Licence Revised


Quite a few people have picked up on Grant  Shapps comments about spreading the Licence Fund around a bit more.

A good portion is already doled out to Channel Four, but of course that is merely the BBC’s inbred cousin with fewer inhibitions and a disturbing tendency for showing off in the rudest way possible.

Hardly a balance considering together they pretty well dominate political broadcasting in this country.

It didn’t take long before the BBC struck back in its report…11 lines in and they came up with this:

A BBC spokesman said transparency and freedom from political pressure were key to the BBC’s future.


Clearly trying to paint this purely as ‘political interference’  rather than a measured and appropriate scrutiny of the BBC when it has shown itself to be out of control over the last year.  The BBC weren’t so keen on ‘freedom from political pressures‘ when it jumped aboard the Leveson band wagon and joined in the highly political attempts to stop Murdoch buying up BSkyB.

The trouble with that position is that the BBC plays politics itself, it inserts itself into the political arena not merely reporting but attempting to pressurise politicians to change policies by painting them in as bad a light as possible as often as possible…it is almost a political party in its own right….even admitting as much during Thatcher’s era when it positioned itself as the ‘official opposition’ because Labour were so dire.

At the very least the BBC has become the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party when it comes to undermining welfare reforms…the ‘bedroom tax’, or knocking any economic success…the ‘wrong sort’, questioning employment rates …a ‘puzzle’, or attacking ‘rotten’ free schools.


Last week we had a minor classic of an example of the BBC trying to influence events and policies as Mishal Husain (Husband, Meekal Hashmi…an ‘active Lib Dem’)  was interviewing William Hague who was talking about peace talks on Syria in Geneva next month.

Husain seemed intent on a particular point…getting Iran into the peace talks……

She asks:  What about Iran where there are positive signs as far as the leadership (?) are concerned?  Is that the key? [to the peace talks]

Hague says:  If Iran could play a more constructive role it would be helpful…and if it accepted the same criteria for the negotiations as all other parties did……

Husain goes on:  So are you inviting the Iranians to Geneva then…it would be the obvious thing to do if you’re serious about bringing them into the fold and using their influence.’


Hague’s answer was essentially ‘no’...unless Iran entered into negotiations starting from that common basis, which they haven’t so far agreed to.


However the BBC news bulletins straight away began reporting that Iran was likely to be included in the talks.

Husain tweets:

Mishal HusainVerified account@MishalHusainBBC  Iran could be invited to next month’s Geneva talks on Syria @WilliamJHague #r4today


And yet that wasn’t what Hague said…he came into the interview with no such intentions and you could tell from his answers that he had no intention of inviting Iran if at all possible.

This is the BBC making up news as it goes along, creating stories that it then headlines….this ‘Iran to be invited to peace talks’ was a story purely created by the BBC.

Maybe it was Husain, first week in the new job, trying to make a splash.



What was also of interest was this from Husain:

‘…the pressure has been taken off Assad, he’s very comfortable…more comfortable than ever before since this conflict began’


Well yes….he’s pretty much safe now from military action to topple him by the US et al.


But why?


Essentially because Miliband ducked the military option:

MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.

The US said it would “continue to consult” with the UK, “one of our closest allies and friends”.

France said the UK’s vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.

Russia – which has close ties with the Assad government – welcomed Britain’s rejection of a military strike.



Will the BBC be asking Miliband to explain how he has allowed Assad to stay in place and reinforced both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the region?


Not so far.





Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Licence Revised

  1. The PrangWizard of England says:

    The BBC TV News was reporting Grant Schapps’ criticism but didn’t mention the issue of unbalanced reporting. On Andrew Marr we had him referring to the BBC getting ‘another kicking’ with Harriet Harman commenting that ‘it was wrong’ to criticise the BBC and it was a Tory plot, and Greg Dyke saying anyway it is what always happens in the run-up to an election. No mention, no hint, that there was any justification, except for the high salaries. Just the BBC again giving the impression with carefully selected guests that there is no substance to complaints of unbalanced reporting and its endemic bias.

    As for the spreading around of the Licence Fee, there must be an abolition of this tax. I object in principle to needing the State’s permission to receive any kind of broadcast news or entertainment.

    If the State decides it needs a Public Service Broadcaster it should be paid for out of general taxation and it should be a very small organisation indeed.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      The trolls will inevitably be called in to HQ today for a policy meeting on how to address the issue on this page.
      Stand by for a co-ordinated response.


