Sell BBC and give back fee - MP

[Teddy Bear]

Seems to be not often enough an MP comes up with a great idea for the right reasons.

There's a great line from this MP, Mark Pritchard “It is often not ‘Auntie’, but ‘anti’ - anti-monarchy, anti-Christian, anti-British, anti-Israel and anti-American,”

Let's hope this becomes a movement.
(hat tip - tonym)

Sell BBC and give back fee - MP

Wrekin MP Mark Pritchard has called for the BBC to be broken up and sold off and for the £135 licence fee to be refunded.

The Tory MP urged the Government last night to privatise the state broadcasting corporation following a series of humiliations and mistakes for which no one has paid the price.

He said the BBC had been fined £50,000 for faking a Blue Peter competition and an inquiry had been set up over the deception of viewers watching programmes like Comic Relief and Children in Need.

“No BBC employee will have to pay the fine, it will be Shropshire taxpayers and licence fee payers who will be out of pocket,” said Mr Pritchard.

He also said there was evidence the BBC had, in part, been the Bias Broadcasting Corporation in recent years.

“It is often not ‘Auntie’, but ‘anti’ - anti-monarchy, anti-Christian, anti-British, anti-Israel and anti-American,” said Mr Pritchard.

“Large parts of the BBC appear more interested in advancing a multi-cultural and politically correct agenda rather than listening to the needs and wants of hard pressed licence-fee payers.”

The MP said when he tried to table parliamentary questions about the BBC, he had been told it was a matter for the BBC Trust.

“This is unacceptable. Parliament is representative of the people and it is taxpayers who continue to pay the BBC’s rising bills. The BBC must be accountable to Parliament,” he said.

There were many first rate people working within the corporation producing excellent programmes, but these should not mask the “inherent and deep-seated rot” in many parts of the organisation, he said.

“The BBC should be broken up and privatised, giving every licence-fee payer free shares. The £135 licence fee should be handed back to viewers and listeners.”

Mr Pritchard said the Metropolitan Police should investigate allegations of “serial deceit and mass deception”, adding: “I cannot ignore the irony that TV licence-fee dodgers are more likely to face a custodial sentence than any BBC employee who might subsequently be convicted of deception or fraud.”

[Teddy Bear]

Conservative Home also covers this topic. I am also including the comments made about it as well.

Notice especially the one made by a BBC employee, Helen, and my reply to her (both highlighted). It will be interesting to see if she comes back. Good to know they are reading this stuff though.

Mark Pritchard MP: The BBC's double taxation without representation
Mark Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin, says that the last few weeks show that it is right to privatise the BBC.


This has not been a good few weeks for the BBC. First there was the doctoring of the film misleadingly showing Queen Elizabeth storming out of a photo-shoot in "a huff". Then the television regulator, OFCOM, fined the BBC £50,000 for faking a Blue Peter programme. No BBC employee will have to pay the fine - it will be taxpayers and licence fee payers who will be out of pocket. Then there is the ongoing investigation into claims that viewers were deceived over phone-in polls and competitions - hurting worthy charities like Children in Need and Comic Relief. These recent 'lapses of judgement' are not isolated - but this time the BBC got caught.

There is also good evidence that, for years, the BBC has been, in parts, the 'Bias Broadcasting Corporation', or 'Auntie' as it is affectionately known to its army of 25,000 employees. It is often 'anti': anti-monarchy, anti-Christian, anti-British, anti-Israel, and anti-American. Large parts of the BBC appear more interested in advancing a multi-cultural and politically correct agenda - rather than listening to the needs and wants of hard pressed licence-fee payers.

The BBC spends hundreds of millions of taxpayers money each year and yet there is little accountability to those that pay its bills. Yes, there is the new BBC Trust - but the Trust is nothing more than a rehashed version of the former toothless BBC Board of Governors. Whenever I try to table Parliamentary questions about the BBC I am told that the questions "are a matter for the BBC Trust - and not for Ministers". This is unacceptable. Parliament is representative of the people - and it is taxpayers who continue to pay the BBC's rising bills. The BBC must be accountable to Parliament.

