Boris Johnson’s “fantastic” trade deal with the EU, worth around 1% of GDP to the UK, more for the EU – but they may be “trivial” or even “negligible”. As I repeatedly said, as far as I was concerned it was not worth any concessions at all to secure such a low value trade deal with the EU, and his betrayal of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland is shocking and must be reversed. As for a trade deal with Australia, they have been our steadfast friends and it would be good to have a preferential trade deal even if in economic terms it was worth very little to us and not much more to them. And similarly with the USA and other friends, but I do not see such special trade deals as in any way essential. The idea that we must do what Dublin wants in order to keep in with Washington and so have a chance of getting that all-important transatlantic trade deal is just propaganda BS.
May 23, 2021
@Denis Cooper, Agreed . The ‘talking heads’ in the MsM confuse the words ‘free trade’ with the restrictive isolationist protectionism of places like the EU. Why simply shouldn’t those that trade with other nations be expected to contribute to the societies they wish to profit from.
‘Free Trade’ as presented by some means you duck in deliver something take the money and run, leaving the recipient all the poorer. The World Powers are struggling with ‘tax’ issues, they cant get enough in while at the same time decreeing some should escape paying all together – level playing field?.
In other words the only barriers to trade should be those that undermined the security and well being of a nation. Unfortunately the aggressive stance of regimes such as the EU that seek to notch protection up a level meaning the practice of the world getting on through trade becomes a non-starter.
May 23, 2021
Very well composed and accurate article Mr Redwood – bang on the nose !
My views are thus:
MAKE our jellyfish PM honour his pledge to decriminalise the licence fee, after all he seems to dispense with parliament on other matters so why not this one.
Confiscate the pensions of journalist and editorial staff at the BBC who’s conduct is as you describe – there should be severe punishments for anti-English broadcasting.
William Joyce was strung up for propaganda against this country, so I don’t see why a few obscene big fat pensions can’t be taken away.
But then most of what is failing in this country including the BBC is down to having a showman PM, who, behind the scenes is just a gutless yellow belly doing as he’s told by big money, not us. He’s still playing out his childhood fantasies and in the real world he’s terrified of a fight.
His Churchillian trick no longer works with us, and I have to say if you would like to avoid serious trouble for this country come the next general election then Boris Johnson must be replaced by a real fighter – the sooner the better.
May 23, 2021
Who do you suggest would be better than Boris and also has any chance at all of being selected by the many Libdims who are pretending to be âConservativeâ MPs. I want the proper real Conservative Boris back please, the one before Carrie turned him into an illiberal, green crap pushing, lockdown enthusiast with his tax to death, borrow and piss down the drain, anti-business Chancellor.
May 23, 2021
The list is long against Mr Johnston’s attitude, behaviour and values. He has become an embarrassment to this Country. His sense of entitlement knows no bounds.
May 23, 2021
Why don’t you join a union, and fight for decent occupational pensions for all – as they mainly have on the Continent -instead of parroting all your usual right wing politics-of-envy bile?
May 23, 2021
The private sector cannot pay generous defined benefit pensions like the state sector ones. This as they are paying so much tax to fund the 20% in the state sectorâs pay and pensions (usually people producing little of any real value at all and inconveniencing the state sector too).
May 23, 2021
They could and they used to. It was ruined by one Gordon Brown.
May 23, 2021
Come on, Graham.
Gordon Brown introduced a dividend tax for managed pension funds, just as many countries have. It cost an estimated average of less than a hundred pounds per beneficiary per year, to be met by increased employee and employer contributions. In fact it helped many funds, because they changed their composition away from shares, protecting them from the 2008 crash. The Tories have never reversed it, and it would make little difference to pensions if they did.
People went into BTL etc. because of appalling annuity rates, and not because of that.
May 24, 2021
That small amount you mention MiC had a huge detrimental impact.
Take it per person then multiplied by the millions of people affected then multiply over many years and billions of pounds accumulated in pension funds were lost.
A snowball effect.
Other rule changes and low interest rates caused problems too.
But the change Brown made was the big spoiler of our pension industry.
May 23, 2021
Who says that the firms should have to pay them all?
Look at France’s solution.
May 23, 2021
‘William Joyce was strung up for propaganda against this country’ Actually murdered by the court, knowingly with fake evidence, as he was an American and could not be tried for treason.
May 23, 2021
Dennis,
+1
May 23, 2021
I totally disagree with every word you have written on todayâs topic.
However you probably expect this from my past comments.
Generally this blog is all right wing commentary, yet you do allow alternative views when the response is thoughtful,
So I need to give you credit for that.
May 23, 2021
JR does not appear to filter opinions of the left or right or sense or nonsense. He only filters libel (easy) or thoughtcrime (very difficult these days).