      • Number 7 says:

        Have a look at the comments on the Telegraph report. The trolls are out in force this morning.


        • Deborah says:

          And the Daily Mail – number of comments all on the same theme saying the Prince Harry joke of HIGNFY was just a joke etc etc indicates co-ordinated response.


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘Stand by for a co-ordinated response’
        Though given recent efforts, coherence has gone out the window.
        In the past you have gently chided me for engaging. I have had the view that the notion they will, if left, wither on the vine has not been borne out. Attrition and abuse serves them well as they drive away and dominate. Job done.
        However, given the dire calibre now deployed I am thinking of taking your advice and ignoring those who patently are here to disrupt over debate. Or motivated more on political ideology over media good practice.
        Not sure I can let such efforts prevail unchallenged always but, taking a leaf from the BBC’s own booky-wooky of debating weasels, if they swoop in with a drive-by that fails to address the topic or BBC inaccuracy, unprofessionalism or lack of integrity as raised, a simple cookie-cutter may be issued: ‘Thank you for your input, which has been noted, but as irrelevant to the point of the forum, has now been also ignored’.
        The BBC can of course actually ban folk too just because they feel like it. And does.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Harriet Harman commenting that ‘it was wrong’ to criticise the BBC and it was a Tory plot’
      Easy enough to do, and better yet when the BBC edit suite and broadcast estate exists to beam it out across the land, free of context or counter.
      Hence, in my view, a route dangerous to pursue. The BBC can easily spin it to their advantage, ably assisted by ideological fellow travelers they would be happy to see in power again, and grateful for the PR that swung it.
      Direct party-based whinges seem doomed. IDS was bang on but it simply came across as petty sulking.
      If determined to go this route then foreign policy is firmer ground as this is much more the country first governmentally (with the LIbDem anchor on the coalition in there chirping away pointlessly somewhere) with ideological stuff waaaaay down.
      Hence, while Hague I place along with Cameron and May and Shapps on most aspects (ie: pretty low) if the BBC is going to set Husain on him trying to represent the UK overseas, their wicket can look decidedly stickier. If she sees the BBC as a way to push Iran’s interests over that of the UK good luck to her, especially as her history, background and motivations get (rightly) brought in to understand what seems to be driving her. Then, in turn, what prompted BBC high command to place her in such an influential position of editorial power. As with Mr. Bowen being seen as impartial to oversee the ME given his experiences standing in the way of ordnance (possibly understandably, but literally incredible to be placed as an arbiter of opposing sides’ activity), her track record of impartiality and integrity is hard to excuse.
      Eddie Mair gunning for Paxo market rates by being a rude, unidirectional twat with a pol is shameless par for the course domestically, but banging on about not enough dead Israeli kids to suit your moral relativity, and folk with kids might start to feel things are a bit iffy.
      And trying to drop Britain in things by claiming stuff has been said that isn’t… is very much BBC SOP but very much not on.
      Propaganda is supposed to be an abuse of truth and the population by government using the state media.

      The BBC state-propped-up media monopoly appears to be using it as a means to abuse truth, the public and the government they elected.
      All backed by editorial by omission and other censorship techniques to enhance narratives and interpret events in very narrow directions that suit the BBC’s world view.
      If they want to rule rather than represent, opine rather than report… fine.
      But like others in a free speaking democracy, let them do it by seeking voluntary support via regular ballot and/or market force revenue representing consumer choice over coercion.
      Past and future decades-long unique funding via state compulsion, with zero accountability or consequence has brought the BBC to the point it is now.
      And it is not good enough to continue.


  2. Frank Words says:

    Well at least someone in the Government has spoken up, too little, too late and not very convincing.

    However, it is not tinkering required but abolition of the licence fee. The BBC is not capable of riding itself of its institutional left wing bias so let it fund itself, live within its means and sink or swim.

    It can go subscription – say £150 a year – and if enough people want it will get by. If not then start cutting.

    As for “another kicking”… I wish…


  3. Arthur Penney says:

    FWIW I prefer Assad to the alternative.


