Dan Hodges has become ever more desperate at the prospect of UKIP getting a permanent place in the hearts and minds, and on the voting slips, of the British people….even more so than the BBC, almost.

He’s denounced them as racist, and when he realised that this was not such a good idea as UKIP routed the other parties and he was ridiculed by thousands of comments under his articles, he’s decided to claim well, actually, not many people really voted for UKIP at all…apparently the Tories won the elections.

Anyway here is a comment, from ‘dissidentjunk’, under Hodge’s cry in the wilderness which might be of interest…..

One year to the general election….we could probably fill an open thread every day with the BBC’s bias as the charities, pressure groups and think tanks clamour for airtime, so readily given, to pronounce the coming apocalypse if the Tories get voted into power again….only today we heard the anthem for doomed youth blasting out on the BBC as yet another left leaning charity, Save The Children, warns us that welfare cuts and the cost of living crisis are going to  ‘sentence’ the young to a life of poverty in the near future….sounding remarkably like a Labour Party broadcast.

Hi all. I’ve been away for a few days so apologies this is late. For my sins, I watched a little of BBC World News. It is arguably even worse than what we endure in the UK!!!

As noted in the last post the big battalions are mobilising to defend the European Supremacy and Domination over us.

You might note a couple of things…that when the die-hards list the benefits of the European Adventure the BBC doesn’t counter with the disadvantages….that when UKIP, and its voters, are called nasty and racist the BBC doesn’t step in to challenge that….that when some dissembling politician says he is in favour of ‘controlled immigration’ and that UKIP wants to stop all immigration and start a race war the BBC again doesn’t correct that claim.

You could have heard all those claims, and more,  made today in an interview on the Today programme between Jim Naughtie and Tony Blair (08:10).

Why Tony Blair should be given prime spot on the Today programme is beyond me….or would be if I didn’t think the BBC had an agenda.

You might think that the BBC had dragged in Blair to point the finger of blame at him for the mess the political parties find themselves now in due to his policy of open door immigration and ever closer submission to the EU behemoth…but you’d be wrong.

It turned out to be a lightweight session with Naughtie lobbing in a few feeder questions to allow Blair to justify mass immigration, staying in Europe and to smear UKIP and its voters.

Naughtie asked the questions, Blair gave his spiel and they moved on to the next one without Naughtie challenging anything.  Job done.

Should the EU hand back some powers to the nation states?   Yes…but…..we can’t really do anything serious without Europe….we must take on those who are  anti-Europe, anti-Immigration….confront, expose and take them on.

You want a more positive case made for Europe?  Yes…..the rationale for Europe is stronger than ever….it’s all about power…weight, influence and power…you need alliances to exercise that…Europe is the answer (not NATO or the US? Naughtie doesn’t ask)   and this was the man who spurned the UN & Europe…..

[Note here Blair admits the purpose of Europe was to diminish the nation state]

Isn’t the likelihood of exit higher than ever?  No…and it is against the interests of the country.

What would you advise Ed Miliband to do?  Say no to referendum and keep the borders wide open.

Nick Clegg tried that argument and look what happened.  The problem with the LibDems is that their failure had nothing to do with Europe…or Immigration…their problem is that they are too right wing.

Did you make a ‘mistake’ about immigration when you were in office?   No,  you have to have proper controls but to allow that to trend into anti-immigrant feeling is a huge mistake…..if you look a little deeper at UKIP’s facade you get something a little nasty and unpleasant…..

Nothing nasty and unpleasant about Blair & Co….

…and Blair excitedly tells us……just look at the wonders of London and the incredible vibrancy and cosmopolitan feel that immigrants have brought to it.

So no difficult questions, no challenges to his answers and no counters to the smears he propagates against anyone who wants to limit immigration or divorce Europe…..no accusations that Blair himself is the architect of this ‘disaster’.

Note Naughtie suggesting Blair’s immigration policy was merely a ‘mistake’….that suggests they had a genuine attempt at implementing a suitable immigration policy but got it wrong….whereas we know that the strategy was a deliberate and calculated attempt to carry out a policy the results of which were known and expected…..mass immigration, job losses and wage cuts for the working class, housing shortages and social problems.

Blair says he is all in favour, and always has been, of controlled immigration…an obvious lie….Naughtie said nothing.