May 23, 2021
forthurst
To be fair you are correct – JR does not apply left / right bias to his moderation criteria. If anything his criteria are quite bizarre at times and I’m damned if I can figure it out, but politically biased ?……no.
May 23, 2021
Why does the BBC treat viewers like morons:
– aiming their programs at the lowest possible mentality;
– telling us all what to think and how to behave;
– by being very selective about what it presents as news;
– perpetuating the loony idea that anybody to the right of Blair is fascist;
– creating the impression that it is honest and trustworthy, when it intentionally provides a warped view of the world and politics.
One of the worst issues with the BBC goes back to when the original charter was created – It provided for education by the BBC, in other words, even then it was allowed to manage our expectations, our thoughts, our vision, by impinging its version of reality upon us – as it still does to this day, except now it is more intense and full of ideology.
May 23, 2021
Nothing wrong with ‘education’ provided that is what it is, balanced and factual. Think of all the wonderful natural history programmes from which we have learned so much over the years, as one example, though I am less inclined to watch Attenborough stuff these days since he caught the climate change religion.
May 23, 2021
But it is not educational – It’s also not factual or balanced.
The BBC are incapable of making any natural history program without telling us lies about climate change.
Even basic history programs are told from the viewpoint of the oppressed peasants, and are full of pc claptrap
May 23, 2021
Apart from all of the Socialist, Woke agenda items, the thing that really infuriates me is the delight all of the presenters, reporters or so called experts seem to get in either highlighting, or the giving of their own opinion on any “so called” failure’s within the UK, of its government, its armed forces, the police etc, the sheer delight when reporting such, can actually be detected in their voice and mannerisms.
Indeed one would be forgiven to think the BBC is actually engaged, purely and simply to degrade our Country in any way possible, any very obvious successes are grudging mentioned, usually at the end of a report/programme.
Time for a real change, enforced or otherwise me thinks.
May 23, 2021
Why does the BBC insist in having commentators (“correspondents”) in its ranks and why does it insist on asking loaded and one-sided questions?
As a last-ditch way to save itself, why doesn’t it concentrate on reporting facts instead of always trying to provide an “angle”?
May 23, 2021
Why focus on BBC when there are similar issues, if not greater issues, with all other big tech?
These days we are almost obliged to use one or more of the half dozen big tech companies, any one of which is capable of distorting the news, suppressing the truth and stifling debate.
As is the government.
May 23, 2021
A very valid point. It is getting harder to find alternative reliable sources of news and fact and debate, in part because of bias and censorship by Alphabet operations, Twitter, etc. There is inevitably a degree of collusion between the corporate behemoths and governments, with governments increasingly becoming the junior party in that process. They are the new Fourth Estate.
May 23, 2021
Oh I forgot an item relating to all news outlets
Last week it was all doom and gloom about the Corona Indian variant and lockdown must be extended etc.
Now suddenly itâs all change and surprise surprise the vaccine actually works against the variant.
This is an instance where all journalists need to be careful about facts otherwise there is potential panic.
May 23, 2021
Why does the BBC feel it has the right to set the agenda rather than report the news ?
Why does the BBC feel the need to turn every comedy or drama into a politically correct lesson with tedious identikit casting ? Will we ever have characters like Arthur Daily or Del Boy created again ?
More importantly, why does an 80 seat Tory majority government follow the BBC line so slavishly and when do we all get our blue boiler suits ?
—-
Off topic. I have suffered an injury that my dog (on insurance of ÂŁ400 per year) would have been treated for by now. After six weeks I have still not been seen by a specialist and there is no sign of me being seen yet despite me paying many thousands to the NHS each year. I am likely to be put on a waiting list for a few years going by friends with similar injuries. Thankfully I am being treated by a private physio and am 90% recovered having been set an exercise programme.
May 23, 2021
I do not understand why BBC execs’ homes aren’t being raided by police at dawn over the Diana scandal. I do not understand why Panorama has not been scrapped seeing as the News of the World was closed down with loss of jobs for far less. Indeed the BBC had people on its payroll who did grave harm to children and didn’t just hack their phones.
I do not understand why the BBC continually stirs the race relations pot. When will there be memorial days for the many white people who have been murdered by minority ethnics ?
I do not understand why a Met Police constable hasn’t been suspended for taking part in a demo in full uniform. I can only think that the Commissioner is terrified of what the BBC might make of it – much like our Government.
May 23, 2021
PS, I have just read an article about a retired police Ch Supt convicted of indecent images. Aged 74 he has been retired 21 years !!!
How can the country afford this ?
At 53 the vast majority are now perfectly capable of police work. There is no reason that the retirement age for police should not be made a compulsory 65.
May 23, 2021
The BBC is a Political organisation, whether it be News, Current Affairs or straight forward biased propaganda.
The Licence Fee is compulsory for just owning a TV, so therefore a TAX. The taxpayer should never be forced, or coerced to fund political organisations.
