A Base British Corporation 12

The BBC, once  renowned for its truthful and objective reporting, now a shill for terrorists and lefty despots, legally extorts money from every TV watcher and radio listener in Britain under the age of 75. Although it depends on public money, it ignores all public criticism. Its arrogant self-righteousness is almost as sickening as its sustained propaganda for immoral causes.  

The admirable Charles Moore of The Daily Telegraph wrote this to the BBC operations director of TV licencing: 

Dear Mr Shimeild,

On October 18, 2008, The Russell Brand Show on BBC Radio 2 broadcast a nine-minute sequence in which the presenter, Brand, and his guest, Jonathan Ross [a low, filthy-minded, cruel, altogether disgusting  show-off – JB], left messages on the answering machine of the then 78-year-old actor, Andrew Sachs [a great actor, refugee from Nazi Germany – JB]. In these, Ross shouted that Brand had “****** your granddaughter”. Further obscene and insulting messages broadcast included remarks about Mr Sachs’s granddaughter’s menstruation, and whether Mr Sachs would now kill himself because of the shame. The pair joked, on air, that they would “find out where Andrew Sachs lives, kick his front door in and scream apologies into his bottom”.

As a result of public outrage at this broadcast, several people left the BBC. Jonathan Ross, however, was only suspended for three months. It has been reported that Jonathan Ross earns £6 million a year from the BBC. Despite being a corporation mainly funded by the taxpayer, in the form of the licence fee, the BBC refuses to reveal the figure for Ross’s contract, but it has not denied it. If the reported amount is correct, Ross is by far the best-paid person in its history.

The Public Purposes of the BBC are, says its Charter, the “main object” of the BBC’s existence. They state that the corporation must take the lead in “sustaining citizenship and civil society” and “stimulating creativity and cultural excellence”. The Ross/Brand obscene broadcast – and several other broadcasts by Ross – are clearly contrary to the Public Purposes. The fact that Ross remains in post, paid an enormous sum, shows that the BBC has contempt for its own Public Purposes.

Since the BBC is breaking its own Charter, it has forfeited its right to collect a compulsory tax – the licence fee – from everyone who possesses a television. I wrote in public, at the time of the broadcast last autumn, that, in the circumstances, I would not pay my licence fee again. The circumstances have not improved. I hereby inform you, therefore, that I refuse to renew my licence, but I shall continue to keep and watch my television…

The BBC may take Mr Moore to court. We await developments. 

Posted under Britain, Commentary, Miscellaneous, United Kingdom by Jillian Becker on Saturday, July 11, 2009

Tagged with , , , , ,

This post has 12 comments.

Permalink
  • pencil

    Ok, I suppose I got two documents mixed up.
    uhm, I guess the actual rules would not change, but
    the underlying reasons for for example considering men equal might be different.
    I guess thats what I would find interesting. An atheist declaration of independance would,
    if it stated its underyling reasons, look somewhat different. I really need to get my hands on
    an actual copy of the constitution. Primaly what I remember is the Bill of Rights or at least
    what rights are writen in them .. . right to bear arms, right to freedom of the press ect.

    Well there is something else Ide like to talk about. What do you suppose it is that makes people
    like liberalism or socialism?? I still fail to fully grasp why people vote socialist. As far as I can tell
    there are many reasons and it seems like in most cases people are voting more for different single issues
    without any concern for the constitution or excesive government control. I don’t understand . . .why
    are they not worried about government getting to powerful??

  • pencil- The Constitution of the United States does not mention God. Not once. See our post of May 24, 2009. The Declaration of Independence has four references to religious belief (including the one about being endowed etc), but as our post points out, if those references were omitted no difference would be made to the meaning of the document.

  • pencil

    The reason I suggest this is that the original has a very religious tone to it . .. “undowed by their creator with”

  • pencil

    I would be very interested to see atheists put together and sign a constitution written
    entirely by themselves. I realize it would probably be about the same in many respects . .
    but probably with a profoundly unreligious mood and some very different reasons. Seriously,
    I insist. It would be very interesting to see.

  • roger in florida

    The BBC reflects (and possibly leads!) the descent of British society into nihilism. This is the result of years of creating and then pandering to the “victim” society. First the rabble rousers create disatisfaction based on envy and jealousy, then assume power and reduce the economy and the general society to ruin.
    A particular aspect in driving the BBC’s abhorrent behaviour is the influence of homosexuals in the BBC hierachy. Homosexuals are more likely than the general population to wish for moral collapse as their agenda is the acceptance of deviant behaviour in society at large. It is no surprise to me that such a program as is described is broadcast by the BBC. I can’t help wondering what Lord Reith would have made of this (although I have heard he was a bit of a nut himself).
    Pencil: To Ms Becker’s list about the 40s I would add another; dreary!
    What I would give to be 25 now!

  • C. Gee

    Jillian Becker provides a good answer to whether prayer in public schools should be allowed. I would add that where school boards decide that the curriculum should reflect an ideology (in which term I include religious views), we would object to that curriculum. Generally, the curriculum reflects leftist views, most overtly in social studies. In some districts the leftism is even showing itself in maths (text books have become dumbed-down picture books, carefully illustrated with ethnically diverse and “differently- abled” children) and science (teaching geared to answer political questions of stem-cell research and global warming). In some districts (Texas), the school board wishes to promote Intelligent Design or creationism. I say we would object to that curriculum, but we recognize that there is no political action that can bring about an ideologically neutral curriculum, because there could never be agreement on neutrality. (At the university level, there is a movement to encourage professors to show both sides of a controversial issue – but zealots do not recognize controversy as they know their view is correct.) Eventually the most extreme school boards will be voted out, possibly to be replaced by the opposite extreme. In the meantime parents have options: to counter-balance school’s propaganda at home; to home-school; to buy private education (now available on the internet); or to move to another school district. Provided this choice remains – teachers’ unions have attempted to block home-schooling and voucher systems – then our system is working. Attempts to nationalize the curriculum would be very dangerous.

