Patterns’ need to re-affirm the BBC’s independence

October 24th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

I know i’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so forgive me if I’ve missed something here

BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten has sought to reaffirm the corporation’s independence from government, in a letter to the Culture Secretary.

Why is the BBC’s independence even in question and who has questioned it?

This all relates to the BBC’s condust over the dropped Newsnight report on Jimmy Savile, and the culture that allowed his appalling conduct and others to go unchallenged for so long, and various enquiries and investigations and statements (false or inaccurate or otherwise) that have or will be set up or published.

But who has said or implied, the BBC is not, or at risk of, not being independent from government?

You want reasons for keeping the BBC licence fee?

August 17th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Click here to find out why.

This has to be one of the better rants for keeping the BBC licence fee.

Broken TV starts off with a defence of BBC4 but by the end is just defending the BBC as a whole. And deservedly so.

We’ve long held the (possibly misguided) notion that BBC Four is the very last outpost of British television where the right people can happily be given a budget and a timeslot, and be told “go off and make something” without being followed by a swarm of middle-managers who prod the talent with sticks while hissing “can we skew younger?”, “can we get Mickey Flanagan in here somewhere, I owe his agent a favour”, or “this play about Shakespeare is all very worthy, but I don’t like Shakespeare. Can it all be about him being shit?” It’s the BBC of the Radiophonic Workshop, of a thirteen-part series being made because of something Barry Took said in the BBC bar, of half-hour sitcoms lasting for thirty-four minutes because that’s how long it needs to be – or as close as it can be in the era of credit-squeezing and logo guidelines.

In short, if BBC Four were a person, it’d be Alessandro Del Piero taking part in an under-12s football match, and it’s time for him to have his bootlaces tied together to give everyone else a chance.

So, what are the alternatives to clipping BBC Four’s wings? People on Twitter seem to have come up with a few ideas, though they don’t really hold up to much scrutiny.


A popular opinion, but one we’d have to disagree with. Yes, it’s full of shows called JAMES CORDEN’S WELL GOOD FUCK OFF I’M GINGER AND WAHEY LADS SHAGGING EH SHOW or whatever, and despite making huge amounts of original content most people only watch EastEnders repeats and Family Guy, but there is an audience for it.

One of the reasons we stopped liking Harry Hill quite as much is down to a recent interview on Five Live, he was asked why TV Burp had stopped poking fun at BBC Three’s Freaky Eaters. His reply was along the lines of “it’s awful, that’s why. And I’m paying for it!” Well, sorry to break this to you Harry. The people who watch BBC Three pay their licence fee, too. They’re paying for the things they like, you’re paying for the things you like. Oddly, considering “young people are always moaning, they don’t know how lucky they are!”, we never really hear fans of Spendaholics complaining about how their licence fee pays for coverage of The Chelsea Flower Show or Countryfile, but when the Beeb sent a team off the Glasto to capture around sixty hours of entertainment for less than the price of two hours drama, it’s as if the ghost of Sir Hugh Greene is sneaking into the houses of Daily Mail readers and rifling through their handbags.

And on it goes. It also contains a method for watching TV without a licence, for all those whingy, whiney fuckers. Well worth a read.

Dorries on the BBC

October 19th, 2010 § 5 comments § permalink

Cue nashing of teeth and much shaking of fists

So, thousands of soldiers lose their jobs. The very people who have risked their lives every day in order that the BBC can function and fail, over and over, to support the sacrifice they make .

The BBC will only receive the equivalent of a 16% cut over five years. That just isn’t good enough.

Just what the fuck does that second sentence mean? It makes some sense up to the comma, where you start to feel the rage stoked by the army cutting the numbers of soldiers turns Dorries’ limited ability to construct a coherent sentence to goo.

5 years? 16%? Is that it? Oooh, those bloody lefties have gotten away far too lightly. Again.

The BBC has done a very good job over the last thirteen years to support the Labour Government. They have facilitated the very process which has resulted in the cuts every family in the nation has to bear. The blood which will flow from the cuts is all over BBC hands too.

And the BBC will undoubtedly be a little more bias towards the Tories, because although there is the independent board of what-ever-they’re-called running the BBC, it is still the government of the day that pulls the strings and can completely fuck the BBC if they wanted.

Although the BBC might have been a bit soft on the Labour government, I think Nadine will find that it was the Labour government and it’s love of the ‘wealth creators’ of the city that facilitated the slide down the u-bend in to the cess-pit we currently find ourselves. You can hardly say the BBC were willing facilitators. You’ll probably find the current demand to fuck over the BBC is just a continuation of the shit started in 2004 by, yes the Labour government. Bullied into submission that it is still trying to recover from.