May 23, 2021
Why isn’t there a requirement for them to reflect the views of those providing their funding?
Why is their focus on anything (preferrably woke) but the organisation’s core role?
Why is it argued that historical programming and reputational success is a reason to maintain their business model?
Why don’t they report news, but select pieces that further their groupthink agenda?
Why is there no correlation between new, watchable programming, (dropping) audience numbers and the level of funding?
Why are family members afforded an advantage over new talent to secure a job?
Why have they set themselves up to act as a powerful mouthpiece for niche ideology and unproven dogma?
………..Why am I required to pay for a service I do not use or face criminal prosecution?
May 23, 2021
BJC
“Why isnât there a requirement for them to reflect the views of those providing their funding?”
There is – just look up their funding sources apart from the UK taxpayer – that is before we supposedly left the E.U. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
May 23, 2021
On BBC radio phone-ins anyone against Brexit, mass immigration and the vaccine is given little time to air their views. Other pro these things callers are allowed to prattle on. Anyone would think the BBC is a biased broadcaster ( which it is) trying to brainwash the listeners. But the presenters continue to say the BBC is moderate and unbiased.
May 23, 2021
Absolutely brilliant !
Fantastic !
Why the SNP view of independence is totally absurd.
a) Fiscal surveillance by the EU
b) EFTA surveillance authority
Is not independence . Why ?
Because as soon as some foreign power tells you what your budgets are to be, then they control how you have to use both your skills and real resources.
Remember budget deficits are the liability part of the balance sheet. Household and business savings are the asset side of that balance sheet.
So when a foreign power says you can only run 3% budget deficits what they are saying is households and business can only run 3% surpluses.
It is absurd.
The national debt is just that surplus moved into gilts which is mainly our pensions or if you have bought sterling bonds or used NS&I. You can’t go above 60% of GDP which is also absurd.
Japan has destroyed their economic theories for decades. With their quadrillion budget deficits and debt to GDP ratio of 260% of GDP.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33094
Because the government balance, the private sector balance and trade balance always adds net to zero. I always laugh when people say the government should balance its budget it is hilarios. If they want the government budget to balance then they better explain what they are going to do with the trade balance. Something they can’t control. Unless, of course the government bans exporters from exporting or bans imports.
If you support Scottish independence then each and every time you would have supported brexit.
Swapping a ship load of salmon for a ship load of bananas has nothing to do with fiscal surveillance. But that’s how the neoliberal globalists trap you they embed fiscal surveillance into their trade deals. Or in EFTA case stand in a neoliberal court in front of a neoliberal judge to get permission on what you want to spend your own currency on.
May 23, 2021
Well there is a challenge for the BBC, can we have a program about where our meat is from, why do we import 60% of our pork from the EU? Why does so much beef meat pass back and forward between Ireland and the UK? Why is British lamb so expensive, what economic savings could British farmers learn from Australia if they can produce meat we are told so much cheaper?
To divide England is to weaken us, instead we should stand strong from all regions yet our Conservative MPs from all the regions keep quiet about disparities in funding, why arenât the MPs from the Midlands shouting out about unfair funding per head the lowest in the Uk ? Why do we allow sub regions like N.Ireland, Wales and Scotland have competitions, grants, funding that only their residents or those living in England that were born there or even those whose parents are originally born in those regions eligible to enter yet each region in England has no similar entry channels?
Manchester could speak for Liverpool and Blackpool yes, but whilst we keep these silly divisions at local levels between Liverpool , Manchester, Preston and Chester for example all very different Cities then weâll continue to allow Central Government to ignore us and just concentrate on London and this is whatever Government is in power, Northern Labour MPs are parachuted in, they never live up here for more than a handful of days per year. Parachuted MPs will now have the perfect model for zoom surgeries and hardly ever have to cross our boundaries again.
May 23, 2021
You do ask some silly questions.
Just think for a moment.
Here’s a clue – “land prices”.
May 24, 2021
Is your rude comment aimed at me MiC?
What is your ‘land prices’ comment in relation to?
May 23, 2021
We can hardly expect the BBC to reinvent itself and produce a balanced organisation – especially where news is concerned. I am expecting and it may well have happened comments from the BBC along the lines of “lessons will be learned” and “we are not complacent” which can be translated into taking no action and letting the dust settle.
So many establishment organisations in this country dodge their responsibilities when things go wrong and go into cover-up mode only to find that when they get found out things get worse for them – NHS, Social Servies, Police, MPs and so on. Total lack of corporate moral fiber. Perhaps now is the time to see some blood on the BBC’s carpet and some heads to roll – all too often the great and the good have escaped without any pain. Admittedly a BBC executive has fallen on his sword BUT its twenty five years too late. Lets see some heads on spikes just to ensure that the change message gets through and that the public are not taken for granted.
