Folks, I am reminded that the Common’s Select Committee on CMS announced on 22 October that it is to hold an enquiry into the future of the BBC. The deadline for written submission is 6 December. Anyone seeking to make a submission should note that they have until the 6th December to address the future of the BBC.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Ken Hall says:

    I filled this out on the first day of the consultation. It was cathartic telling the BBC what I really thought of them.


  2. Guest Who says:

    Well, they have asked.
    It’s a wee bit hard to track down, so:
    It’s not the BBC, but it is a public sector outfit associated with them, so I will be reading those terms of reference and guidance notes carefully first. They have a funny habit of rejecting public input if it doesn’t conform to public sector templates.
    25MB seems a heck of a top end. Guess they are anticipating screen grabs or even videos, which is good. Though again, I’ve found they can deem giving them what they want, if it’s a lot, ‘a waste of time’ and conclude the exchange. Certainly CECUTT SOP.
    Bias is a clear issue, but it can be very subjective and hard to frame. I’ve seen clear horror stories swatted away gratefully at inquiries by BBC mandarins on the ropes, and these are what BBC PR then champion.
    What they can’t cope with, or stand, is facts.
    I see great opportunity for many things raised here, but it would need coordination and single points of contact to avoid overwhelming.
    DavidP’s best (where to start?) linked US/Obama stories, where’s there’s what the BBC says, or doesn’t (proving a negative of course a massive problem) and reality.
    Or DB’s & others twitter captures. Thing is, will the committee see them as relevant and accept them? Or are they already ‘comfortable’ with the notion (as is the BBC, clearly) that what a clearly-identified BBC employee punts out is a ‘view their own’?
    Me, I’m going to stick with my main area of interest, which is the complaints system.
    What they blow off by default, what they refuse to look at unless insisted upon, director-level patronising ‘belief’ in lieu of coherent explanation and, of course, expediting on the basis that a complainant has submitted too much information to make it a good use of BBC time to respond any more. Despite the fact that their attrition system has demanded it in the first place.
    There is of course a danger it looks like a coordinated campaign, but the BBC can’t really complain if it is.
    If they do, maybe it’s worth pointing at Stuart Hughes or that editor who recently went hunting for boycotts whilst coincidentally using BBC power to try and drive one.
    How did that work out once fingered, BTW?
    Like a lot with the BBC, when it doesn’t pan out the way they want, you seldom hear of it. As Lord Hall Hall says, a lot, moving on….
    Sadly, another near impossible to prove.
    They will get a lot of Savile rants which is actually understandable but off brief probably. I’ve yet to check but the key is focus on what is wrong, can be shown to be wrong and what makes the BBC Future as a professional, objective broadcaster of integrity hard to justify under the current regime any more than the last.
    Hiring scores more of additional £300k ideological chums will hardly prevent another Newsnight Savile (look at Panorama CiN) or DQF when all the money is going into featherbedding staff, hiring FoI legal teams, empire-building around the World or paying off victims of abuse by unaccountable ‘BBC spokesinthewheel’.
    Or campaigning on a commercial interest basis to close down private sector competition, or critics on line (via proxies like the Graun or #HackedOff) by using unique funding no one else has. The internet is not theirs to charge for. Opinion is not theirs to control or subvert using the power of £4Bpa in skewed messaging.
    At least, it should not be.


  3. Doublethinker says:

    If I knew how to make a submission mine would be simple.
    A democracy needs all its people to be well informed
    on the issues of the time. That requires them to have access to a wide range of information and for a rich plurality of views to be available. No single broadcaster can possibly be expected to provide this plurality no matter how fancy their Royal Charter may be. The BBC was formed on the 1920’s when there was a shortage of wavelengths and only a few ‘channels’ were available. Consequently we ended up a single broadcaster and it was decided to make this a state funded monopoly, the BBC.
    In the 21st century we have an almost unlimited ways in which content can be distributed and accessed by consumers. The model of having a single broadcaster, or as has developed, a state funded near monopoly making entry into the market difficult for commercial competition, is clearly no longer necessary and is anachronistic in a democracy.
    If there are concerns about dumbing down and lack of ‘programmes which educate’ being available without a state funded sector, I suggest that the state uses the License Fee income to commission suitable programmes from within the commercial sector with suitable legislation to make sure that channels get their share of commissions according to their viewing figures.
    The concept of the BBC is an anachronism in the 21st century and bad for democracy.


  4. S.Trubble says:

    Having just read the guidance on making a submission the a word was “evidence”.
    A composite as opposed to individual input may be worthy of discussion and comment.


  5. lojolondon says:

    Kept that pretty quiet, didn’t they?

    Googling but no luck yet, please can someone post the link?


    • Guest Who says:

      Yes, the promoting of this feedback opportunity has been as yet limited.
      Up a bit you’ll find the link to the form itself.


      • Amounderness Lad says:

        You can guarantee that the BBC will have circulated the details to all the “Useful Idiots” and the usual suspects to ensure they can marshal plenty of support from their Nodding Donkeys so they can claim a vast majority of the public think they provide a wonderful service and that when they bend forwards the people are bathed in the intense sunlight that’s produced.