Having displayed such bias, the Corporation should take more of the pain.

Oh? How, Nadine? Please, do tell.

We should demand to know what each presenter is paid. Because we pay. Students who have to buy a TV licence for each room in a student halls. Each person who is ill, elderly or infirm – we all pay from our taxed income.

We? who the fuck is this ‘we’? Some people might want to know what the presenters and ‘stars’ are paid. Some people couldn’t give a shit.

We know what teachers, nurses and MPs are paid. Why is the BBC allowed to function under this veil of secrecy?

We know what MPs’ are paid because they proved themselves to be extremely untrustworthy when it came down to spending and justifying the spending of other peoples money. And until recently MPs’ set their own pay. Who the fuck else got to pay themselves what they wanted from other peoples money?

We know the pay of some of the top paid headteachers, but not because of any dishonesty or lax rules, but because the information got leaked or the head disclosed it themselves. And nurses? Where can I find out how much a specific nurse gets paid? Go on, where?

The ‘veil of secrecy’ that the BBC is supposedly operating under is probably less secret than Nadines recruitment process for her constituency helper. *cough**daughter**cough*.

We need to know the exact cost of every production. How much each person on the production team receives. Every expense receipt going back over five years should be produced for everyone to see. Because we paid.

We need to know, do we? Does it really matter what the runner got paid, or the second soundman? It’s the total cost of the production that should be monitored, if you wanna go that way. It probably is already. Programmes rejected or not commissioned because of cost.

And where is the money going to come from to gather and collate and show this information in a meaningful way? From the BBC itself, so that there is less for actually producing shows or is this another job for the Big fucking Society?

That just sounds like petty vengeful snarking. ‘I’ve got to so you have to, too’ kind of thing. Oh fuck off you stupid fucking bint*.

The argument to justify the BBC licence fee used to go that the BBC made outstanding period dramas.

…and documentaries. Don’t forget documentaries, because everything else the BBC is utter shite.

I have a two word answer to that. Downton Abbey.

Man, that’s one killer argument. What’s Downton Abbey? I’m guessing it’s a period drama, but is it a shit BBC drama that proves the BBC don’t make outstanding period dramas anymore or is it an ITV one that shows that the BBC must be a shit waste of money because someone else can do good drama too?

BBC backs down against Trafigura

December 17th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

The BBC caved in

[Claimant] In September 2009, a joint statement was agreed and issued by Trafigura and the solicitors representing around 30,000 Ivorian claimants who had brought personal injury proceedings in the English High Court. The statement (which was endorsed by Mr Justice MacDuff, the Judge who had been due to hear the trial, as “100% truthful”) recorded that the experts instructed in that case had been unable to identify any link between exposure to the slops and the deaths, miscarriages and chronic and long-term injuries alleged.

Following Trafigura’s complaint over Newsnight’s story, the BBC carried out a detailed further review of the available evidence and of Trafigura’s detailed response in its Reply in these proceedings. The BBC accepts the conclusions reached by the experts in the personal injury action and reflected in the Reply. The BBC therefore acknowledges that the evidence does not establish that Trafigura’s “slops” caused any deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries. Accordingly, the BBC has withdrawn those allegations and has agreed to broadcast an appropriate apology on Newsnight, to join in the making of this Statement in Open Court, and to publish the Statement on its website.


My Lord, on behalf of the BBC I accept everything my friend has said. The BBC withdraws the allegation that deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries were caused by the waste and apologises to Trafigura for having claimed otherwise.

The BBC hopes that by the joining in the making of this Statement it will assist in setting the record straight.

via BaldyWilson Index On Censorship

BBC silenced

December 15th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Trafigura, the multinational oil company that got it lawyers, those most ethical of legal eagles Carter-Ruck, to put a super-injunction on the UK press and, inadvertantly or not, Parliament have threatened to sue the BBC about a Newsnight report.

That report has now gone. It’s been pulled. Below is the Newsnight report:

The is also a .pdf of the report too.

For more see Richard Wilson.

Please embed the videos (1, 2) and link to the .pdf on your site too.

/via D-Notice

Is the BBC switching sides?

September 11th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

What’s going on with the BBC, then?

I was under the impression that it was a leftist propaganda machine that was run by the UK arm of some international communist organisation.
That’s the impression given by some on the web, anyway.

But now, not only does it hate Jews, it is a big business/capitalist apologist and nazi sympathiser.

If the BBC keeps going in the way it is at the moment, it’s gonna end up making Fux News look like Socialist Worker.

A muslim in charge of religious broadcasting? Aaargh!

May 15th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink


The BBC has received 115 complaints over its appointment of the first Muslim to the role of head of religion and ethics.