May 23, 2021
There are many questions for the BBC to answer, most it involving their support for the objectives of Cultural Marxism. Diversity, Multiculturalism, mass immigration, Decolonising, Year zero carbon zero Green stuff, all of which is encapsulated by their instinctive hatred of all things English . Why the left hate England I do not known, I have tried to figure out what terrible thing we have done to elicit their total contempt of us, but not come up with anything satisfactory.
Perhaps the the question I would like the BBC to answer which would show the conflict of their left wing beliefs….How do you square your unquestioned support for mass immigration with your climate change zealotry when England is already one of the most densely populated countries?
May 23, 2021
BBC censors the news. There were no reports on BBC or the other so called mainstream news channels, about the Gilet Jaune protests and riots in France that went on for oever a year. Complaints were fobbed off with lies.
BBC were very quick to send lots of reporters to Hong Kong though, to report on what they decoded was cruel repressiion by China.
The admirable RT news channel provided the Gilet Jaune news reports, the channel that some Tory MPs wanted to be closed down.
May 23, 2021
MWB – yes RT is very good for news not got on the BBC and al Jazeera has very informative documentaries on what is happening in many other country’s societies. I don’t expect even a perfect BBC to cover all these items so happy that other channels can do so. That’s good diversity…
May 23, 2021
The BBC were also biased against Israel in the recent conflict. Israel was always ‘attacking’ and Palestine ‘retaliating’.
As Hamas attacked Israel with rockets first this was a total reversal of the truth.
They did similar in Ukraine with the misuse of the word ‘rebels’.
May 23, 2021
Actually Israel used violence on Palestinian demonstrators in Jerusalem first. But donât let facts get in the way of your prejudices.
May 23, 2021
Lethal weapons were fired at Israel first.
May 23, 2021
There were BBC reports on the Gilet Jaune. I watched the reports. You can still find the reports online if you can be bothered to confirm you are wrong.
May 23, 2021
You don’t see it on the all important TV news. The BBC focuses on protests which support their own agendas.
May 23, 2021
More people use the BBC website than watch its TV bulletins.
Do not make the mistake of accusing the BBC of not covering a story just because you havenât seen it.
May 23, 2021
The woke fascist’s racial agenda that now appears to pervade and infect our every waking moment has taken on a new dimension with actual real people now deceased being portrayed not as they were but as the woke prefer to see them
The BBC and Channel 5’s use of the racial weapon is utterly repugnant and must be stopped before it does harm. They’re also using it against the Queen and members of the Royal Family. Nothing is safe from this woke poison and it will consume and destroy all before it
White people should not have to apologise for being white nor being exposed to attacks on their identity by the fascist left and their demonise, divide and conquer strategy
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
+1
May 24, 2021
DOM
+1
May 23, 2021
The dishonest antics to obtain the Diana interview are not an isolated incident from the Panorama team. They have done the same to others. There is also the cover-up for the Jimmy Saville complaints and others that must have led to further abuse.
The BBC license fee needs to go. Why the British people are forced to pay for this bias untrustworthy content whereas the rest of the World can get it for free is just plain wrong.
Letâs hope the new GB News channel will provide some balance when it starts next week.
May 23, 2021
Surely not all dishonesty in media is bad, remember the fake sheik revelations and the secret filming of MPs out for the money – ‘you can consider me a cab, for hire..’ who said something like that? One needs a bit of dishonesty to call out corruption.
May 23, 2021
Only in Tory, dystopian Britain could a PM, once fired as a journalist by the Times for making up twaddle, hold the future of its public broadcaster in his hands – not because a journalist did what he did, but for the far lesser misdemeanour of using deceit to obtain his material.
Think, about what that says, about this now excuse-for-a-country.
May 23, 2021
Why do you live here (especially in Wales) -you could have gone to at least 27 other countries, life is clearly so distressing for you.
May 23, 2021
You assume too many things, Fred.
May 24, 2021
Since all you seem to do is complain about all things British, and search for any obscure countries or allegations of better elsewhere, we are left with assumptions. Just how have you voted in the last 6 GEs? How would you voted if a GE was called in a month? Should the BBC and its present structure and licensing remain unaltered? What do you have to say about the H of C and the H of L? You constantly point to the need for improved standards of living etc- but never say how it would be achieved. Are the intentions to stop sales of petrol, diesel and gas boilers workable? How will transport needs be met, how will people heat homes, schools, workplaces?
Stop carping on about everything and explain your point of view.
May 23, 2021
It should be a police matter. Why isn’t it ?
May 23, 2021
Name the Offence, and I might agree with you.
May 23, 2021
The endless promotion and support of climate change
And the inclusion of background mood music during news reports to influence our opinion
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
Yes it gets like some early movies when the music gets all dark and threatening when they want you to understand this person is evil. A news item that comes with background music is propaganda .
