In God’s Name!

thHDQGIV03Recently there has been a rash of suicide bombers and skilled and unskilled terrorist attacks. Over centuries we have witnessed carnage in the name of religion. Today religion stills plays a central role in conflict throughout the world. Or are the true perpetrators the dark deities of money and power.

The world press are talking about France and the atrocities that took place there in the past week, 7th / 10th January. The killing of the satirists of Charlie Hebdo was senseless; the later killing at the Jewish bakery was blind hatred and as senseless as the killing of the police woman. There can be no justification for such murder. It was an apparition of psychological control by outside forces. The problem with belief is that it lives in one season and that season can be determined by the believer.

If it is winter the abstract believer sees only dark and hears only the squawk and the squish of the landscape. Spring with its thrusting energies struggling for life, seems far off. Summer is but a distant lullaby and, autumn with its alluring contrasts, for some, holds only the drawn-out winter to come. Belief can contort all around you until all that you see are hopeless puppets living in a fairy-tale.

I have no doubt that religious belief can bring much joy and satisfaction to some, but the other side of the coin is the construct of man and the lust for money and power that follow as a shadow. It is therefore incumbent upon all who accept their faith as a blessing to openly condemn those who would portray their faith, in such a fashion, as to be mistook as the devil’s own handy work.

While France has captured the headlines there are many other parts of the world where carnage vents its ugly face. Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen have all suffered gravely from similar attacks. The list is long and unfortunately it is a list that quantifies hate.

Over recent months Nigeria has woken to excessive horror. In November 2014 forty-thZC9YPUWLeight (48) were murdered at a school assembly by a child suicide bomber. On New Year’s Eve, in the city of Gombe another child bomber failed to reach her target but killed one soldier and injured another. The next day and yet another child bomber failed to reach the target, a church, but died in trying. On January 9th, a child bomber killed a possible 19 and injured more than twenty in the city of Maiduguri. The following day, in Potiskum in Yobe state two more blasts as two children killed three (3) and caused injury to over forty.

The savagery of these events does not lie only with the innocent ruthlessly cut down but also with the use of children as bombers. These were kids who had no chance of comprehending the complex nature of politics; whose minds had previously been filled with dreams and aspirations, but in the immediacy wanted their mum. Used as cannon balls, as worthless individuals, to perpetrate atrocities on behalf of adults.

Such adults will never know understanding because their belief lives forever in winter. There is no intellectual capacity in the minds of these men, for they cannot comprehend the needs of others and therefore will never fathom the depths of themselves. They are trapped on an endless merry-go-round that never passes go.

In Peshawar Pakistan 150 people, mostly children slaughtered at a school by the Taliban. Why? Do not tell me that you have a ‘cause’. No ‘cause’ would use the bodies of children as a battering ram. Certainly, no ‘cause’ that has humanity. Barbarity is the last recourse of those who intuitively know that they face defeat. The past will not be re-invented and the harder they kick the closer their demise looms.

Likewise in Iraq, a 14 year old child taken from his home in Syria to blow himself up and in the process kill as many others as possible. He probably didn’t know where he was and almost certainly did not understand why he was carrying out this act of terror.

Suicide bombers are fragile beings, usually young and who have been brainwashed or forced by some fear into a philosophy that has closed the door on humanity. Any revolution, any struggle for power should at its bases have the majority as the winners of any outcome. The only alternative is to attempt to impose a dictatorship, a fascist regime.

To murder and to force the scattering of survivors by the razing of 16 villages as at th3R87WKY7Baga, north-east Nigeria, suggests a principle of victory at any cost, whether it benefits the people or not. Victory for the sake of victory has only power and money as a consideration. The ‘cause’ has been lost in the melee of the armed struggle.

Several groups who started with a clear vision have ended up as corrupt as those they oppose. In Peru, Afghanistan, in Nigeria and elsewhere those in opposition have succumbed to criminality through the sale of drugs etc. all in the ‘virtuous’ need to continue the struggle. The use of children and the criminality suggests a weakness. A weakness that oozes from their pores as a sweat would after a 10K run. They have entered and become a part of the world they oppose. They have wandered blindly in and, are unaware that their vision is crumbling.

Moreover, these terror attacks have given new life to weak politicians. Politicians that faced being ousted from office, now stand strong, statesman like, and speak for the nation. They can now revel in the adulation that was never intended for them. Governments are now racing to introduce new laws to curb the terrorist but in doing so will curb the freedom of all. The politicians now demand control over the internet to check our every thought. Big brother will seize the opportunity.