  4. chrisH says:

    Shapps little cavil at the BBC was-as you`d expect-puffed up into “political interference” by the pliant, scripted news monkeys on the hour this morning(Radio 4).
    Yet we were told that Vicky Pryce would be reviewing the papers on BH later.
    1. Isn`t she still a criminal with her tag and all?
    2. Should taxpayers money be constantly given to the Huhne Empire, given that we`re not supposed to be rewarding criminal activities?
    3. How much have these two criminals cost us with their endless trawls around the nations BBC studios(local and national, by the way…Pryce was tourng the south coats local BBC outlets to trash her ex hubby…and, naturellement-all men per se.
    I propose that everybody withholds 1/365 of their license fee…these two shafters surely have had 24 hours of BBC flummery by now..and if not, let the BBC give us the precise figure.
    I would hate to be an accomplice to criminal activities. let alone be paying for it…bad enough Savile, Hall,Teret, Denning. etc. etc.
    Real Academy of Crime, the BBC!


    • Frank Words says:

      Yes, Chris Huhne and his ex seem to be enjoying the sort of criminal rehabilitation the average old lag could only dream of.

      She is writing a book on the economic effects of prison on women (is there a BBC 2 documentary in this?) and a frequent visitor to Broadcasting House.

      He has a nice management position in the City promoting Green Energy, a column in The Grauniad from which to denounce the dreaded Murdoch with some crackpot conspiracies and seven homes.

      They are the sort of people the BBC would have on speed dial.

      I would put a bet on that the same happens for Denis “I Love the EU” McShame, if he goes down.

      PS: In the interests of balance I should mention Jonathan Aitken does get interviewed by the BBC very occasionally, when they want an establishment ex con (or ex Con). (Jeffrey Archer, though, has always been beyond the pale).


    • Observation says:

      I have withheld 365/365ths.


      • John Standley says:

        Me too – no licence (legally) for 8 years. And I’m remarkably better informed by sourcing information on-line instead of being subjected to the distorting prism of BBC “enlightenment.”


        • Can D says:

          Absolutely agree. I’m only on 8 months.
          Do the threatening letters keep coming for the whole 8 years?
          I’m perfectly happy to prove my legality, provided they show up with a warrant, but I do find all the invective quite trying. It’s like breaking up with a psycho nut.


  5. GCooper says:

    As I commented in the thread where this was first raised, there is no chance whatsoever of this bunch of cowards standing up to the BBC in any meaningful way.

    Not only do they fear they would lose in a struggle of wills but most of the young political class has been so infected by the BBC worldview that it largely agrees with its propaganda.

    This is how we have ended up with a faux Conservative party virtually indistinguishable from the mainstream Left.
    The people who staff the BBC went to the same universities as our politicians and were taught the same twaddle by the same tired old Marxist traitors and plants. Not bright enough to think for themselves, they were infected and now spread the poison, exactly as intended.

    They will not dismantle the BBC. We will have to do it ourselves outside of the three party system and simultaneously dismantle the Left’s grip on political thought in this country..


  6. ember2013 says:

    It’s funny how Tory ministers criticising the BBC is “political interference” but when Labour governments agree to generous Royal Charters it’s not news worthy.


  7. Enjoyed this former chairman of the BBC’s take on the great spying row. The Obamessiah has stated that he knew nothing about it (corporate responsibility anyone), so Dyke thought that it must have been George Bush who set it up!


  8. GCooper says:

    Dyke is a creature of minimal intellect and huge self-regard. He was perfectly at home at the BBC.


    • johnnythefish says:

      I always thought Roland Rat was the peak of his achievements. ‘Roll the VT, Errol!’


      • Buggy says:

        Roland Rat was FANTASTIC.

        Until, of course, the bloody Beeb got their hands on him adn ruined his career. Damn them.


  9. Cosmo says:

    They spoke about the openness and transparency of the BBC. FFS ” THE BALAN REPORT”.


    • Guest Who says:

      While we should get to see it (why not.. we paid for it) I’d caution it ever being seen as a single-issue Holy Grail.
      They may just produce it at a key moment to remove that thorn. Then what?
      Even then, given the BBC’s current way with FoI exemptions and redactions, who is to know what gets shown is anything like what was prepared?
      My level of trust with them is on par with a BBC line manager with the top floor.
      And to gauge how low that is read the Pollard or Rose Reports… the bits they did not manage to hide.