May 23, 2021
The BBC suffers from the same malaise as all institutions, nationalised industries, that do not have to rely on customer satisfaction for their revenues: it is run for the benefit and (self) satisfaction of its employees. Those of us old enough to remember recall with horror the poor sevice we got from the electrical, telephone, transport, gas, water, railways, not to mention the NHS. A lot still needs to change in the last named and it looks as if the railways will soon be back where they were before. The BBC will only deliver what is wanted from it when it becomes dependent on its customers and the license fee funding is abolished.
May 23, 2021
Here’s a question (one among many) for the BBC. Reporting the Gaza ceasefire, you labelled a set of pictures as “Moving scenes in Gaza”. Every single picture was of Gaza residents holding aloft Palestinian flags and jubilantly waving “V for victory” signs, claiming victory over Israel in the recent exchange of missiles. Why was that? In what way did you find those scenes “moving”?
May 23, 2021
TAXPAYER FUNDING
We fund Welsh speaking TV channel
We fund Scottish speaking TV channel
Plans for Irish speaking TV channel
We fund Channel4
We fund Channel5
We fund the BBC world service etc
As we speak someone is drawing up plans for a climate channel TV channel
Its time to privatise the whole lot
May 23, 2021
+1
May 23, 2021
You missed one, we fund the BBC’s Asian Network. I am still trying to figure out how this gets past equality race laws, and get a free pass from the BBC’s diversity agenda.
May 23, 2021
Practically zero people in Wales speak Welsh and yet the taxpayer funds BBC Cymru and BBC Cymru 2
Others taxpayer funded channels include – BBC Radio Wales, BBC One Wales, BBC Two Wales, S4C (Ch4 â BBC), also the BBC part funds a private TV company to provide local TV service including That’s Swansea Bay (owned by That’s TV) and Cardiff TV and North Wales TV (both owned by Local Television Ltd
This is ridicules
May 23, 2021
I’m not Welsh, by the way, but we fund far more English language programming than any of those.
May 24, 2021
‘we fund’ – a point of clarity: is that the Welsh people and Government funding, or is it actually England that funds it?
May 23, 2021
As I understand it the Globos want to abolish all old institutions .
This may be good or maybe bad.
Anti globos would surely want to keep the BBC
( Having kicked out all the Globos from Directors to Weather persons )
Pro Globos would run the BBC down and promote their Globo media pals.
May 23, 2021
Sir John,
The BBC’s motto is – frankly – laughable. Their mission now seems to be to foment discord, create divisiveness and to ‘do down’ the UK at every opportunity whilst lauding every other nation. In times past that would have been regarded as Treason.
I heard Priti Patel on ye olde wireless news this morning mention the word ‘respected’ and (still) labelling the BBC as the “World’s Premiere News-Gathering Organisation” (one of their own self-back-slapping plaudits).
I nearly spat tea down my nose. They haven’t been worthy of that accolade for some years, and certainly not since the Brexit Referendum was announced by David Cameron. The rot started way before that. And on top of the Bashir affair, we had of course their lamentable involvement in the cover-ups regarding Jimmy Saville [et al].
As a ‘National Broadcaster’ they are a disgrace. With something of such import as the debacle of CV-19 they only ‘dip-in’ to and broadcast ‘highlights’ from the No.10 press briefings on BBCR4. That channel SHOULD be broadcasting those briefings IN THEIR ENTIRETY, not just the bits that the likes of Evan Davis or his producer deem ‘newsworthy’.
The BBC still make some of the the best programmes GLOBALLY, but in the field of ‘News’ and ‘Current Affairs’ their clear bias renders them unfit and – by association -.sullies their otherwise good output They have had their time and must go. The BBC’s radio frequencies should be taken from them and assigned to another broadcaster who is better able to fulfil the requirements of a ‘National Broadcaster’.
There have been numerous opportunities by various holders of the office of Minister for DCMS to address what has gone-on and they have all – sadly – failed to do so.
Were I to find myself in the shoes of the Member for Hertsmere, I would revoke the BBC’s broadcasting licence within nanoseconds of my bum-cheeks hitting that office chair.
May 24, 2021
Any progress with ‘moderation, Sir John?
I notice that much of what I have said above is echoed in two of the headings under today’s newsletter…..and yet my words are still not readable under this day’s entry.
regards,
GW.
May 23, 2021
Why does it provide blanket coverage of USA news (such as BLM) and politics but no coverage at all of German, Spanish or Italian news and politics ?
Why does it scaremonger in support of a zero Covid policy and ignore the downsides of that approach ?
May 23, 2021
Perhaps because it would also have to report often far better educational outcomes, liveable occupational pensions, fairer employment contracts, good public transport systems, and more representative voting arrangements too if it did that.