Also, the terrorists have caused a fissure in our society. For those who oppose democracy it is a welcome boost, for those who believe in democracy it is a loss. The anti-Muslim marches in the German town of Dresden that had 200 walkers in October had 25,000 on Monday 12/1/15.

The press don’t help either, so intent are they with their own political agenda. On Monday’s march in Dresden the Daily Mail reported 40,000, the Independent gave the figure of 25,000 and qualified their coverage by informing readers that there were counter demonstrations of 8,000 in Dresden as well as 4,000 in Berlin. However, France 24 news channel suggest that the counter demonstrators equalled 100,000 but gave no evidence for such a claim. Please, don’t try and brainwash me. Perhaps you believe us to be feeble. At a time of heightened tension we do not need such bias reporting as that of France 24. Give us the facts and let us make up our own mind. Freedom of thought!

I have no angst that the French comedian Dieudonne has aired his views and don’t agree with his arrest. We also have TV stations giving air time to al Qaeda claiming to have ordered the killings and in praise of those who carried out the murders. The same piece incites others to do as the French killers have done. (Was this appeasement?) I don’t like anyone promoting murder and would not give them air time. I could never condone the murder of an innocent.


Furthermore, many media outlets have refused to show the cartoon that sparked thethXK46FOCW killings. Nor will they show the most recent one produced by Charlie Hebdo. In the eyes of the fanatic division is a weakness. We must surely ask if tolerance has a gate that it will not pass through, especially if that demand for tolerance comes from an intolerant source. And, can we permit religious fanatics to dictate to an increasingly secular society?

I am not afraid of the views others hold as long as they are willing to discuss them rationally and openly and without violence. We learn and grow from such dialogue. I am not afraid because if we both grow then everyone benefits.

Will God end the pain? No. God is in the living not the theory.

thB7HQI3MQJe suis Charlie



BBC: Flagellation

thWJV4BAFAAnother catapult attack on the walls of the BBC has begun. The siege is gathering momentum. For how long can Castle Beeb hold out? The latest salvo is caused by the long running saga of the Digital Media Initiative (DMI) and the huge losses incurred by the BBC as a result of poor management. The most recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) is a serious condemnation of the management at the BBC. Has the tarnished reputation of the BBC been self-inflicted or just the right-wing media venting spleen?

The gross outlay on the DMI project was £126 million, of which £99m was written off. Obviously in any other business, heads would have rolled. As of yet, senior management at the BBC have been spared the axe. Some have moved out but with suspiciously high inducement deals, which I assume, was to make leaving the sanctuary of the Beeb that much more palatable and, with silence guaranteed.

One of the key criticisms was that the project had “no single person in charge”, no line management but a committee of interested departments. Anyone who has served on committees will be aware that it functions on a host of personal interests and cliques, who shirk responsibility. According to the NAO, the executive, “applied insufficient scrutiny”, and did not have a “sufficient grip” on the project overall. Therefore it stands to reason that, “Reporting arrangements were not fit for purpose”. This catalogue of deficiencies clearly points to incompetence!

Who at the BBC decided to bring the project in-house? Was it senior management or a committee and, why was the contract with Siemens ended? The true ineptitude at this juncture was that no cost benefit analysis was carried out. I can’t get my head around the sheer naivety of the decision making at the time. It must have been a committee decision, that way no one person can be held accountable. Was the latter a purposeful rationale?

An earlier report commissioned by the BBC Trust carried out by the respected group PwC, concluded that problems should have been identified two years earlier. It appears that no one has a kind word for the BBC. Sack the bloody committee!

thCLZKC92PFurther assaults by two longbow archers, who reputedly have a very accurate aim, are busy taking pot-shots at Castle Beeb. First in line is, John Linwood, a former manager, sacked in July 2013 without any golden handshake. (not one of the ‘boys’ then?) He may be described as somewhat bitter or as a scapegoat. His evidence will determine which one describes him. He suggests:

  • That the BBC made ‘inaccurate statements’ to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC). Very Serious!
  • That management via committee changed the ‘vision’ of the project.

The second longbow man is Bill Garrett, former head of technology. He suggests:

  • That four years ago a number of staff falsified estimates of financial benefits of DMI to secure more funding. WOW! And thus:
  • That the investment case for further funds for DMI was ‘fundamentally flawed’.
  • Challenges evidence given by Mark Thomson, (previous Director General, April 2013) to PAC.
  • That NAO was misled during their 2010/2011 investigation.
  • That the PAC was also misled.
  • Told the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten in May 2012 that DMI was doomed.