Blair then claims UKIP wants to stop all immigration and incites anti-immigrant feeling….again not true….they accept immigration but want it controlled…just as Blair said he does.  Again nothing from Naughtie.

When Blair calls UKIP racist Naughtie again says nothing…and yet there is nothing racist about UKIP’s policies…to conflate a few tweets from fringe members with party policy is highly dishonest….there are just as many such people in any other party which have their own fringe elements.

Just another ‘interview’ from a Labour supporting Naughtie on the pro-immigration, pro-Europe BBC feeding questions to the boss and giving him a platform to perform.

The machine is in motion.  It’s going to be a long year.

The day after the Euro elections end the pro-Europe propaganda begins. (H/T  Is the BBC biased?)

Mark Easton, the BBC’s very own pro-immigration/Europe Goebbels is back on our screens (23 mins 50) telling us that we all secretly long to be European, that in fact, due to ‘waves of European migrnats landing on our shores over 1000’s of years’ we are a country shaped by Europe.

Conclusion?  We should happily accept uncounted numbers of Europeans flooding over our borders without question and embrace ‘Europe’….you just have to ask…is this an opportunity or a threat?

Apparently we are becoming more European in our culture and daily life…he didn’t expand on that….probably because it was bollocks.

Or rather, ‘we’ as in the rich and edumacated…the poor, the tabloid readers, the less well educated  who don’t travel, don’t broaden their horizons and don’t have enlightened values thereof..and hence don’t realise what a boon it is to be subsumed by a European bureaucratic empire and swamped by a never ending stream of immigrants taking the housing, jobs, school places and NHS resources, naturally oppose Europe in their ignorance and prejudice.

The fools.

But hang…they don’t travel? My postman has just come back from Mauritius…with brown legs dangling out of his issue shorts to prove it….and just like him millions of working class people have travelled the world….done the old hippy trail, motorbiked around Europe, followed the football around the world, sat on the beaches in Australia, and yes toured the sights and cafes of Europe.  They are just as sophisticated, educated and worldly wise as any smug journalist on a BBC expenses junket in a linen jacket…a lot more so in fact.

People like Easton, ignorant, patrician, prejudiced and lying through their teeth, and paid for by my licence fee and using it to talk down to half the people in this country, just like his mates the politicians do, are heading for a fall.

Revolution? UKIP? Yes please. Sign me up.

This was blatant propaganda quite clearly timed to try and counter any ideas you might have that the bandwagon is rolling to exit Europe and thoughts you might entertain of jumping on board.

It is in fact a rehash of Easton’s previous fabrication about identity and immigration that we have looked at before:

Dulce et Decorum est, pro Ipsos MORI?

Easton tried to tell us that we were becoming less ‘national’, less connected to our own country…more a global citizen.

Problem is the stats just didn’t back up Easton’s interpretation…not in that survey, nor in numerous other ones that have been done.

Easton is pro-European and pro-immigration…and his BBC reports are shaped by those prejudices.

There is hardly a word that comes out of his mouth that can be trusted…there is nothing impartial or balanced about his reports.

I would have thought that it was fairly obvious to his bosses that he is totally unsuitable to present any programme about these subjects bearing in mind his clear bias.

Remember Easton is the man who told us the British Crime Survey was a thing of beauty…unchanging, reliable, representative, independent and informative…..no, it isn’t…it’s just as unreliable and dodgy as any set of stats….its computer system and software change all the time, the people who run it change, of the 40,000 people it boasts of surveying only about 1,400 make it through to the final analysis…and who does the final analysis?  A bloke sat at a desk in the Government’s Home Office who decides if each one can be classified as a crime or not…and therefore decide whether crime has gone up or down.

Reliable? Independent? My backside it is.  And neither is Easton.

Remember the delight of the BBC when research used by some to support austerity policies was found to have an error in its calculations…the BBC filled the airwaves with the news and gave us extensive briefings on the subject eulogising the clever lad who caught the profs out:

Reinhart, Rogoff… and Herndon: The student who caught out the profs

And

Reinhart and Rogoff correct austerity research error

Curiously when the new hero of the left, Thomas Piketty, gets it similarly wrong there is hardly a word…just this quick 50 seconds on newsnight (30 mins)

There appears to be nothing on the website and I haven’t heard anything on the radio unlike for Herndon who was given pride of place on several shows.