Those problems don’t arise with the US.
But, yes, it’s an excellent question for just those reasons, Ron.
May 23, 2021
There has been much defence of the BBC over its latest exposed system failures, generally saying a) many other nations media are jealous of the power of the BBC and its separation from government influence when speaking out, b) other media news sources have shown they are not above reproach over their pursuit of news scoops, c) the newest BBC director general has acted swiftly to investigate openly their latest scandal. d) the BBC is a well loved institution. Well, a) of course other national media outlets are jealous, they are scrutinised closely so have to be diligent, but also, very simply, the BBC have so much money they over pay, they over man and they can usually cover their backs by paying for legal defence and pay off if needed without any financial pain. b) other media sources are subject to the public scrutiny, people can choose not to buy their product, c) The latest DG is posturing and no matter how many more procedures and processes he puts in, the BBC management can chose to disregard them if it doesn’t suit them as there is no public scrutiny. Ofcom do not investigate acts such as black balling a graphic designer. d) if the BBC is do loved then they won’t need to make non payment of the TV licence a criminal offence.
I agree that BBC news should be supported, as in fact are most news outlets such as ITV, channel 4. But there is no reason why the rest of the obese and out of date organisation should be funded under threat rather than by choice.
May 23, 2021
“I could go on with many more. You might like to supply some.”
No, I don’t want to supply some; I want you to close it down. We don’t watch it. We don’t pay attention to it. It just sucks money from us.
May 23, 2021
gyges + 1 the cancer is beyond control and can not be reformed
May 24, 2021
and attempts to brainwash the feeble.
May 23, 2021
Perhaps the BBC is funded by Russia and RT is not đ Assuming that Russia would like to see a broken apart England which is not the case. RT UK appears to support the Union more than the BBC.
Looks like the government is not able to defund the BBC but able to take a risky tough line with Russia to still please the EU and America . Why has the BBC not highlighted the internationally illegal landgrab in Palestine ? and for that matter why has the UK government ignored it too. No sanctions here unlike with Russia.
No point highlighting that the BBC ( Bash British Constitution) has become a political party and therefore cannot be funded by the general public, do something about it. Raise the question of defunding the BBC in Parliament. Maybe the new GB News Channel can do better. PS . Support for an English Parliament might counter the BBC wanting to break the country in Regions now it has failed to make the UK one big region of the EU.
May 23, 2021
Sir John,
When I worked at the BBC in the 1980s there was a saying among the staff that if you wanted to get ahead in the organisation, you had to be seen with a copy of the Guardian under your arm.
May 23, 2021
and they all read it !
May 23, 2021
The Guardian would have gone bust long ago if it were not for the BBC.
May 23, 2021
The licence fee needs to be scrapped along with any other taxpayer funded subsidies the BBC receives. If that means the end of it so be it. Maybe an alternative would be to revise its charter and impose strict conditions on it?
May 23, 2021
Sorry. Should read had enough warnings not earnings.
dstand, should read sell by date.
May 23, 2021
I agree with the comments about the BBC in the article. However, what to do about it, is a more difficult problem.
There have been some good programmes from the BBC in the past, and I wouldn’t like to commercialise it. It is important we have a platform for voices independent from global corporations.
Decriminalisation of the licence fee is a red herring. Persons who don’t pay will be handed over to debt collection agencies and bailiffs, and they will end up paying thousands more. Prison would be preferable to many pensioners. It will have no effect on BBC behaviour.
In short, I fully recognise the problem with the BBC (and C4), but I am not sure what is the correct remedy.
May 23, 2021
Every time the BBC is given a government shake-up by the appointment of a new supervisory body: Governors, Trustees, Governors, there is precisely no effect on the BBC’s Weltanshauung. The BBC continues to act as tutor to the none too bright explaining such topics as Global Warming (BBC Gardening teaches us how to raise plants in desert conditions, snow is a thing of the past etc, apparently not as the BBC helpfully explains, “The real answer is rather surprising. Extreme snowfall is actually an expected consequence of a warmer world.” quite), or Transgenderism (The BBC goes to the Isle of Wight (the only school they could find which has not been successfully multi-culturised (why?) where they try to remove innate differences such as perception, behaviour and spatial awareness between boys and girls with limited success: “Shocked by the childrenâs own polarised opinions on how boys and girls should live their lives, Doctor Javid [Abdelmoneim] commissions Dr Stella Mavroveli from the Psychometric Lab at University College London to assess between boys and girls behaviour and psychological traits…” Apparently, children are not intrinsically dimorphic after all, they simply behave as society expects of them!
The BBC is not alone in its anti-English, pro-immigrant MSM role with all its globalist subterfuges for undermining native European societies, so ever to expect it to reflect the views of decent English people who want to live in their own country without being swamped by culturally unsympathetic foreigners is too much to expect.