The project was finally scrapped in May 2013.

If the evidence presented by the two reports and the accusatory pieces by the longbow men prove accurate then the decision is straightforward. The Chairman of the BBC Trust should go immediately without compensation. Several senior managers should likewise be so terminated. I am not au fait with employment law, so my ruthless use of the axe may not prove appropriate. However, people can be identified and told there is no future for them and that there will be no settlement beyond the contractual one. Incompetence should never be rewarded!

One executive, Dominic Coles, Director of Operations, admits that they got DMI wrong (????) but did better with BBC iPlayer. Absolutely, iPlayer is a smash and anybody who is anybody is trying to emulate or improve upon it.  He is quoted in the Guardian newspaper 28/1/2014 as saying that the BBC took swift action to overhaul other big projects. I have several problems with this response:

  • The drawbridge had been left down.
  • The PwC report said they should have been aware 2 years earlier.
  • This is tantamount to admittance that many other projects lacked ‘sufficient grip’!
  • A whole lot of mismanagement!

In the same Guardian article, Mr Coles is quoted as beginning a sentence, “DMI aside,” he continues with how well the BBC is doing in other areas. But let me rephrase Mr Coles words, ‘99 million pounds aside’: as if to imply that a loss of £99m is of little consequence. He should have attended a committee meeting before he spoke.

The BBC is beset with one public relations disaster after another. Bias is another long term one; the more recent Savile debacle, large pay-outs to departing executives and, most recently, workplace bullying. It would appear that the BBC defence strategy is to adopt a siege mentality. I assume that the hope is to be showered by dust which can be brushed off at some later date. Somehow, I don’t think it will be that easy. A siege only occurs when the enemy is determined to expunge the inhabitants. The sanctimonious thBZBVRS53appraisal of their position shows the BBC lack the wit to understand, that their walls of Jericho are more likely to come crumbling down, due to the act of blowing their own trumpets. The siege they endure has been self-inflicted.

Politically, the BBC may consider themselves, alongside the Guardian and Independent newspapers as a bulwark against the dominance of the right wing media. However, whereas the two newspapers have an audience to maintain and their niche market to cultivate; the BBC is duty bound to reach out to the population as a whole.

It would seem that the BBC and its management team have set themselves up as Gods of opinion, no longer reporting the news but directing people’s attention to a specific belief system. The BBC must serve all the people all of the time and, with clarity and with an objective mind.

You cannot fight bias with bias; it leads to a degenerative society. It can only be fought with a strategy the enemy cannot fathom, objectivity.  Millions may read the right wing press but will turn to the objective speaker to learn and to come to a better understanding of events around them. Objectivity is the only defence that will withstand the test of time. Perhaps if the BBC had continued on the road of objectivity they wouldn’t be beating themselves up so regularly.



BBC: Did they cover-up Child Abuse?

Or disapproved

Or disapproved

Unbelievable!                          Incredulous!                                             Unfathonable!

It is very difficult to describe the debacle at the BBC. It’s akin to finding Aliens in your back garden or Elvis, landing at Heathrow Airport. However, this is not a trivial matter; the BBC appears to have covered-up child abuse. According to the Pollard Report there was “real knowledge, not just rumour – about the unsavoury side of Saville’s character.” In plain English, they knew he was committing acts of abuse and did nothing. Nothing! It is equally clear that the BBC was aware in May 2010 from an e-mail in circulation. (Mail)
The Pollard Report concludes:
“Chaos and confusion,” at management level
“Complete inability,” to deal with the crisis.
“Critical lack of leadership and co-ordination.”
“One of the worst management crises in the BBC’s history.”
Reading that catalogue of criticism you have to marvel at the fact that no one was sacked. In any other line of business, the shareholders would not tolerate such poor management and, neither should the British public who are in effect shareholders of the BBC.
I had expected a passenger liner to dock on the River Thames in order to ship all the sacked managers away and out of sight of the waiting world’s press. To give them time to rehash their CV’s etc:.
To say I am astonished, would be an understatement. There has to be another cover-up somewhere in the bowels of the Corporation.The fact that no one has been sacked gives real credence to the charge of’ “Chaos and confusion” at management level. Someone at the BBC must be holding onto a very dark secret; or at least holding a gun to the temporary management’s head. There can be no other logical explanation for the decision to sack no one. What else can lie beneath that decision? Whatever the truth maybe, the decision making, post Pollard, completely undermines the credibility of the institution.
Can the BBC redeem itself? Not without a root & branch change to management and ethos. The Corporation must show that ‘transparency’ means exactly as defined in the dictionary, that it can be viewed from all sides. As a public institution it must rid itself of any hint of bias if it is to win back the trust of the people and the respect of the world as a top class broadcaster.
See earlier posts: Shut Down the BBC.    Bias – Management at BBC

