Why the BBC needs pushing off the taxpayers teat

Posted: March 25, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Big Brother, Incompetence, Legal, media, People power, propaganda

bbc-greenpeace-medToday, MP’s vote on whether it should cease to be a criminal offence to buy and watch a TV without paying a hefty fee for the production their propaganda, whether or not you choose to watch it. Nearly 10% of all court cases in the UK are for non-payment of this extortionate impost. Which of course is another burden on the taxpayer, who has to cover the cost of this TV tax enforcement. Most non-payers are people who don’t have enough money to cover all their costs and are claiming benefits. They need legal aid to fight their case. Triple whammy for everyone else.

If the BBC was a high quality broadcaster, we might be prepared to continue putting up with all this expense. But a string of scandals has so damaged its reputation and output that it has blown its credibility. The public has had enough of its antics, sins, omission, and bias. I won’t rehearse the list here, everybody knows. However there is one issue which has been successfully hidden by the BBC which deserves another mention. 28gate.

Jo Nova has an excellent post up covering David Rose’s exposé of the shameful 28gate saga. Here’s an excerpt:

First they take your money to force their opinions over you.

Then they take your money to hide what they were doing, because they knew what they were doing was wrong.

It was a turning point in BBC coverage. The 2006 seminar with “climate experts” turned out to be mostly a workshop with Greenpeace, industry activists and lobbyists. It was the point the BBC dropped even the pretense of impartial news reporting on the climate. After this “high-level” seminar the Beeb announced it didn’t need balance in the climate debate. Then having made out they were so scientific and honorable, they spent the next six years burning more money to hide the names of the experts from the public that paid for them.

Is there any better argument to explain why state funded media is not just a waste of money, but irresponsible, immoral and unethical political advertising?

There is no saving the BBC. Over the last decade climate change was supposedly the “biggest scientific” challenge for the world, and a massive cost to the citizens who were falsely told they needed to change the weather. More than ever, public funds should have been used to analyze both sides of the science and the politics. Instead what we got were the personal views of a select few, pushing their own political activism, while poor people were slugged for the cost of the news, the legal folly,  and worse of all, for the pointless expensive electricity.

David Rose, Mail on Sunday

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Helen Boaden.

Helen Boaden. Phot: Chris Eades – Daily Mail

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their legal battle is understood to be much higher.

In a written statement opposing disclosure in 2012, former BBC news chief and current director of BBC radio Helen Boaden, who attended the event, admitted:

In my view, the seminar had an impact on a broad range of BBC output

Be sure to read the whole article.

Here’s my message to the BBC. Stop using our money to propagandise us. Stop gagging the people who pay for your existence. Stop giving fat payoffs to corrupt  employees. Stop trying to make out you are impartial. Stop doing £100m projects you are too incompetent to manage.

Start treating your consumers with respect. Start taking their complaints seriously and responding to them properly. Start unwinding the damage you have done to science and debate. Start thinking how you are going to raise the cash to stand on your own two feet. Because the writing is on the wall.

  1. Joe Public says:

    Inhabitants of the UK should have ‘Freedom of Choice’ as to the source from whom they purchase propaganda.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Joe, dead right. If we are to have state funded propaganda, the funding should be evenly split between several partisan organisations. Better still, make the funding proportionate to viewing figures and give all the parties their own channel.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Freshly leaked docs, via the Bish:

    Secret Santa, the mole within IPCC Working Group II, has delivered his latest batch of goodies:

    1) The latest draft of the WGII Summary for Policymakers, currently being discussed in Yokahama
    2) A document floating round the conference that demonstrates through its title – “Hope for our Earth” – the policy-neutral environment in which delegates are operating.

    Click to access WGIIAR5-SPM_FGD_Revision_Display_Draft.pdf

    Click to access HopeforourEarthfromYokohama.pdf

  4. tallbloke says:

    More BBC coverup scandal – EU funding. Taking money from foreign powers. Treason. Breaking BBC charter.