There are many first rate people working within the Corporation and the 'Beeb' produces some excellent audio and broadcast output; award winning documentaries like the David Attenborough's Blue Planet and radio programmes like File on Four and From Our Own Correspondent set a high standard for broadcasters - all over the world, but these good examples should not mask the deep seated and inherent liberal rot that can be found in many parts of the Beeb. It does not help the Beeb's case that, unlike most private and public sector employers, the BBC is regarded as a sack free zone.

The BBC should be broken up and privatised - giving every licence-fee payer - free shares. The £135.00 licence fee should be handed back to viewers and listeners - ending decades of double taxation without representation. Let's allow viewers and listeners to make their own decisions on how their own money is spent. If the BBC is as good as it says - then it will survive, because listeners and viewers will vote with their remote controls and bank accounts - and not because the BBC has a captive audience and a hugely subsidised broadcasting monopoly.

Allegations of the BBC's serial deceit and mass deception are very serious - and that is why it is right that the Metropolitan Police should investigate the matter. In the middle of this 'Beeb crisis' I cannot ignore the irony that TV licence-fee dodgers are more likely to face a custodial sentence than any BBC employee who might subsequently be convicted of deception or fraud!

This pretty much sums up our nation's priorities - at the moment.

July 27, 2007 at 01:14 in Mark Pritchard MP | Permalink
Comments

An excellent article. Completely agree and stated in a way that nicely sums up the feelings of many I am sure. Thanks for that.

Posted by: eugene | July 27, 2007 at 08:27

Excellent article worthy of serious consideration.

Most BBC output is highly commercial and could be funded via advertising and pay per view.

Elements such as the World Service which already receives direct taxpayer funding might not fit this model though.

Posted by: Adrian Owens | July 27, 2007 at 08:44

Surely the first step is to decriminalised the licence fee so the taxpayer does not fund prosecutions (and jailing) of persons not paying the licence fee.

That would be a modernisation of judicial process and reduce the prison population

Posted by: TomTom | July 27, 2007 at 08:59

Pritchard has some cheek to talk about representation and accountability - he voted for MacLean's abolition of the Freedom of Information Act.

Posted by: SpudHead | July 27, 2007 at 09:08

Mark, I fully support your call for the privatization of the BBC. For too long now the BBC has been a millstone around the necks of the British taxpayer. As you rightly say the days of objectivity at the BBC are long past. The organization is biased politically.

The fact that the BBC can offer an 18 million pound contract to Jonothan Ross shows it has lost its sense of propriety. The fact that the BBC can show a transvestite vomiting into the face of a small girl on the 'Little Britain' show, demonstrates that it has lost its sense of decency. The BBC considers itself a law unto itself.

For a long time politicians have given the BBC too much respect, buying into the myth that the BBC is the great champion of culture and quality programming. However its now time for all politicians to take a reality check. Time to see the BBC for what it has become, a vile gravy train, a form of danegeld milking the British taxpayer for more and more.

Its time to confine the BBC to history. Its era has past. It is now a decedant, decayed and moribund institution.

Posted by: Tony Makara | July 27, 2007 at 09:11

I can't find anything to disagree with in Mark's article.

The free share to each licence payer is an interesting detail - how could even the pro-BBC lobby oppose giving a direct share in the organisation to every one of the same licence fee payers they purport to work for?


Posted by: Neil Reddin | July 27, 2007 at 09:29

I'm looking forward to Channel 4 Radio, and Talk Radio challenging BBC Radio 4

Posted by: Dave Bartlett | July 27, 2007 at 09:53

The critical issue is that we are obliged to pay for the BBC regardless of whether we watch or listen, like or dislike its output, question or follow its liberal posture.

Give us the choice on how we pay for the BBC. Most of the BBC’s output is commercial rather than public service and much of the commercial channels’ output is public service in content. Let the BBC’s commercial output seek commercial payment by advertising or subscription.

The ‘public service broadcasting’ concept is patronising and is used as a smokescreen to force us to fund programmes that would not otherwise be funded by advertising or subscription. It implies that we are like children and don’t know what is best for us. It denies us the right to make our own choices. Let us chose to fund 'public service broadcasting' through subscription; let us see if Radio 4 is as well liked as it claims to be.