Bias – Management at the BBC

Over the last week or so (Nov: 2012) there has been an avalanche of criticism levelled at the BBC management and in particular on the structure of that management. Yet, no one seems to know who is in charge or who is making the relevant decisions. In an organisation so large that is mind boggling to get your head around. It makes me think of bubble wrap, a series of small pouches held together; you can pop one bubble and it doesn’t affect the others. Incredulous! The other hammer blow has come on the Corporation’s propensity for political bias.

Not only has the BBC been criticised by outsiders but internal attacks by presenters, past & present has brought a fanfare of astute observations:
• Jeremy Paxman – “timeserving and biddable managers”. I bet Paxman caused a stampede, and a few spilled cups of tea, in a dive for the dictionary to find out what ‘biddable’ meant.
• David Dimbleby – “bonkers at management level”.
• Libby Purves – “bloated and ineffectual upper layers”.
Jon Snow, interviewed on Sky News found it difficult to describe the management structure. It came across almost like a management ‘maze’. Obviously it’s a maze in need of some serious trimming, so that people can get an idea where they’re going. Others, John Simpson, Peter Sissons and John Tusa added their weight to the clamour for change at the top. These are all stalwarts of the Corporation, well respected journalists and known celebrities, therefore their voices get heard and people pay heed.
Q. Where have they been till now?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a ……….

A few more questions come to mind:
• How much does this ‘ineffectual’ management structure cost?
• Should that money not be spent on better programming?
Was the management structure created to satisfy a – jobs for the boys/girls culture?      Or more candidly, a conscious disregard for all outside the honeycomb?

Sir John Tusa interviewed on Sky News, hinted strongly that internal candidates and those already considered for the job as Director General (DG) should not be added to any new shortlist. This suggestion should be adopted by the Government and the BBC Trust as a no-brainer!

“No problem can be solved by the same consciousness that created it. We need to see the world anew”. Albert Einstein.

John Tusa raised another interesting point during his TV interview, when he argued that 99% of journalists at the BBC go about their work in a professional way. I would have to take that with a large pinch of salt. It seems to me that many, too many at the BBC suffer from a mindset.

It can get too much

Mindset creates a neurosis of thought that leads to blind spots in critical thinking. It stems from an idea that has gained some momentum and gradually pervades the minds of those who have no alternative vision; and so becomes the prevailing thought process of the group/organisation. This in turn allows the actors to go about their roles without any sense of guilt or reference to their critical faculties. Within that mindset a new parameter is formed and within that parameter certain practices that might otherwise have been deemed questionable, untoward or irresponsible become accepted norm. Some will then attempt to add to the new norm for self gratification (innate selfishness) to gain promotion. What Paxman would describe as biddable. What us common folk would describe as lickarses!
Mindset grows inconspicuously into a paralysis of the thought processes, hence the blind spots. People may appear perfectly sound in other aspects of their lives and rational in most instances. However, when they walk through the door to their workplace, where mindset is a contagion they adapt to the new environment. They may experience a niggle at the back of the conscious mind but that is quickly dismissed as their reality is their job. They go with the flow! Being trapped in a mindset denudes you as a person. It deprives you of your essence, your thought processes.

In all probability it was the ‘maze’ of the management structure that led to the Newsnight fiasco that later had a leading Tory castigated as a paedophile. Of course, political bias played a serpent’s role in the haste to poison the Tories. Yet such devilish behaviour is not new:

“It is as sure as you are Roderigo,
Were I the Moor, I would not be Iago.
In following him, I follow but myself.
Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,
But seeming so, for my peculiar end;
Othello, Act 1 – S1 – Iago

Without the bias and the haste that that engendered, integrity may have broke through and prevented what followed – a sham of journalism. And thus the pack of crass hacks would not have pounced like laughing hyenas. Twits indeed!