  10. Pounce says:

    You know what I am more than happy to see the bBC licence fee remain, however and a big however like all public funded orgs I would like to see some accountability


    • Call me Infidel says:

      I am not happy for the tv tax to remain. In a digital age with no analogue signal there is no excuse for the signal to remain unencrypted. The license fee should be used to purchase digital boxes for all subscribers. Sky subscribers could pay a fee to Sky to enable them to view the BBC, anyone else would be given a free digital box at the next license renewal. At the following renewal they get the choice of subscribing. If they don’t pay they don’t get to watch. This is what the BBC is terrified about and why you will never see it mentioned by them lest the idea gain popularity. Lets see how long they last when people are given the choice of whether they want to fund the Labour parties media wing.


      • Pounce says:

        Never thought about that angle. Thanks for that. Food for thought.


      • Wild says:

        Freedom of choice – the horror!!!!

        For the Left it is analogous to vampires and sunlight.

        The BBC is there precisely because it does not subject the Leftist establishment to any critical attention.

        Even that is being too generous. The BBC are a propaganda machine which 24/7 tries to obscure the bleeding (sometimes literally bleeding) obvious and replace it with correct Party thinking.

        Opening a window and throwing light on that hive of parasites and liars would be fatal for them.

        Do we have a choice if we want to fund the BBC? A free society is (and always will be) the greatest enemy of the BBC. That is why they hated Thatcher so much – Stalinist parasitical twats.


        • mo says:

          “Freedom of choice – the horror!!!!

          For the Left it is analogous to vampires and sunlight.”
          Brilliant description of BBC. Nice one Wild


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘I am not happy for the tv tax to remain’
        There’s principle and precedent at stake.
        In this day and age, in a global market, foisting a fee of any kind on being able before what one choses to watch goes beyond anachronism, never mind what those few who are handed the unique funding opt to use it for.
        There are two basic models for media delivery: subscription or ad-based.
        Both have at their heart choice, especially the one to reject. That has accountability with teeth built in, and delivered by the public market, not proxies or representatives or community leaders.
        It is also not comparable to health or education as some would attempt to spin it.


      • GCooper says:

        That may be OK if you are willing to see analogue transmissions cut off but I am not – and I bet a lot of others aren’t either.

        To start with, there are literally millions of fully functioning pieces of equipment that can only receive analogue signals and they would be so much scrap if analogue transmissions were switched off.

        Moreover, those of us who live in rural areas know only too well how unreliable digital signals can be,

        I can see what Pounce means and I find it intensely painful advocating the destruction of what really was the world’s greatest broadcaster not so many years ago. But I cannot see any alternative. The BBC is now beyond redemption.


        • Will Scarlett says:

          I thought analogue TV signals were switched off in the UK in October 2012 and the old TV frequencies were released for 4G mobile telephony?

          As far as I know, we are all receiving digital TV in the UK now?

          You may be referring to radio signals of course and I would agree that DAB digital radio coverage is patchy and unreliable in some rural areas.

          For the record, I think the BBC should be privatised or sold off and made to compete in the real broadcasting world.

          The £145 “TV Tax” enforced by the threat of imprisonment is not appropriate in our modern age.

          The BBC control over 70% of the news media in the UK and the idea that they provide balanced unbiased output is risible. For years now, from my perspective, the BBC has been the propaganda wing of the Labour Party.


    • Joshaw says:

      “happy to see the bBC licence fee remain”

      So would I, but it would involve so many changes that the prospect is almost non existent.

      Programming capable of standing on its own two feet would go (eg: Eastenders), all the peripheral stuff would go, programming would concentrate on issues and subjects not catered for elsewhere (much of it would be unashamedly elitist, although I dislike the word), and I’d want a change of culture that would involve replacing most of the staff. As I said, prospect almost zero.


    • Stewart says:

      For any didn’t click link –
      Is the BBC biased
      56% yes 44% no (@19:08hrs)
      And that from the bourgeois fauxcialist huffington post!


  11. Thoughtful says:

    Two things strike me here.

    Firstly it is obvious that the Tories have no intention of abandoning the licence fee and are looking at extending its reach. Not good news for those of us hoping to see an end of it.

    Secondly this is nothing more than another stealth tax. It doesn’t just pay for the Biased Broadcaster, and channel 4, it is also ‘top sliced’ an increase originally made to fund the digital switch over, but never removed when the project ended – effectively an increase for the BBC.

    A form of this was proposed by Labour prior to the last election:
    An interesting partial break up, no wonder the BBC didn’t like the idea!