  5. Richard111 says:

    I now consider ‘greenies’, and that includes the BBC, as the Judas Goat for Humanity.

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    CUT OFF THEIR MONEY. Socialists work on OPM (Other Peoples Money) they don’t create wealth. They gravitate to pots of money that others have gathered. As long as there are money-honey pots available they will want to use it for their agenda promotion. Stop the money gathering, stop funding NGOs from the public purse. Take away their access to funds and they will die. Trying to control them is a waste of effort as they will use your money to fight you and build their power.
    We don’t need them! CUT OFF THEIR MONEY! pg

  7. Background The seminar was conducted under the Chatham House Rule to enable free and frank discussion, something that is necessary for our independent journalism. Some information regarding this event was posted on a website in 2007 without the permission of the BBC, and later taken down. It has recently become apparent that this information is still available on an internet archive. However, this does not impact on the decision of the Tribunal nor the reason the BBC defended its decision not to disclose the material sought under the FOI Act. In total, £ 18,665 plus VAT of £4,09 1 was spent on legal fees. Please note however that the majority of Freedom of Information work is carried out in house within the BBC. The Information Policy and Compliance team, which deals with many aspects of FOI, does not charge out for its work and we therefore do not hold information relating to the individual costs of in -house work.

  8. Fed up with waste of money says:

    What about the waste of money? After only 18 months a revamp of two storeys of the new BBC broadcasting house because the creative guys didn’t like the layout and are replacing it with a themed East Enders layout. And they wonder why they get adverse press and license payers taxpayers are not happy.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Is this how it all ends for the profligate BBC?

    ‘The manifesto promised to “remove the legacy of public service by transferring all broadcasting to the private sector”, millions tune into their radios for the moment that the Royal Charter expires on the 31st December 2016.’


  10. […] This article was first published by Roger Tattersall on Tallbloke’s Tallshop […]

  11. Sparks says:

    Let them be forced to eat cake!

  12. Fanakapan says:

    Careful what we wish for :O

    At the moment watching the teevee without a licence has to pass the hurdle of Criminal proceedings in order to inflict fiscal punishment.

    Its entirely likely that this Decriminalization will end up seeing TV Licence evasion placed into the Fixed Penalty domain. Such a move would not only be a bonus to the BBC, but would also render those of us who choose not to receive banal rubbish over the airwaves, in a somewhat worse position than is now the case ? It will probably become all but impossible to evade paying for something that one does not use 😦

  13. jowbloggs says:

    Stopped paying the license quite a while ago (in accordance with the information freely available on tvlicensing.co.uk), I must say that I do not miss ANY broadcast TV especially the crap from the bbc.
    Must point out a pet niggle, the bbc is a private company something that most do not understand and tvlicensing is a subsidiary of the bbc.
    Simply put if you do not watch broadcast (real time) tv you do not need a license.

  14. Fanakapan says:

    ”Simply put if you do not watch broadcast (real time) tv you do not need a license”

    The BBC are actually hurting from the growing numbers who have taken advantage of that simple fact 🙂

    Which is why it is reasonable to expect the rules to be changed in a way that effectively closes that loophole, whilst seeming quite Reasonable to the 99% of pudding brained folk who rely on the TV for their daily fix 🙂

  15. Gail Combs says:

    Seems like a darn good reason to deep six the boob tube.

    I have not watched TV at home since 1974 and I certainly do not miss it!

  16. foxgoose says:

    Good post Rog.

    The BBC has distorted the whole British political scene for most of my (considerable) adult life.

    The idea of a dominant state broadcaster is fundamentally undemocratic.

  17. BelNeste says:

    Soon, you will have to pay for internet-connected computers. Because you can watch the programms. Germany already has gone that route:

    “If you live in Germany and you own a radio, a television or a computer, then you are obliged to pay the TV license fee (Rundfunkgebühr), once per household, which is used to pay the German public broadcasting services, similar to the UK’s BBC …”