May 23, 2021
It took me precisely 20 seconds of looking at the BBC website to find a story about Ceuta. So that claim is not true.
May 23, 2021
I do not watch the BBC (with the exception of 6 nations rugby matches), nor do I use its news website: it offers no entertainment that would please me otherwise, and I can’t be bothered to disentangle its versions of news into reality and the need to supplement with other sources for their omissions and falsehoods.
Sometimes egregious falsehoods are drawn to my attention by others. I offer 3 examples where I have been able to debunk them, and where their motivations for falsehoods seem clear. The BBC has been very fond of claiming that the cost of offshore wind generation is currently less than ÂŁ40/MWh, ignoring that the actual data from the settlements paid by the Low Carbon Contracts Company shows that it exceeds ÂŁ160/MWh, and that their figure is actually the 2012 base year price without indexation (current value ÂŁ47.20/MWh) for the Dogger Bank project that has yet to be built. Roger Harrabin eventually conceded the point, but I do not know whether they are now being honest about it.
I was able to help polar bear scientist Susan Crockford show that the footage of walruses tumbling down cliffs in the Russian Arctic with a climate change attribution ignored the presence of hunting polar bears as an explanation by finding contemporaneous pictures and footage of the bears written up by local blogs, undermining the Attenborough propaganda.
During the Ever Given blockage of the Suez Canal the BBC published a story blaming an observed concentration of sulphur dioxide on the ships anchored off Port Said awaiting passage. I showed that the story was a complete fabrication with no basis in fact by reference to satellite imagery, and basic facts about ship fuel (now very much low sulphur) and use at anchor: in fact, the emissions were blown on the upper atmospheric winds from eruptions from Mount Etna. They did retract and correct the story, and acknowledge the mistake.
May 23, 2021
There will be no change no matter how many questions are asked. Answers will not offer a solution. The elite strata stretches horizontally across government, the bureacracy, the BBC, academia, the police and judiciary and so on. All the members think the same, all are there to protect themselves and each other.
Those few in positons of power and influence who oppose must be courageous, brave and determined. There are not many but we need them to collectivise and effect change. If they don’t we are all lost.
May 23, 2021
Life logic wants the BBC to promote “sound Austrian school economists”
That’s a joke right ?
Austrian economics is based on the gold standard and fixed exchange rates. We use neither.
1) Austrian economics is a political ideology that masquerades as an economic school of thought.
2) Austrian Business Cycle Theory Misunderstands Endogenous Money.
3) Austrian Econ Misunderstands Interest Rate Dynamics.
4) Austrians misunderstand inflation.
The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that “shuns real-world data ” and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.
Nobody has listened to the Austrians for years. Real data debunked everything they had to say. They tried to get back into the economic debate in 2008 when QE started. What were they shouting ?
The Austrians shouted that QE and the increase in reserves in the banking system was the equivalent of âmoney printingâ and that this would âdevalue the dollarâ, crash treasury bonds and cause hyperinflation.
Of course The high inflation never came, the hyperinflation definitely never came, the treasury bond collapse was a terrible call and the USD has remained extremely stable. They just don’t understand a free floating fiat currency. Call for a return to the gold standard and fixed FX to make their models work.
The core misunderstanding here was their steadfast belief in the concept of the money multiplier â the idea that the Central Bank can control the money supply by controlling the quantity of reserves. The textbooks teach us that the Central Bank provides reserves and banks then multiply those reserves.
But this is wrong. In fact, adding reserves does not increase lending. That is because banks donât lend out their reserves. Bank make loans and find reserves after the fact. Banks are not reserve constrained. They are capital constrained. This core misunderstanding if Austrian Economics is what led to so many bad predictions and misunderstandings of what QE and the Central Bankâs interventions might do to the economy. The money multiplier theory was debunked 40 years ago by both the left and the right.
Don’t get me started on their quality theory of Money MV= PY the biggest joke in economics.
They assumed that the labour market would always be at full employment, which means that real GDP (the Y in the formula) would always be at full capacity and thus could not rise any further in the immediate future.
They also assumed that the velocity of circulation (V) was constant (unchanged) given that it was determined by customs and payment habits. For example, people are paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis and shop, say, once a week for their needs. These habits were considered to underpin a relative constancy of velocity.
These assumptions then led to the conclusion that if the money supply changed, the only other thing that could change to satisfy the relationship M times V equals P times Y was the price level (P).
The only way the economy could adjust to more spending when it was already at full capacity was to ration that spending off with higher prices. Financial commentators simplify this and say that inflation arises when there is âtoo much money chasing too few goodsâ.
The problem with their theory is that neither of the assumptions that are required to making it a theory of inflation hold in the real world. Real data never supports their claims. The theory essentially denied the possibility of unemployment.