    Or how about the Lib Dems arguing that the licence fee should be scrapped?

    “Part of the BBC licence fee will be used to fund universal broadband access”

    “For years now, I’ve argued the BBC licence fee should be abolished. It’s the product of an analogue age which in the second half of the twentieth-century assured proper competition between the BBC and ITV (and, later, Channel 4 and Five), driving up standards across the board. There is a real risk, though, that in the next few years, the BBC licence fee will so skew the market in favour of ‘Auntie’ that there will be no competition at all – acclaimed, risk-taking, innovative telly will become the exclusive preserve of the BBC. If that happens the viewer will be the loser. ”

    Labour looking to break the BBC up Lib Dems wanting to abolish the licence tax, and the Tories looking like they want to keep it? Has the world been stood on its head?


  12. dave1east says:

    here’s a link to Republic’s list of prominent supporters – notice anything?


    • Ian Rushlow says:

      Rather reminds me of that line in the film Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects!”


    • Buggy says:

      Imran Khan ? Kitty Kelley ? What in the name of everlasing f*** is our form of government to do with foreign nationals ?

      No Emma Thompson, which is a surprise, but I’m most impressed to see that intellectual heavyweight Stan “The Black Isiah Berlin” Collymore is on the list having taken a well-earned break from clouting girlfriends and his busy dogging schedule.


      • Frank Words says:

        Having Stan Collymore (the one time aspiring Labour MP) and Captain Sensible supporting the cause are just the sort of people any campaign would be crying out for.

        I’ve only just stopped laughing.


        • Buggy says:

          Yes, it was nice of them to tip the wink that Ray Burns (Who he?) is actually Captain Sensible (Ah-a! Illumination strikes ! Somebody who hasn’t been relevant for the thick end of thirty years). Wish they’d done the same for some of the other prominati on their ‘little list’.

          Actually, that’s facetious of me. If you click on the names then you’re redirected to the relevant wiki page. I’d recommend Bea Campbell, whose muddled life could have come, unedited, straight from a Peter Simple column.


          • Frank Words says:

            Just read it. My word, it’s Dave Spart come to life and in a dress!! (If Campbell wears a dress that is – Maoist boiler suit might be more de rigueur)


    • RCE says:

      The shortlist for the Question Time panel for the next 10 years?


      • dave1east says:

        not only that, all the `entertainers` who can expect a radio 4/bbc2 bung, all the politicos who can expect to have their quotes repeated reverentially and all the `sports stars` who can expect to be on panels.

        this is the bbc’s revenge for having to be nice about the diamond jubilee.


  13. chrisH says:

    Mishal Husein and associated script monkeys and editors making up British policy as they go along?..Hague presumably meant to say it, so let the Today dhimmis do it for us all.
    And the BBC DARE to worry about “political interference”…what else do the BBC do these days but create Hells Kitchen with Halal butchers and EU suckups at the slaughterhouse gates?
    F888 Off BBC…was it 14 or 16 “insurgents” that Iran hanged the other day?…or do they all have to be gay these days to receive such treatment?


  14. chrisH says:

    Jamalal Kiram the Third?
    No-me neither.
    But he died recently, a man of “effnisisy” who wanted stuff back from the British Empire…he`s something in the Phillipines, but that`ll be our fault from way back.
    What`s the betting that he`ll be on “Last Word” before too long.
    Anti-British agenda, victim and of colour….now that`s three boxes ticked for the self-loathing BBC!
    I`ve had a good run of late…now if only he wrote poetry or headed up a womens group…I`d be on a banker!
    Scott…doris?…you heard it here first!


    • Buggy says:

      We sold Dewey a couple of colliers and informed him the the Spanish-American War had started (and that, as a belligerent, his squadron would need to leave Hong Kong) but it’s a bit of a stretch, even in the fast-expanding modern grievance industry.

      All the same, I wouldn’t bet a shiny tuppence against Call Me Dave and his crew of wretches finding some sort of hand-wringing justification for reimbursing the descendants of chummy here from the nation’s coffers.