    • Guest Who says:

      Ah, you have it.
      This is important too as it defines the parameters.
      Stray and one suspects the submission will fail.
      However there is fair scope:
      ‘The Committee wishes to examine the role, definition and scope of the BBC’s public service broadcasting. Linked to this will be the overall public funding of the BBC, how that funding is allocated, and whether a flat-rate licence system should be modified or replaced by alternative funding methods. The Committee is also interested in seeking views on the mode of governance of the BBC: the relative roles of the BBC Executive, the BBC Trust, Ofcom and the Secretary of State are all relevant. The Committee will wish to examine how the links between accountability, performance, and funding operate.
      That bold section intrigues.
      Of course they are ‘relevant’, as the current cabal have got the BBC where it is now.
      OFCOM is basically nothing to do with the BBC, and points you at the Trust. As does the SoS’s department.
      The Trust is the BBC checking itself of course, and then tells the SoS and anyone else who asks what they’re doing that they ask the questions and don’t answer.
      So she backs down and mutters darkly, whilst prefacing any statement on the BBC with ‘envy of the world’.
      Civil servants, especially those with a weather eye to career-terminating bullying by other civil servants (see Rose, QC) may thus be deemed a little conflicted themselves.
      I amy not put that in my submission, mind.


      • lojolondon says:

        Thanks, Guest Who – sometimes my messages are out of synch because I read things and then take a while to finish my reply –


  6. Guest Who says:

    These guys post infrequently, and often err on the ‘understanding’, but can delve deeply, so this one was a novel detailed critique to see, and may even have perked a few interested ears in various committees one presumes stay abreast of such academic monitoring, whilst seeing the BBC PR department doubtless boosted by another 147 rebuttplugs on the public dime (if on the ‘special projects’ budget given that ‘no money left’ issue even Aunty is facing, but can’t process as it hires endless more £300k visionaries):
    Tony Hall’s speech didn’t answer any of the real questions
    Well, wearily, that rather falls between… the whole point to any BBC response and… ‘the BBC only asks questions and does not answer them, or else we set BIJ on you’ ((c) Patten, C).
    ‘I don’t think James Purnell really answered the points I made. These weren’t debating points or arguments about stance or even about policy. There were things I wanted to know – practical factual things which I wanted Tony Hall to tell me. Instead I had listened to a very well crafted piece of marketing ‘
    Welcome to the club. It only costs £4Bpa too.
    ‘If your pension or your salary comes via investments in ITV or Sky, or any other media organisation which isn’t subsidised by the licence fee, you have every right to be alarmed by the BBC using your licence fee money to undercut the commercial organisations which pay you. This was an issue which was supposed to be dealt with by the BBC Trust,’
    Heresy!!!! The BBC is non-commercial, obviously. It just exists, and is uniquely funded, to crush opposition. Overseen by the BBC Trust. An internal turd-polishing concoction that meets in secret and is FOI excluded from explaining anything.
    ‘it seems highly likely that there will be fewer licence fee payers in the future, even though one-person-homes have increased. So the money just isn’t going to be there’
    Unless, of course, those who have hacked away at critics online and print (the Times? Since when?) get their ways to seeing a propaganda and censorship-guided, state-enforced imposition of a fee that any PC or internet connection requires Aunty’s little tithe too?
    That is, of course, a question. As is this…
    ‘Do Tony and James really understand the vast numbers of well-informed people with hugely differing demands out there?’
    The BBC won’t, or will try and get it lost in a sea of attrition dross from the voluntary, ideologically-committed or ‘I’m not ‘cos I say so’ funded glee club community, but I’ll offer an answer: No.
    But that won’t stop the BBC doing all in their power to ensure that such people are isolated, mocked, twitter-hounded and crushed from having any say, or influence on the majority of sofa-bound UK public who get their information, in, out or ‘enhanced’ via the BBC edit suite’s highly unique filter.
    You can’t tell everyone how much you are trusted or transparent you are, when you’re not, without learning a few lessons from history.
    Some treasures may end up better buried.


  7. Guest Who says:

    Interesting email in complement, coincidentally.
    It does link to a website page, but I notice the URL is coded by the BBC to include your email address and won’t work otherwise.
    Not sure why that might be necessary, but as the BBC here has a history of noting who has shared information about them I’ll opt to paste the text:

    Where next for the BBC?

    Thanks for signing up to hear more from the BBC Where Next team.

    On Tuesday 8th October Director-General Tony Hall outlined some of his plans for the future of the BBC.

    These plans cover three broad areas including the services we offer, improved digital access to our services and a commitment to bringing the best of British creativity to everyone.

    You can find out more about those ideas on the BBC Where Next website including a video and transcript of Tony’s speech from 8th October.

    Have your say in our survey

    Our online survey offers you the chance to comment on some of the key points from Tony’s speech.

    Your responses will be considered with other feedback we receive and used to help shape future BBC strategy.

    Complete the Online Survey

    Tony Hall’s speech

    Watch or read Tony Hall’s speech in full.

    @BBCWhereNext on Twitter

    Keep up to date with future developments.

    Ever get the feeling the public, and Parliament, are getting drowned in a sea of ‘stuff’ that ultimately means the status quo is maintained behind the impression of it all being listened to and addressed.
    I’d hazard very few will complete this. No one will know what happens to it if internal BBC. So the results are there to shape how they will.
    Telling it often enough is easy when its second nature now.


  8. stuart says:

    for one you can ask the bbc how do they select the question time and any questions audience,because the make up of the question time and any questions on radio 4 audience seems even to a blind man to be so left wing biased you would think it was a branch meeting of the socalist workers party.last night in liverpool was a perfect example of that.well done peter hitchens for standing your ground last night.


  9. Mark B says:

    I’ve taken the link and gave it to BBC Watch. I hope they too are able to make a submission.

    I hope that that is alright ?


  10. JohnB says:

    What is ‘the common’s’ ?