We must expect the highest of standards from a publicly funded institution such as the BBC. Many depend on the Corporation to keep them informed. They watch the news, Newsnight, Question Time etc:. If the information or sentiment of any of those programmes is tinged with a degree of bias then subliminally it helps to form the thinking of those watching. The latter is especially true if those viewers are not regularly provided with an alternative viewpoint.
Under the Society of Professional Journalists – Code of Ethics, it reads:
• Test the accuracy of information
• Seek out subjects….to give them the opportunity to respond.
In a blog by Rob Edwards, he posted a talk he gave to the NUJ Edinburgh Branch; in his list of priorities he highlighted:
• Honesty = No 1 – Check and re check the facts= No 3
It would seem that some BBC journalists have lost their little red book of ethics.

“Information is the currency of democracy”.           

Thomas Jefferson, 1743 – 1826

If we can accept Jefferson’s statement as a foundation stone then we must build upon it. We could consider adding: honest and guarantee the integrity. You may have your own idea. Press play. There is no prize for the winner.
Every educated person must know that bias stalks you like a dark shadow. It engages you in sword play at every turn; you are duty bound to defend against it. However, that is only possible if one is not flying through the imaginary air with your secret mask on.

‘Political correctness and a pervasive Left – of – Centre mindset have infected much of its news agenda, writing and reporting’. Peter Sissons. Daily Mail Nov. 12, 2012.

Sissons, does not stand alone. We know of Mark Thomson, ex. DG at the BBC who admitted to a ‘massive’ left bias. Other instances are too numerous to mention. Surely, it must end this sadomasochism at Auntie Beeb’s? The BBC cannot be allowed to treat; its profession, the viewer, the electorate, democracy, with such contempt.

“…and the manner in which Lord McAlpine has been pursued by the Corporation bears the hallmarks of political bias that must threaten its independence”.                                         Peter Sissons, ibid.

So many great shows, so many voices remembered on rugby, cricket and football. So many belly laughs – “Don’t tell him your name Pike”. So many, so manies endangered by a gang of political hacks!

Polly’s Poisoned Pen

Doing a search on the net I came across this quote:

“The phrase political correctness was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say: Paki, spastic, or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The political correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence”.               Polly Toynbee.

 Goodness, does she have a bee in her bonnet! (no pun intended)

I can’t believe she really said or wrote that piece. Well, it’s in print, so we must assume.

So how does she characterize you – the overwhelming majority of the public?

What I can infer from the writing: the reference to ‘coded cover’ would suggest you are all: devious, secretive, perverse and ashamed of your beliefs otherwise you wouldn’t spout them undercover!    OO thingmy.

Then she goes for the jugular, you are all: racist, homophobic, cruel & thoughtless,angry, backward, immature & petulant, and not forgetting intolerant.

That is quite an array of poison arrows…………………..      Duck!

Me? the boss says I’m immature & petulant at times, and angry on occasions. As for the rest – I don’t think so.

Which of Polly’s adjectives pierces your sensitive soul?

When you think about it, she is quite abusive in her comments. There is a lot of venom in her attack, some might say, it was a vicious diatribe, intent on putting others down, and causing offence. It was definately intolerant of those who would not agree with her point of view. She appears to have tarred everyone with the same brush, no exceptions; you agree with her or you are all of the above. Typical PC.

Hmmmm. I’m thinking hypocracy. What are you thinking? 

Shut Down the B.B.C.

Shut Down the BBC

Me? Yes

It is a biased organisation
It actively promotes a political philosophy
It is morally corrupt.
It censors by deed or inaction.

The BBC was once a force for integrity, for objectivity, for the highest of standards in broadcasting. Not any more!!

We anticipate, no expect that the BBC will present us with an objectivity that helps we, the public to analyse any given situation for ourselves. For many people the BBC is the only source of direct information and therefore feeds into their belief system. The objectivity and integrity of reporting is thus critical to allow an unbiased opinion to be formed.

In recent months the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has accepted that it is ‘massively’ biased. It really doesn’t matter if the bias is to the left or right in the political spectrum, by accepting the charge of bias the BBC is acknowledging that propaganda was being disseminated by the Beeb. That surely amounts to endorsing a political philosophy, as well as implementing direct/indirect censorship.

This is not the house that Reith built.
‘The impartial voice of news’

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party- political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”.

Andrew Marr, Oct: 2006

In 2004, in his book: My Trade: A short history of British Journalism. He speaks of remaining impartial and “studiously neutral” in news reporting, and goes on to say that reports should “convey fact, and nothing more”.

I would agree with the sentiments above to convey fact and nothing more; that is the essence of good reporting. However, I would take issue with his analysis of BBC bias, to attempt to whitewash the bias as a cultural thing, and in a sense not that important is a big disservice to himself and to everyone else. If people have a bias then that bias informs most of their thinking, and therefore has a powerful impact on their reporting, or programme making. It’s a pity he skipped “convey fact, and nothing more”, on this occasion.