All very curious as this is a story in just about every newspaper and current affairs publication….except the BBC….Newsnight excepted.

The BBC goes very noisy when it thinks there is something that undermines austerity but keeps quiet when something undermines the left’s new narrative…one that is the central theme of Labour’s election manifesto.

The Spectator has a look at the FT’s claims:

Why didn’t Piketty’s Harvard publisher spot the errors which the FT has exposed?

In the last post I suggested that the BBC’s liberal, politically correct attitudes were partly responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism across Europe and elsewhere…the same could of course be said for the rise of UKIP as Tim Montgomerie explains:

The Ten Creators of UKIP

Illiberal liberals. I support gay marriage (shamefully, I was resistant to homosexual equality but now have the zeal of a convert) but, but, but I don’t think most traditionalists are homophobes. I think smart immigration benefits Britain but net immigration of 200,000 per year has never been endorsed by Britain’s voters. It’s too much. Have you seen house prices? I want British firms to have to invest in British workers and not always take the easy way out in employing people from abroad. However else are we going to cap the welfare bill for the working age population? Too many self-styled liberals don’t face up to these tough questions. They’re too busy shouting “bigot”, “racist” and “inadequate” at UKIP’s supporters. They still are. Too many right-of-centre commentators still want Cameron to declare war on UKIP voters and to deny that issues like immigration matter. They accuse UKIP voters of being hateful when, in reality, it is they who are hateful of UKIP voters and UKIP voters’ concerns.

UKIP is on a roll because the political parties and the likes of the BBC refuse to tackle immigration and Europe…..and in fact do all they can to talk up the benefits whilst burying the bad news.

Even now we have the same people, Cameron for instance, coming on to the airwaves telling us the problem is that the voters are ignorant…‘We must make an effort to get the public to understand our policies and the benefits of immigration and being in Europe.’

People who have concerns about immigration and Europe are portrayed as  ignorant, stupid, uneducated or prejudiced.

It’s the same old mantra that the BBC has been trotting out for years.

The BBC deny or try to explain away experiences such as these people have:

‘Will you be voting Labour?’ I [A Labour MP] asked. ‘No chance,’ came the reply. ‘It’s because of you lot that I’m earning less than I was ten years ago. Eastern Europeans have screwed us. We’re voting UKIP.’

Later that day I was speaking to a nurse who told me she was taking on another job as a cleaner so she could pay for extra lessons for her son. He was falling behind in English at school, she said, because the teachers spent all their time with Polish children who couldn’t speak English. She too was going to vote UKIP. 

Politics has become less like a conversation with people, and more an exercise in talking at them.

The only answer is to shut the borders to mass immigration and return to a trading relationship with Europe.

Can’t see that narrative getting through the editorial meetings at the BBC.

Who are the worst anti-Semites in Europe according to the statistics?

Muslims and the Left.

Not who’d you’d expect if you listen to the BBC’s everyday coverage from which you’d think it was the ‘Far Right’ which was about to sweep to power and set up concentration camps once more across Europe.

The BBC admits:

Anti-Semitism ‘on the rise’ say Europe’s Jews

Jews are once again being driven from Europe:

The survey found 29% of those surveyed had considered emigrating because of concerns about safety, with particularly high figures recorded in Hungary (48%), France (46%) and Belgium (40%).

Nearly half the Jews in france consider leaving…isn’t that extraordinary?

No mention of places like Malmo though.

From the Telegraph:

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes

The BBC explains who carries out the anti-Semitic attacks:
Perpetrators of the most serious incidents were described as “being perceived as someone with Muslim extremist views, 27%, left-wing political views, 22%, or with right-wing views, 19%”.

Respondents said the most frequent comments made by non-Jewish people in the UK were: “Israelis behave ‘like Nazis’ towards the Palestinians” and “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes” (both 35%).

Muslims, the Right and the Left….the Left are usually left out of the equation by the BBC.

But note also the link to Israel…..of course that is a convenient cover for many to excuse their anti-semitism…..but who is it that generates that animosity towards Israel, its demonisation and the subsequent attacks on Jews around the world?

Organisations like the BBC.

There is a massive rise in anti-Semitism across Europe and part of the blame for that can be laid at the door of the BBC and its blatantly biased, pro-Palestinian coverage of the conflict in the Middle East.