  • thermonuclearman

    Hi Pencil,

    I personally don’t support the use of state power to prevent abortions, gay marriage (and gay adoption). “laissez faire” for me very much applies to society as well as to the economy (the two are inseparable). The only alternative is 3rd party bureaucrats telling people what to do. People do not – or certainly should not – live their lives for the purpose of presenting a tableau pleasing to 3rd parties. One of the key roles of government is to perpetuate this state of affairs, in my view.

    Regarding capital punishment, I am in favor, although I think its use should be restricted somewhat. Very tricky subject. The main, basic reason I’m in favor is because I don’t believe in God. I’ll leave the rest to your consideration.

  • Death penalty – we are for it.
    Abortion – we are against it with sensible reservations (eg in cases of rape, incest, danger to mother’s life)
    Marriage – it was a useful institution for holding and increasing wealth, for protection of women, for legitimacy of heirs. It seems to be passing out of favor, and is made a mockery of by ‘same-sex marriage’. Bestiality is obscene.
    You seem to be in a muddle over tolerance/intolerance, but I leave it to you to sort out your own ideas.
    Punishment for crime – we are for it.
    The Constitution – we are very much for it.
    Common decency – we are very much for it.
    The 1940s: War, Hitler, Nazism, the Holocaust, Stalinism … No! It was NOT a good time.

  • pencil

    I’m a 25 year old guy with a deep nostalgia for the 1940s . . . . wish I could visit that time.

  • pencil

    Hmmm. That is very interesting. I guess you could argue that unless a new more peaceful koran emerges,
    most muslims are going to end up rejecting the constitution. Now, if a more peaceful Islam does emerge, then
    they are more likely to follow the constitution. I think you could argue that Budhism and Hinduism are also much
    more “constitutionaly freindly” that Islam appears to be. Uhm, you mention sexual preferance. I regret to say that
    that is something the more christian right has a hard time with. In fact not just christians but anyone who sees it
    as comparable to beastiality is going to “struggle” with that one. Also, I’m not sure what your stance on abortion is. So I guess its interesting to note there are in fact points of disagreement within the conservative movement based on what I hear you saying. Yes . . . disagreements about war, the death penalty, abortion, sexual preference. Well I soppose it could be worse. We do seem to agree on some major points. I have struggled with the gay marriage thing. On the one hand, I see it as wrong. On the other hand, I don’t want government controling marriage. But then again, if rape is criminal . .. . . . . . and Im agast at beastiality .. . it really distgusts me. But techically beastiality is not a human rights violation . . . but still you know . . . I mean really. On the other hand abortion really IS a rights violation. Well theres all my thinking on the matter. I commend you for your constitutional veiws on a number of things, but at the same time you do face some challenges in uniting ALL conservatives on every issue. haha . . . you can’t be intolarent of all intolerance . .. . for you do not appear to tolerate liberalism . . .and that is intolerant. Its good to not tolerate certain things . .. hence . .. . not ALL intolerance is bad. After all, you would not tolerate suicide bombings. I certainly hope you tolerate me not tolerating suicide bombing. This brings to light another important point. . . some people misundertstand what people mean when they talk about tolerance. If you want my perspective, Im a traditional common decency moralist. I don’t think gay marriage is normal. It was “common” in society at large to see it as not normal. Also, simple things like don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t murder ect. I see the consitution not as a document that is moraly neutral, but rather as a document that seeks to unit society on the least common denominators of morality like “the golden rule”. By doing this the government limits its power already. And its power MUST be limited to what used to be called “common law”. Back then there was more common decency. People understood what common decency ment . .. . it ment follow the golden rule, excersise temperance, and try to be honest, and never forget about forgiveness and mercy. At the same time society recognized disciplin . . . . . this is were things like war and prison really fit into morality . . . its a way of “spanking” criminals. I know your not going to agree with everything Ive said, nevertheless I commend you for being very constitutionaly minded. Just know that a more religious constitution may have some things that would be found missing in an atheist one . . . things about abortion . . . and some things about sexual misconduct. The problem is that “common decency” has changed slightly in different cultures. What Im trying to say is I think people “ought” to follow traditional common decency . . . and can do that by following the consitution. Would love to hear from you again. ttyl.

  • pencil – I see no reason why schools shouldn’t hold public prayers. I see no reason why any tradition that harms nobody shouldn’t be continued as long as people want it to continue. But no one should be forced to join in public prayers of course if they don’t want to. I used to just stand there and wait while my schoolfellows prayed. (In British and British colonial schools prayers in morning assembly were routine in my childhood – I don’t know if they still are.) We at the Atheist Conservative are wholly tolerant of any practice by individuals or groups, however irrational in our view, provided that it involves no crime, no coercion, no exploitation. On the other hand, we are wholly intolerant of intolerant ideologies and practices – for instance, Islam. Christianity these days is harmless enough. Let people pray, genuflect, cross themselves, light candles, sing hymns, preach nonsense, feast and fast – its all part of ‘the rich tapestry of life’. But if, in the name of some religion, women are cruelly treated, science is forbidden, unjust laws are enforced, dissent is punished, private sexual preference is treated as criminal, then we are emphatic in our condemnation and wholeheartedly support active resistance.

  • pencil

    Hello. I’m curious to know what your position is on prayer in public schools.