I would also like explained the term ‘urban organisation’. Is Marr, implying that because the BBC is ‘urban’ there is a built in demographic bias? That the BBC is London centric? That outside of that central area there exists a different political outlook, and that that outlook is not being catered for? Is, Marr, inferring that there are several biases at play in the BBC?

As a public body the BBC has to uphold the most stringent code of certitude. If not, the broadcaster becomes a lackey for the state or a propaganda machine for a political elite; or for both.

It is well known that the BBC operates a policy of ‘positive action’ or as the Americans call it, ‘affirmative action’, in that it promotes the standing of black and ethnic actors. There is no relevance as to how you wish to view such a policy; that would be a political stance. A government, if it passes a law can pursue such a course but an independent broadcaster should not. Was the BBC forced to implement positive action or did the corporation make a conscious political decision? Social engineering should not be the prerogative of a public communications network to distil. This is the U.K. not the N.K. – North Korea.

Moreover, there have been a number of stories whereby the BBC has instructed writers to include a black or ethnic character in their script. Does this not go beyond positive action in to the realm of ‘placement’? In such circumstances ‘placement’ becomes direct discrimination and that would be illegal. Furthermore, ‘placement’ is akin to subliminal advertising and that would be illegal. Certainly, ‘placement’ breaches the Equality Act of 2010.

Who gets an actors part is inconsequential, unless, of course that decision is by diktat. That opens up a whole new kettle of fish. Even if a government approves of positive action or affirmative action that still constitutes discrimination by decree. To pass such a law or to abide by that law is disingenuous on several grounds.

• It’s discrimination as a conscious act (direct discrimination)
• The inherent suggestion within the law is that a black or ethnic actor cannot get employment any other way. It requires big brother assistance e.g. a leg up.
• That hitherto the industry was essentially racist or backward in thinking. Thus a senior decision had to be taken to override that view point.

No matter from which angle you view positive action 1, 2, or 3 it is discriminatory on all counts. A number of other points can be garnered from the latter, point 3:

• That management had a political agenda which they were keen to implement
• They considered their viewpoint as superior and thus had to be introduced top-down
• Management held contempt for its workforce. That the workforce needed to be chivvied along.

A third area of concern regarding the BBC is the tax scandal that burst on to the headlines during 2012. Whereby, prominent personalities at the BBC were ‘encouraged’ to set up personal service companies (PSC) and thus pay less tax. There is a disclaimer on both sides of this argument; the BBC say they never forced anyone to take that route, while some of those presenters argue that they were instructed too or they could find themselves out of a job. The stink requires an army of cleaners to mop up the puke.

Below the surface of the tax scandal lays another, perhaps more intriguing one. As leading presenters were ‘encouraged’ to go independent, the BBC would not have to pay the National Insurance contribution of said presenters and others. The BBC thus saved a considerable chunk of money. How much we don’t know but it was loads of money.

What did the BBC do with this (manufactured) windfall?

1. Cut the licence fee?
2. Inform the public?
3. Use the money to promote young, up and coming broadcasters with a grant?
4. Allow the public to make suggestions?
5. Provide grants for specialist shows produced by students at media or art colleges?


What the BBC did was to squirrel the monies away into their already vast coffers to be used on expenses and other such things.

To force people to accept a diet of biased reporting and a set political agenda is nothing short of a scandal for a public corporation. Those who tune in to the BBC for its reliability and its impeccable source of information have been treated little better than imbeciles.

To fail to treat the dissemination of information with objectivity or by omission is by conscience, censorship. Objectivity can to some extent be subjective when the bias is ingrained; all the more reason then, for a procedure of clarity to be uppermost in the thinking and presentation of material.

In that the BBC cannot be trusted to be objective it should shut down. The BBC should no longer be paid from the public purse.

A contrite corporation should at the very least clean house. That would entail the whole of the top management being pushed out. The present management cannot be left in situ because their actions in office have overseen all that has gone wrong at Broadcasting House. Their bias cannot change colour overnight. The management team, over a considerable period, have perpetuated a fundamental breach of contract with the viewing public. The viewers have been little other than number fodder.

Allowing the management team to remain in place would be analogous to giving Sweeney Todd, a new set of razors and telling him to get on with the proper job.

(Over to you – what can you come up with?)

A ditty:-

Probity, O probity,
You have left and gone to sea.
We need you to come back home,
And be captain at the B.B.C.