Another episode in the everyday story of the Balen Report.
Last time they decided that “the information sought was held by the corporation for the purposes of journalism, it was effectively exempt from production under the Act, even if it was also being held for other purposes.”
When applied to the BBC, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t mean ‘Freedom’ or ‘Information’ – it just means ‘Act’.
Next Act. Supreme Court.
Bookmark the permalink.
To Act suggests that some action has taken place. Since that isn’t happening, it doesn’t even mean Act, which leaves you with the word “of”.
We (who have paid the Licence Fee) have paid for the Balen report to be produced, therefore we should have every right to read it. This goes for most pulicly paid for institutions and services details. Only in the case of national security, personal security and some personal information should this not apply.
“The Balen report has always been intended as an internal review of programme content to inform future output. It has never been intended for publication, whereas the BBC has already released the independent impartiality review on the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East conducted by Quentin Thomas’s committee.” Martin Rosenbaum
Intent has nothing to do with if something should be released under FOI or not. What makes the Balen report so much more different than the Quentin Thomas’s so-called independent impartiality committee review that would necessitate spending hundreds of thousands of Licence Fee payer’s money? I suspect we know the reasons…
Quentin Thomas, when I met him as a Home Office Under-Sec, was a prat – but smooth. Maybe that’s how he ended up in the NIO as bosscat.
Its a pity that site doesnt include the arguments being used to back up the report being released.
Mailman
Who knows what the Supreme Court might find. But from experience, the Court of Appeal does not allow an appeal against its own decision unless it sees the case as still arguable.
Mr Sugar is a real hero. He has been fighting this case since 2005, it reads.
Back to a former Master of the Rolls, Lord Tom Denning, not so many years ago against Peter Shore as Sec. of State for Trade –
“You may be mighty in this land, but the law is above you”
Or glistening and momentous words to that effect.
Climategate? WikiLeaks? … Balengate? O:-)
Another BBC court case…
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1974-gerards-wife-caught-in-tv-licence-battle
Not to detract in any way with the substantive point at issue, but surely the prosecution would be made against the home owner in whose name the licence would need to be. One presumes this would be the same one named up the point of opt out? No excuse for Capita’s thuggism, but if in the Mrs’ name, an Achilles heel exposed?
Otherwise how on earth can the authorities cherry pick whoever they fancy to pursue?
If so, this suggests another ‘unique’ that one can accord the BBC, and an interesting legal precedent, especially for all those employed by Aunty who share an address with another who may be breaking the law. Especially any in-house recreational substance retailers.
But then, as with Labour MPs, one is sure that would be… ‘different’.
I accept the point that Mrs. Batten may be the home owner but I doubt it. It is equally as likely Mr. Batten is the owner or they own the house jointly.
Isn’t the point If you watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV you must, by law, be covered by a TV Licence, no matter what device you’re using.
You don’t need a TV Licence
If you’re a lodger and have a relationship with the homeowner – for example, a family member, common law partner, a nanny, au pair or housekeeper
I don’t have to pay this tax (not in UK) but from a practical POV don’t the authorities actually have to catch you with a TV or similar in your home? If you’re a nanny etc., your defence is that you are covered by the house license.
This case is as explosive as the Balen case for the BBC. It’s only Magistrates Court, so I predict a loss leading to appeal right up to the House of Lords.
Interesting point that the BBC chose to sue Mrs. Batten rather than UKIP MEP Gerard Batten who was openly challenging the television license tax. He accuses it of KGB tactics, pressuring him through his innocent wife.
Possibly the BBC thought she (BTW What is her name?) might be less eloquent and persuasive in court than her husband. Or maybe, it’s just coincidence. They sent the team to the house and she was at home. Personally I opt for the conspiracy theory although generally I reject conspiracy when stupidity is an adequate alternative explanation.
Batten’s defence is that the BBC has consistently over a long period of time been in breach of its Charter and Regulations to provide unbiased reporting. I argue that a contract exists between the BBC and viewer and that BBC has broken its part of the contract. For my part of the contract I no longer watch the BBC and therefore my obligation to pay is removed.
B-BBC really should keep abreast of this story as the BBC will keep it hidden for as long as possible.
As with Charles Moore’s refusal to pay until Jonathan Ross left the BBC’s employ, informing the BBC of such refusal is asking to be prosecuted – and he was and (Mrs) Batten is. Although the TV tax is hypothecated it is still a “general” tax and can no more be legally unpaid than can taxes used to pay for the Army or for wind farms. There is no more a “contract” between the viewer/licence payer and the BBC than there is between me and the idiot down the road putting a windmill on his roof and getting money, thereby, from the taxpayer.
OTOH more strength to Mr Batten’s elbow although I suspect that the house – and the licence – are in Mrs Batten’s name. The BBC is stupid and vindictive but not so stupid as to prosecute where a successful defence would be so simple to mount. The whole point of refusing to pay is that one is prepared to take the consequences. There’s no point in refusing to pay the TV tax and then complaining that the BBC seeks to extract payment. However, if enough people refused to pay the TV tax it would be impossible to enforce it despite it being the law.
Admirable though Mr Batten’s position is he would have been better advised to persuade his party to launch a mass refusal to pay the TV licence rather than protest alone. Were all UKIP members together with those who voted for UKIP at the EU election stop paying the tax, the BBC would have some trouble dragging that lot through the courts.
Sometimes a lone stand can pave the way to people taking action. Mr Batten has taken a very principled stand. Since Her Majesty’s Government lacks the principle needed to restore BBC impartiality, Mr Batten’s actions may well lead to the mass license payer revolt to compel HMG to restore impartiality to the BBC, which of course means a massive cull of the likes of Humphrys, Naughtie and Paxman, and all the behind the scences subversives.
HP
I couldn’t agree with Mr B more but these things require an organised approach. Moore’s gesture (and an older one by Jonathan Miller – the journalist not the luvvie) might have got a few more onto the non-payment bandwagon but scarcely enough to give Humphrys nightmares. A UKIP sponsored refusal would not just get publicity it might spark a mass boycott of the licence fee: at worst, it might get UKIP as many appearances on QT as the Green Party.
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1974-gerards-wife-caught-in-tv-licence-battle
I am pretty sure the Gestapo would have had to go to the home and anyone there is legally guilty if no licence fee is held. I seem to recall that a babysitter got done years and years ago.
Notwithstanding the above. The best way to go on this would be Judicial Review. I think that can apply to anyone paid for by the public. A JR may well say that a contract between the BBC and the viewer is implicit. That would set the cat amongst the beeboids!
Nobody gives a fuck sue, let em blow themselves up.
Charming !
…..if the BBC blows itself up?
stop being a dick turpin.
stand and deliver.