Trust in me!!
The Government is reportedly set on removing the regulation of the BBC from the BBC Trust and handing it to Ofcom as the Telegraph reports:
The BBC Trust will be axed and its powers handed to the communications regulator Ofcom, Westminster sources have revealed.
For the first time in the broadcaster’s nearly century-long history, it will be governed by an external body, as part of the renegotiation of the BBC Charter.
The move is expected to be signalled in a Green Paper that will formally trigger Charter renewal negotiations within weeks.
It comes after John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, insisted that he does not have a “vendetta” against the corporation but warned that it needed a “very robust system in place” to deal with issues of impartiality.
Negotiations towards the renewal of the BBC Charter have not begun formally, but a source close to the Government’s plans said “you can put your mortgage on it”, referring to abolition of the BBC Trust and expansion of Ofcom’s remit.
If true it’s not before time….how can the BBC regulate itself? Clearly it can’t judging by performance.
The other issue is the Charter…at present it requires the BBC to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’ but fails to set out what that means, what is a ‘civil society’?, what do you have to do to be a good citizen?, which allows the BBC to interpret that obligation how it likes….in other words if it thinks mass immigration is good for Britain, and it does, it can broadcast pro-immigration propaganda, similarly for climate change or Europe or indeed any subject it likes.
Either that requirement needs to be removed from the charter or there needs to be a body that is from a far broader spectrum of society than is employed by the BBC which can give a much more balanced idea of what that Society actually thinks and wants and sets out guidelines for the BBC to ‘push’ as propaganda….propaganda that is at least more representative than what we get at present….obviously that is fraught with difficulties and would be almost impossible therefore the simplest and preferred method would just to remove the obligation from the BBC and let it simply be a broadcaster rather than an organisation that is sanctioned and legally obliged to engineer social change and which sets out to manipulate its audience with propaganda based upon its own left-leaning values in order to do that.
The simplest requirement by far, as a measure of suitability to form part of the ‘broader spectrum of society’ would be no association whatsoever with the Guardian, at any time – other than those occasions when browsing articles not obscured by chips.
The former editor of ITV news who now works for Offcom was asked to comment on Radio 4 this morning . That just about says it all !! This organisation will be made up of ex BBC and media employees who will not want to rule against their previous colleagues and can therefore hardly be called on to be independent .
Example from the past where Offcom’s ruling clearly and immorally supported the programme editor’s ruling on C4 .
http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/kurdish-viewers-complaint-about-photo.html
Another example shows from 2005 Offcom giving a ridiculous statement to justify that C5 was not at fault for broadcasting an incitement to breaking the law. At the end of a C5 particularly nasty anti American, and anti Israel documentary Professor Honrich called for “civil disobedience” to change British foreign policy which was clear incitement to the viewers to commit crimes against the state.
Offcom eventually came up with ” We are sure Prof Honrich meant his comments to be taken “metaphorically” .
As I pointed out on the general thread earlier, the past performance of government regulators gives us little cause for hope.
Water charges? Energy? Telephones? Financial conduct? Has there been a single regulator who has not acted against the public interest whenever he or she had the chance?
The popular definition of madness – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result – has rarely seemed more appropriate.
Once upon a time all public bodies were ultimately the responsibility of a government minister.
The sole purpose of these Ofnots seems to me to be to decouple the minister from any blame and the public bodies from scrutiny by parliament.
Does any one really believe that we would still have nuisance telephone calls if we had a Postmaster General ‘stopping the buck’, for instance? Or the idiotic decision of Ofgem to make us all pay standing charges on our fuel bills so we can’t make a simple comparison of energy costs?
Who will regulate the regulators?
Ofcom?
OfCom, Ofgen, OfWhatever.
These entities have a spotless, untarnished, unblemished, flawless, record.
A record of performing their task in a totally, completely, wholly perfect, way.
Carried out in the most timely, prompt, celeritous, speedy, manner.
Without fear or favour Ofetc have carried out their onerous, difficult, duties in a neutral, balanced, in a word, impartial, manner.
To the complete satisfaction of all parties.
Those who ran these magnificent entities then left, to work for UnOfcom, UnOfgen etc.
‘If true it’s not before time….’