That’s why you never see Austrian economics on the BBC not because of some conspiracy. God help us all of we ever do. Life logic thinks all Tory voters are Austrians they are not the vast majority are small C conservatives.
May 23, 2021
If you endlessly increase the supply (or creation) of money in an economy you will create inflation.
There are already signs of inflation growing in America and in Europe.
Economic history has many examples of this folly.
May 23, 2021
I see many comments have been deleted from below the copy of Sir John’s excellent article on Conservative Home. This is revealing and doesn’t usually happen there. Perhaps they fear litigation from the well resourced, one party state BBC.
Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Can we now hope to see Emily Maitlis unmasked? What did she do to persuade the Duke of York in two years of stalking him that it was a good idea to go on Newsnight? We already know about John Sweeney from Panorama, courtesy of “Panodrama” (see internet, Mirror version.) But this habit of getting people to undergo “interview” on the BBC when it is clearly against their own interests to do so, should be investigated. Cummings really did get that one right: just don’t go on. What is to be gained from enduring a list of false allegations being read out and then not being allowed to answer them?
May 23, 2021
Because Free trade with the US or Australia will eventually lead to lower food standards. Food even refrigerated food will not be as fresh and wholesome coming from countries thousands of miles away’ as food coming from 20 miles away
Apart from shipping time it is very probable refrigerated food will need to be warehoused pending distribution.. whereas food from 20 miles away only needed JIT. WOW! JIT when we had it we did not appreciate it
May 24, 2021
Food comes into the UK from all over the world now and has done for decades bitterends.
What is so special about the two countries you mention who already supply us with food.
May 23, 2021
Am sick of listening about Bashir and the Royal ffamil. Am sick of listening about Harry and Meghan on the BBC and the rest of the royals with their fashion trends. Soon time for a change.. a big change
May 24, 2021
The BBC is simply slavishly following the agenda set by the Daily Mail and by the other tabloids, as it generally does.
May 24, 2021
Hilarious disconnect MiC
May 23, 2021
Interesting that no-one today has considered the population imbalances in Great Britain. As a Union of nations (one that the Tory party is currently very exercised about protecting) Great Britain is quite odd in that one country dominates it hugely. As at summer 2020, the government website says that England had a population of 56.3 million where as Wales and Scotland combined had a population of 8.6 million. There’s a (roughly) 1:6 ratio of people in Great Britain between non-English and English people.
(I understand that there’s some mixing of populations across borders. I’m assuming the numbers involved aren’t meaningful overall.)
The basic fact is that the English massively dominate the Union. That’s not necessarily conducive to maintaining it. It seems to me that if you’re a Unionist, you’d want the Union’s public broadcaster to do it’s bit towards ensuring that the non-English nations feel as little put-upon as possible. If that means specific content gets produced and broadcast by the BBC for Welsh and Scottish audiences, that might be acceptable. It hardly seems like something a Unionist would think was worth picking a fight over.
Full disclosure: I’m slightly pro-Union, primarily for reasons of defence infrastructure & geography.
May 25, 2021
The problem for your way of looking at things is that people have for a long time been pouring into England and out of Scotland and Wales. As they were out of Ireland formerly. The BBC has vastly overdone the representation of Scotland and Wales and the under-representation of England, precisely because there are so very many influential Irish, Scottish, and Welsh people in England who are not sympathetic to England, but enjoy living there and off it.
May 24, 2021
There are a number of institutions, mainly in the public sector, that are labelled or label themselves as ‘independent’. The BBC is but one example. Independent of what and whom? Independent of the State – hardly, because they need the connaivance of the State to continue? Independent of commercial interests? That can be a good thing but isn’t always. Independent of public opinion? I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
I think that a lot of these ‘independent’ institutions are self perpetuating or sustained by Government and I’m afraid that a lot of them shelter behind the Queen’s skirts in that advisors to the Queen influence who is on the boards of these institutions.
Following Brexit, we have a chance to point out that a lot of ‘independent’ institutions are no such thing and that many of them are stubbornly pro-European. There needs to be a cleansing of the Augean stables in important institutions such as the Supreme Court (which is blatantly political), the House of Lords (which is 6:1 pro-European), the BBC and Conservative Central Office.
May 24, 2021
Just as almost everyone posting here realised that staying in the EU and trying to change it from within was never going to work, the same has to apply to the BBC.
We have had a changed of chairman and DG, but that will make not one jot of difference. The vast majority of the Luvvies that work for the BBC are and will remain dyed-in-the-wool, Guardian-reading, Brexit-hating, Liberal Lefties and they will never change.
No, I’m eagerly awaiting the delayed launch of the GB News channel and will transfer all my consumption of news to Andrew Neale’s gang. I hope that our host will be a regular guest and contributor.
What a pity that Andrew Neale isn’t planning a radio as well as a TV station because Times Radio is rather dire.