There is no justification in for forcing us to pay for the BBC through a compulsory licence fee. SET US FREE.


Posted by: Bill Brinsmead | July 27, 2007 at 10:02

I agree with this, but the most important thing is to end the 'balance' requirement in broadcast media - Reagan ending it in the USA broke the leftist control of broadcasting, and there would be a similar effect here. The BBC, like NPR, would continue to be left wing, but at least a diversity of opinion could be heard.

Posted by: Simon Newman | July 27, 2007 at 10:16

Why isn't privatising the BBC or abolishing the Licence fee a conservative party policy?

Are the party's top brass too scared to confront this?

The BBC already give the Conservative Party and anything other than left liberal ideology an incredibly bad press - what could be the downside.

Those of you who love "wireless 4" - should be glad to pay for it.

The BBC should be made aware that their days are numbered !


Posted by: Ewan Wauchope | July 27, 2007 at 10:56

Margaret Thatcher deregulated most services in the UK. She forgot the BBC, that is the equivalent to issuing the original mobile phone company licences and making it compulsory to pay a licence fee to orange when you have a vodaphone mobile.

Posted by: mark | July 27, 2007 at 12:18

Ewan, Fantastic point. If the Conservative party were to make privatizing the BBC and abolishing the ever rising licence fee into a manifesto promise it would be a surefire vote winner. Everyone resents paying for the BBC gravy train.

If no politician has the courage to privatize the BBC then at the very least the licence fee should be abolished and replaced by a digital smart card, then those who don't pay don't watch. That is perfectly fair. Would the BBC be paying Jonothan Ross an 18 million contract under such a system?

Posted by: Tony Makara | July 27, 2007 at 12:37

The deafening cries of "Cultural Vandalism" are not worth the grief; the risk of abolition of the TV Tax already informs the BBC's hostility to the Conservative Party - a manifesto promise would push any pretence of balance out of the window.

Better politics might be to replace the individual licence fee structure with a simple cash sum from the Treasury every year. This would additionally deprive Crapita's bosses of profits with which to fund Gordon Brown's election campaign.

Posted by: Teesbridge | July 27, 2007 at 13:09

This is one of the best pieces I have read this year. Most mornings, I feel angry at the way the BeeB (Justin Webb) spews out anti- Bush (and anti-Republican) dross. It has now become a campaign mouthpiece for Hilary Clinton. May be Mrs Clinton should pay for these campaign ads (60 second slot costs $1m a piece, the BeeB will get $25M a week enough to abolish the licence fee and then tax them on the income) The next bit is the way they edit and skew the 'yesterday in Parliament' slot against the Conservatives. Then of course their anti Monarchy bias.
Unfortunately neither Mark Thompson or Fincham have any sense of honour - although both are greedy enough to be supportd by the tax payer - otehrwise both would have fallen on their swords.


Posted by: Yogi | July 27, 2007 at 13:40

Well I have to say, outside of a certain strand of Conservative Party opinion I've never met anyone at all who thinks that privatising the BBC is a good idea.

Picking on every mistake the BBC might make as a reason for privatisation is no more appealing than the tedious lefties who call for renationalisation every time a private company makes an error.

This particular hobby-horse should have been dropped long ago.

Posted by: Iain Lindley | July 27, 2007 at 13:42

As an employee at the BBC, I always find it a shame when narrow minded individuals decide to do away with it without actually understanding what we do! The BBC is a big corporation providing content across television, radio and online - to consider privatising the whole animal is laughably short-sighted and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the BBC is and what services it provides.

There are many areas of the BBC that would simply not exist in the private sector because they wouldn't make money and yet they provide a valuable service to those around them. One such example is the educational arm of the BBC. The websites provide content for teachers, parents and pupils. Content that in the private sector would not make money and therefore would never be commissioned, and yet it provides a valuable service to children everywhere. Take GCSE Bitesize which has a 98% reach amongst all our teenagers, helping and encouraging them to revise and learn.