Fuck me. It’s the white Christian minority being oppressed again by the fucking liberal Muslim appeasing PC brigade, isn’t it.

Aaqil Ahmed is a Muslim. So fucking what. When Songs of Praise turns into Prayers of Praise, or we start having Koran readings in place of Friday Night With Jonathon Ross, then maybe a few complaints might be expected.

Look at the guys history…

Aaqil has almost 10 years’ experience in religious broadcasting – first at the BBC, where he was deputy editor for documentaries at BBC religion and more recently as head of religion and multicultural at Channel 4 where he was responsible for commissioning (among many other programmes) Christianity: A History, Rowan Williams Meets … and the Bafta-winning Saving Africa’s Witch Children.

Hardly specialising in Islamic topics, is he?

There has been an athiest in the post previous. What’s the fucking difference? At least Islam recognises there is a god and Jesus (albeit as a prophet).

That’s what’s gonna happen in this day and age. Y’know, non-white, non-christian people coming into senior positions within organisations.

It’s not the end of the world. Life will carry on.

Deliberate liars or compulsive liars?

March 31st, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Cross posted from The Sun Lies, so leave comments over there.


Gordon Smart:

…I was disappointed when I heard that Mr PETER DOHERTY, a fine upstanding member of his local community, was meeting BBC bosses on Tuesday for a job interview.

And that job is as a writer, apparently. According to Gordons’ source at the BBC, they (BBC) want a pilot episode of a Skins type drama, and if it’s a good ‘un, they’ll commision a whole series. Very nice, Mr Doherty. Best get cracking.

Only Pete isn’t going to be writing a series, or even a pilot show for the BBC.

The Quietus [my emphasis]:

…the Beeb has rubbished the rumours as “completely false”, telling The Quietus that The Sun knew there was “no truth whatsoever” in the story – published in Gordon Smart’s ‘Bizarre’ column today – before they went to print.

I don’t know The Quietus too well and I am very good at making an idiot of myself, so I thought I would confirm what the Corporation had been quoted as saying, by going to the Corporation.

I asked for the the BBC to confirm or deny if i) Pete Doherty is or isn’t going to be writing/co-writing, or in negotiations with regards to writing a drama for the BBC and if ii) The Sun or Gordon Smart of the The Sun knew the story to be untrue before publishing it (if the story is untrue, obviously).

And a spokesman for the BBC confirmed that i) Pete Doherty isn’t going to be writing a drama for them and ii)

They [The Sun] had our response in advance but didn’t put it in.

Gordon Smart/The Sun knew the was story untrue, but still ran with it. Which means they are either compulsive liars and couldn’t help themselves or they ran with it, looking at the language used, just to have a dig at the BBC to keep things ticking over until the Beeb give them a bigger target.

BBC censorship

March 19th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

OK, just humour me, because I have been known to be wrong, believe it or not.

I wasn’t able to watch Stewart Lees’ Comedy Vehicle when it was on the telly the other night, so I recorded it and watched it last night.

When Stewart was saying what Amazon suggested he might like, after buying six Jeremy Clarkeson books, I had to rewind and watch that little bit again.

The first book Stewart says Amazon recommends is Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. The little Amazon recommend bar graphic at the side of the screen schows a picture of the book, quite clearly, but the sound is edited so that instead of saying the title of Hitlers book, Stewart says…


I originally thought that, being shitty freeview, the signal when originally broadcast was a bit lumpy and my freeview box decided to just skip the bit inbetween the first and last sounds of the book title. But it wasn’t. I also thought it was because of what I had imbibed, hence the disclaimer above. But after several passes I can confidentely claim that the BBC censored the words ‘Mein Kampf’.

The question I have is this: Why is the BBC scared of giving away the name of an important Nazi book to blind people? It must be something to do with blind people as the cover of the book with the title clearly readable was shown on screen.
Are blind people especially sensitive to the thoughts of Hitler, so sensitive that even the mention of the name of his book reduces them to tears?
Are partially sighted people so easily seduced by Nazism, to the extent that if they hear the words ‘Mein Kampf’ they will become right wing fascist thugs, ready to blame their ‘different sightedness’ on immigrants and teh Jews?
Obviously the BBC thinks so.

I also believe that the BBC think blind people can’t use computers as the show on iPlayer (url will probably change once the BBC get wind I’m onto them) has not been doctored (3 minutes in).

I think I might be onto a big conspiracy here. I may be back with more later, if the Coporation doesn’t silence me first.

The Hat-Trick

February 6th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

See that? That’s the very definition of beauty, that is.

The Mail readers must be creaming their pants at the sight of it.

Not one, not two but three stories about the BBC offending people.
Three! It doesn’t get much better than that, eh?

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with bbc at Sim-O.