  15. The PrangWizard of England says:

    I saw a report, not sure if was the BBC or Sky, but it was about the protest by women in Saudi Arabia who are not allowed to drive a vehicle.
    A comment was made that ‘they are allowed to drive but if any were to apply for a licence they would be refused’. It is almost impossible to think of this without a sense of fear of the chilling thought processes of totalitarians.
    I have said, and without doubt will say again,that the BBC licence fee should be abolished and that I should not need the State’s permission to watch TV. It is already the case here you are prohibited from watching television unless you have a Licence. What if, just imagine, that some future government, which may not be far off, decides that people like most of us who favour freedom of the individual, and speak out, should have our licences removed, turning us immediately into criminals, to be harassed as result.
    Can’t happen here, won’t happen here? The mechanism is ready, it was conceived in a different era. The Soviet Union existed and was admired by many in Britain in positions of authority. Needing a licence to watch television is iniquitous and potentially sinister, and as many people who don’t have them already know, the State sends in the thugs.


  16. Kipling's Favourite Slice says:

    The arrogance of the BBC is beyond words. It now believes in itself as an unaccountable entity which is above political criticism and interference. It believes it can do what it likes with impunity. It simply must be privatized. As for Channle Four, or Foul as I prefer to call it, it is the most repugnant far-left broadcaster out there.


  17. johnnythefish says:

    28gate. Nuff said apart from there should have been a public enquiry to expose the BBC in all its lying, biased glory.


  18. Deborah says:

    Not sure whether this is for this thread or the Open Thread but as I understood that Mr Shapps said the BBC has to restore the public’s trust I will put the comment here (and there are nearly 300 comments on the Open Thread). Just been watching One Man and His Dog on Countryfile – 3 young men with their dogs – and you just knew there would have to be a female. Matt and the other judge were obviously in so willing the Welsh female to do well – any mistake was quickly excused – either the dog couldn’t hear the competitor because of the wind, or if the dog made contact from the front with the sheep – quickly explained that ‘this was allowed’. It was the obvious need for the BBC to have a female competitor and the need for her to do well that has partly lost my trust of the BBC – the BBC can no longer allow people to be judged for themselves – there always has to be an agenda.


  19. Llareggub says:

    I think the following statement captures everything that reveals the political bias of the BBC
    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules.


  20. Dave s says:

    All completetly irrelevant. There is no way this wretched government would do any thing about the BBC. It craves the BBC’s attention like a naughty child. It is largely composed of the identical pods who run the BBC and the liberal media.
    Window dressing to keep us restless scum from protesting too much at a blatent forced tax that benefits a lucky few and is as regressive a tax as you can think of.
    Peter Hitchens was right on QT. The elite just do not care and have no intention of compromising over anything at all.


  21. Monica Davis says:

    The Tories obviously have no idea how toxic Shapps is after his Michael Green moment. This shot over the bows should have been delivered by less of a laughing stock.


  22. Doublethinker says:

    Rather than threaten the BBC, and so provoke it to vent it full fury on them during the run up to the election, the Tories, should have said nothing but planned its immediate abolition once they were back in power.
    The bias keeps on rolling though. The BBC is claiming that E Miliband has pulled off a master stroke with his energy bill freeze and that he has made the political weather since the conferences. No he hasn’t , they have! The BBC chooses the news agenda for the country owing to their near monopoly. Stories of vital public interest can be buried but other ones are pumped up and kept running by them for ages. It depends entirely on whether the story fits the BBC agenda or not. This manipulation of news couldn’t happen if they were not in a monopoly position and of course it is highly damaging to our democracy. This is the single most important reason why the BBC has to go.
    How can


    • Chew Z says:

      I think it makes no difference either way. The BBC supports Labour and will attack the Tories next election regardless of what they say now.
      Given that the BBC is going to do that anyway it makes sense to put it on notice that it’s digging its own grave with such blatant partisanship.

      It’s an idle threat because they’d never actually do anything and they aren’t going to get a majority next election; so the BBC will almost certainly call their bluff and carry on supporting Labour.


  23. Alan Larocka says:

    ‘Channel 4 – BBC’s inbred cousin’ – absolutely on the money!


  24. George R says:

    Supplementary. A take from Hollywood:-

    “BBC Could Lose Right to Taxpayer Funding, Conservative Politician Warns”


  25. Guest Who says:

    I know this has almost fallen off the page, but seems a better place for any who may have expressed an interest in the subject.
    Reading this, I have to wonder if the Government hasn’t managed to pack anyone who may deal on an official basis with the BBC, with just about every compromised fool possible.
    When Mr. Patten says ‘we don’t get asked, or else’, these are the folk he says it to, and means it…