Of course there are many left wing politicians whose words and actions add to the atmosphere of anti-Semitism such as George Galloway and Ken Livingstone…but it’s not just that…it is the political atmosphere created by the likes of the BBC who attempt to control the ‘narrative’ where to criticise Muslims is a hate crime but Israelis and Jews are fair game…..

From Haaretz:

The Clear and Present Danger

‘Most crucially and discouragingly, the current political climate in Sweden is a key enabler for the rise of anti-Semitic attacks. This is Swedish Jewry’s real clear and present danger; a fatal combination of political correctness, self-righteousness and obliviousness, as leading politicians and opinion makers participate in or blatantly ignore the correlation between a disproportionate demonization of Israel that frequently crosses the line into anti-Semitism. This has created a climate where it is acceptable and encouraged to support calls for Israel’s destruction, deliberately ignoring the effect such support has as a vehicle for the rise in Swedish anti-Semitism.’

Here’s a complaint about the BBC…from 2002:

BBC accused of anti-Semitism

The BBC is largely responsible for the growth of anti-Semitism in Britain, a journalist on the Jerusalem Post has alleged.

An “unchallenged diatribe” of opposition to Israel’s policies – which paints the Middle East as a “monochromatic, single-dimensional comic cut-out” – has become part of BBC corporate culture, he claims.

“Wittingly or not, I am convinced the BBC has become the principal agent for reinfecting British society with the virus of anti-Semitism,” Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of the Jerusalem Post, writes in this week’s Spectator.

The radicals of the 60s are now in positions of political power, Davis claims, and are making policy decisions based on “post-colonial guilt”, fuelled by the BBC.

A BBC spokeswoman said: “The BBC’s reporting about the Middle East is impartial, scrupulously fair, accurate and balanced.”

And remember this when the BBC managed to avoid using ‘anti-Semitic’ in reference to a Muslim peer:

The BBC recently reported the story of the Labour [Muslim]  Lord who was suspended for claiming that Jews were responsible for his imprisonment after driving offences. 

The Labour peer was jailed for sending a text message shortly before his car was involved in a fatal crash. He later said that Jewish owners of “newspapers and TV channels” had put pressure on the court.

Many queried the BBC’s reporting of the incident at the time. In fact, the odd headline, “Labour peer Lord Ahmed suspended after ‘Jewish claims'” is still currently live. Instead of using “anti-Semitism”, the Beeb opted for “Jewish claims”, making the story seem like there were claims by Jewish people leading to Lord Ahmed’s suspension.

As long as the Balen Report remains hidden away from accusing eyes the BBC cannot be trusted.

Why hide a report that was completed in response to Israeli concerns about the BBC’s coverage?

The report was not an internal one, commissioned purely as a check on their systems and their  editorial checks and balances….it was not for reasons of ‘art, literature or journalism‘….it was done to confirm or negate claims of anti-Israeli bias and therefore should be made public.  Not to publish it must lead to a belief that the BBC are hiding some unsavoury facts about their journalism on Israel.

The Sunday Times reports:

‘Christians Offer Safe Houses To Muslim Converts’

Now why the hell would they need to do that in secular, democratic Britain where Muslims are tolerant and live by the guiding light of the Religion of Peace?

Apparently it is necessary to offer such sanctuary as Muslim converts to Christianity face ostracism and violent reprisals.

‘The penalty for them is at best to be cut off from their families, at worst they face death.’

Death?  In Britain?   When Christian churchs have visists from the police for saying non-Christians will go to hell how does a religion that preaches death, literally death, get imported into this coutnry and its text sold in bookshops up and down the country and preached in schools and religious establishments, often paid for by a foreign power?

Where is the outrage from the BBC…a BBC which religiously exposes the death penalty regime in the US?

The Telegraph reports:

I renounced Islam, so my family think I should die

Not in  the Sudan or Somalia…here in the UK.

Apostasy is not just something that scandalises people in far off lands. Harriet Alexander hears the story of a British woman whose life was turned upside down when she left Islam – echoing the plight of Meriam Ibrahim, who awaits a death sentence in Sudan for the same “crime”

Here is another guest submission, this time from Biased BBC contributor Guess Who? It’s on the issue of the Parliamentary Discussion into the future of the BBC. It is lengthy, detailed and astute analysis and I commend it you.