Well, truth can vary. From the Telegraph link:
‘Westminster sources have revealed’
However…
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/26/government-denies-decision-ofcom-replacing-bbc-trust
‘The forthcoming green paper on the BBC is likely to call for the abolition of the BBC Trust without backing an alternative regulator, according to sources close to the government.’
So, source to taste?
However, one thing no one is in any doubt about:
…how can the BBC regulate itself? Clearly it can’t judging by performance.’
That’s… anyone. And for years.
Yet this overpaid bunch of old boys and girls have been adjudicating on their mates’ efforts and deciding they get it all about right, to the present day. And will continue as the latest episode of ‘Yes, Minister’ is played out.
As to OFCOM, I have so far found no one in my sphere that thinks it is anything other than either a paper tiger or a stooge for the industries it is supposed to represent the public against.
And yet these are the chaps John Whittingdale steered his ‘Future of the BBC’ committee to at every opportunity.
I might also add that the supposed nemesis of the BBC was also keen on making the licence poll tax unavoidable by either loading council rates or ISP service charges at source.
And which two policies are we all being set up to swallow on a tell it often enough basis?
Why are these ‘negotiations’?
The BBC is a state corporation funded by the Living Room Tax. The Government should tell the BBC what is going to happen ….
No the BBC is a fifth column state within a state. The government can only do what is acceptable to this collective of minorities.
Just break it up, sell it off, and give part of it to the loony left, Corbyn, Livingstone, Boy Owen Jones, Tariq Ali, Natalie, the Mad Pixie, Left Unity, People’s Assembly and all, to run on subscription as a left,Islamic, news programme where it broadcast features on the progressive side of ISIS and the building of socialism in Venezuela.
I thought that one of the roles of these OF**** was to protect the consumer by promotion of competition. If so then surely they can’t allow a state funded, near monopoly, to continue to dominate broadcasting in this country. The case for breaking up the BBC is overwhelmingly strong but no one has the balls to even try to make the case to the public.
The best that we can hope for is that Ofcom does take over governance and does hold the BBC to account a bit more than the self governance that the corporation has enjoyed until now.
Whittingdale may also nibble away at the BBC by fixing the LF at the current level for another few years, perhaps even withdrawing the government funding for over 75 year old’s LF, which would cost the BBC a few hundred million. Decriminalising none payment of the LF would also be a useful move again costing the BBC a few hundred million. He could force them to sell off local radio stations, proceeds to the Treasury of course. He might even bar them from charging for new technology distribution of content which would be very painful for the BBC and do increasing damage as fewer and fewer people watch TV. But outright closure will not happen nor will full subscription which is by far the most sensible way forward.
I hope they rename it OfSwitch.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/mykey/BBC%20appeal.png
Regulation is political theatre – the antithesis of corporate or individual justice. It treats offenders as stake-holders and places them on a par with those they have offended against. It is the dream and creation of a civil service which is entirely value-free, apart from the gangster values of loyalty and stability.
A regulatory regime effectively removes the franchise, and the last vestiges of political power, from the general population, and hands it over wholesale to bureaucrats, or as they are now known, ‘technocrats’.
The EU is built on regulation; the negotiations with the IRA which brought them into civil government were an exercise in creating a regulatory framework; the attempts to stealthily introduce sharia into UK law are being pursued by regulatory means; the ‘decarbonisation’ of the economy is synonymous with the most ambitious framework of international regulation the world has ever seen.
The BBC should welcome the ‘imposition’ of an external regulator. It will effectively indemnify it from any possible charges of partiality, and protect its funding, organisation and personnel from any threat of real change, let alone organisational demise. The BBC will have become a white elephant, and moreover one whose trumpeting will drown out any possibility of unhindered conversation among its unwilling hosts.
I heard somewhere that this would be the inevitable consequence of the lies given by the BBC to Mensa members about the 28 “best scientific experts” and the collection of lies and unresolved mistakes from the incestuous circular analysis of his own mistakes by Professor Peter Cox of the BBC Trust, responding to a complaint from a said member that Whittingdale was told about. Three years later and I find out that Professor Peter Cox was also behind the document with the same lies and mistakes that caused a rebellion of the Royal Society fellows.