“The remit is wide and covers issues like bias, accountability, size, licence fee etc.’

Well, in theory all of the above. But mostly so far the last, best I can see.

The initial submission posts did cover a fair spread, and the process is in theory ongoing:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter
However, that is a wee bit tucked away (last back in March), and the focus seems more on the in-person oral evidence from various selected, guests, experts and witnesses, many of who seem to either owe the BBC a living, depend on it for their pensions or simply appear smitten.
And almost all seem to be pretty clear that the BBC does a great job so the only real issue is making sure it keeps getting its unique funding via compulsion, and maintains that ‘we only hold others to account’ accountability epitomised by the Trust’s recent ex-chair, whose unexpected departure has managed to throw a few spanners in a few works whilst bringing spotlights on dark corners some clearly thought would get away with anything if those darn kids could be kept occupied elsewhere.
Let’s have a quick look at what has been run up the flagpole, and then saluted, thus far:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/5368.html
Potentially promising start, but stacked from the off like a BBC QT panel and audience either side of the table.
The only dissenting voice David Elstein, and even then he opens by saying he’s ‘a great admirer and strong supporter of the BBC’.
This was the session that already caused my concerns when Steve ‘no conflict of interest at all’ Hewlettt suddenly chimed in on 28Gate (see Qu10) professing not to know much about it but then having an awful lot to say in the BBC defence.
Which MP Angie Bray was trying to amplify upon before being told to shut up.
There was also an insight to the mindset and priorities of the rest of the committee:
Q22 Mr Leech: The reason for my argument is that you started off with quite a lengthy contribution, starting off by saying that you were a big supporter of the BBC but then gave numerous reasons as to why you did not really like the BBC at all.
David Elstein: Honestly, Mr Leech, you can’t have been listening to me very carefully. I am a strong supporter of the BBC. I wish it were a bigger, better, bolder, braver, richer organisation than it is, funded voluntarily by citizens of the UK and elsewhere. That’s all I have to say about the BBC.
Mr. Farrelly also seems a fan.
We also get to hear from Ben Bradshaw:
Q47 Mr Bradshaw: a number of other countries with strong public service broadcasting traditions have moved away from a licence fee, either to funding their public service broadcasting by general taxation or to funding it by household charge. Would that not overcome some of your objections to the licence fee without jeopardising the funding stream or the BBC’s independence?
He does seem to view this more in terms of how to keep things going as is rather than any question on how well it manages on the current £4Bpa compelled funding less the loophole opt-out losses they are all trying to plug and drag those with real issues with BBC professional performance back into doing so by force.
Jim Sheridan seems a fan, too, and keen to share interesting facts it may have been of value to see less BBCphilic committee members or experts in the mix to challenge if in error:
Q64 Jim Sheridan: The figures that I have seen are that the popularity of the licence fee is increasing in the last decade. I think it is up to 47% compared with 31% just a decade ago. What I am intrigued by is that the costs of collecting the licence fee are relatively low. Would there be any significant change for the alternative method, subscription?
Paul Farrelly then chimes in again to try and put words in David Elstein’s mouth. He also refers to lack of time and wanting to get on governance.
Handed to BBC groupie Claire Enders to mea gulp a lot, but basically waffle the time away until Steve Hewlett kills off the rest in his best ‘it was another time’ manner.
Governance opinion barely afforded the sole vaguely BBC critical witness there.
Philip Davies’ question was facile and the answers lost in the rush to close. Job done.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/6170.html
A hideously white male session asking a bunch of guys just how much they’d like their index-linked golden pensions to stay golden and any dodgy activities taken kept under wraps for ever.
Like that was going to go any other way.
Again Mr. Sutcliffe being more than undertstanding that no one knew anything about Saville then, or now, and this was understandable.
Then of course there’s Mr. Farrelly:
Q89 Paul Farrelly: Greg, you mentioned the BBC has enemies, both ideological and commercial. In one area, News Corp probably would dearly love to restrict that website, the BBC being a free source of online news.
Not sure Murdoch or the DM had much to do with McAlpine though, Paul. That seemed pretty much all BBC.
But mostly it’s about keeping the money spigot open, on full:
Q99 Mr Bradshaw: Could I ask you for your views on the desirability and sustainability of the licence fee as the long-term funding mechanism for the BBC?
Angie Bray a lone voice trying to delve a bit deeper. And again some claims being bandied about I’d have liked an actual informed, impartial guide on, as the BBC big-wigs clearly only read BBC PR. And it is, also, very well funded to tell the BBC story often enough:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-spending-slick-pr-condemned-after-website-reveals-220-press-contacts
One wonders if they ever post elsewhere under rotating nicknames?
Anyway, at least governance was agin popped at the end for a quickie:
Q114 Mr Bradshaw: Why not just change it into a more normal-looking board with a chairman and give the regulatory responsibilities to Ofcom?
That would be under DG-applicant Ed Richards, friend and colleague once to Ben, James Purnell and so many others in the revolving door between Labour and the BBC, now overseen by the Trust in interim by a Labour Minister’s adviser.
What follows is a bunch of Lords a-leaping. Add Hall & Patten and the number of Lords seems to exceed anyone actually capable of operating on a day-to-day basis.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8328.html
More insiders and academics. Public interest, what public interest?
Professor Beckett: I will start. In terms of its actual performance, most people’s experience of the BBC is of services that have improved generally in terms of quality, usability and so on.
Most people being his gilded, ideological circle?
They are clearly trying to wear folk out and grind them down by attrition.
These clowns are paid no matter what to deal in this guff.
Who else, out in the real word, has time to wade through all this?
Let me skip to one exchange on the done deal of funding options:
Professor Barwise: I am still in reasonably amicable dialogue with Elstein and—

Chair: You cannot say nobody disputes your findings.

Professor Barwise: What I meant is that no economists dispute my findings.
Showing just how wild the claims are and how often goalposts get moved if you take the eye of the ball for a split second.
And… yet again… governance is tacked on in a rush at the end, with editorial supposedly overseen a non-issue by now.
And frankly the answers were pure partisan or waffle, with near zero challenge from a committee that always seem keener on lunch than anything.
Next (which is what they are banking on- near every utterance of witnesses and committee deserves a fisking. Who, anywhere, supporter or critic, MP or activist, could put hand on heart and say they have read through all this?)…

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/6881.html
Old boys and girls arguing over pie shares, not how well the pie is prepared and served, or the ability of the audience to not be fed it and/or pay no matter what.
I simply cite this one ‘question’ to show how this committee seems set up:
Q159 Mr Bradshaw: You go on about the things that you think the BBC should be doing, but do you not at least acknowledge the argument that the only way the BBC can do these things—the public value, the distinctiveness—is because of its funding through the licence fee, which is only justified because of its universal appeal, including Radio 1 and Radio 2? You are nodding, so you do agree with that.
It’s like listening to a Today or watching a Newsnight ‘interview’, with the person being interviewed mainly existing so the BBC view can be pushed.
So, again, near zero on actual calibre of service delivery or oversight. Just industry insiders jockeying for a slice of public pie or worrying about turf.
Next….
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8476.html
Sorry, they have worn me out.
It’s pure attrition.
The BBC will get its money, and a toothless oversight system, and blanket immunity from being held to account, because vast public funds have been spent paying public sector professional committee wafflers to generate vast reams of guff so those who want the gravy train to continue can simply get it signed off by their mates.
I’ll stay with this showcase of Yes Ministerial ushering a national treasure into a new, comfier, more secure age, but if the core issues of the BBC failing across the board on accuracy, objectivity and integrity of editorial are actually addressed I’d better not blink, and likewise with governance also being a neat little old-boys’ club stitch up with censorship of critics kept as a given, little secret, like Jimmy & Stuart’s activities.
Meanwhile the rest of the media estate, even those tasked with checking out each other, will quickly scan a BBC press release and spout as their tribal hearts’ desire based on the executive summary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10813893/The-future-of-the-BBC-is-at-stake-and-David-Cameron-must-take-control.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/08/howard-stringer-bbc-trust-chairman-martin-sorrell-wpp?
I’ll leave the last quote to a poster responding to one of those odd BBC-supportive one line posters in no way connected to the special projects PR budget who see even discussing the future of a £4Bpa broadcast monopoly as something to be contained:
Vlad_the_Inhaler
No-one is taking about banning views. But you seem to think it’s fine that we should all be forced to pay for an organisation that voices only your views?