Of course you might argue that schools should be providing this content (at their expense) or perhaps if our school system was better it wouldn’t be needed. But, of course, schools don't have endless resources, skills or time for that matter to produce the sorts of fun educational content produced on these websites. The BBC provides learning games for teachers to use in the classroom; classroom notes to help teachers plan lessons; help and advice for parents wanting to encourage their child to learn. Quite where you see this fitting in with a privatised BBC I don't know. It certainly won't make money and so like all the other children's media offerings will fall to the wayside. Commercial children's magazines (e.g. Funday Times) and even TV channels are closing week by week (e.g. ITV shifted their kids programmes off their ITV1afternoon slot.) Two of many examples of the now dwindling children's offering. Why did these services close? Because they didn't make money. So many of the BBCs really valuable services like this just wouldn't survive if it was privatised and that would be a great loss.

I would also like to add that it's quite insulting and completetly untrue of you to assume the BBC is regarded as a sack free zone, especially given the thousands of people that have been made redundant. With more job cuts on the table for August I think you'll find we're all feeling the tightening of the BBC belt very keenly. And, I can assure you that if people don't perform in their jobs - their contracts will be terminated.

Can I also point out that the BBC wasn't alone in their lapses of judgement - ITV, Channel Four and Channel five are all being held to account as well. And whilst this doesn't make the situation any better, it is in my belief precisely because we have already started using private companies to produce some of our content (those companies who do not share the same values as BBC employees) that we have instances occurring like the Queen documentary. These instances also involve a very small number of BBC staff in television production. There are over 24,000 people working for the BBC - the majority of which do have the integrity and skills necessary to do a good job.

Privatisation does not work in instances when there is a greater role/service required. At the BBC we can make valuable documentaries or produce content that is worthy and necessary precisely because of the way we are funded. To lose that essence of the bigger picture for short term gain would be a real shame. Surely there was a lesson to be learnt about the ills of privatisation after the mess it has left our railway system in.

Posted by: Helen | July 27, 2007 at 15:23

Helen, The question of the BBC abusing our trust and our money hasn't surfaced in the last few weeks. This has been a very long-standing issue which has had a little daylight of late. Much of the wasteful way the BBC operates is missed by the general public. Going back a decade it was paying Zoe Ball 200,000 pounds to host a two hour show on radio one, such appaling waste is not new or confined to Jonothan Ross and his 18 million pound contract.

The BBC lives on the back of a myth. It likes to propagate the idea that it is the beacon of culture, of decency, that it represents the best of Britian. This is simply not true. For every good programme there are dozens of trashy programmes with obscenely overpaid presenters. We have to knock down this misconception that the BBC is somehow a vital jigsaw in our national fabric. It is not.

The BBC should be privatized because it is a failed nationalized entity. Can anyone from the BBC reading this justify paying Jonothan Ross an 18 million pound contract? This is an obscene waste of money. A waste of taxpayers money. That 18 million could have been better used.

The reality is that the BBC has been exposed. Recent events have awoken the public to problems that have been endemic to the BBC for decades. The people of our country have taken our trust for granted for too long. We want out. We want the BBC privatized.

Posted by: Tony Makara | July 27, 2007 at 17:05

My last line should have read "The people at the BBC have taken our trust in the BBC for granted for too long. We want out. We want the BBC privatized."

While we are on the subject can anyone supply us with a breakdown of the salary of top presenters at the BBC so that we can see exactly where our money is going?

Posted by: Tony Makara | July 27, 2007 at 17:11

I believe in public service broadcasting.

Problem is that much of current BBC output is simply not in that category. It has a lot of commercially competitive stuff, which should therefore compete commercially and not be funded by compulsory levy. Is the Jonathan Ross show only sustainable by compulsory financing? Though I don’t happen think much of his talent, he appears to be a highly popular figure and so is a highly commercial asset.

Is it not possible that Helen’s point about childrens’ TV muddles cause and effect? Maybe it is more a case of the Beeb’s productions being so superior that they dominated this market, to the detriment of ITV’s offerings. Schools educational programmes should perhaps be funded directly by the Government’s educational budget.

The BBC should be restricted to a couple of TV channels and three radio channels (inc World Service). Local radio should be privatized. The Corporation would then be able to focus upon worthy programming, freed from the need to scramble around for loads of dross to fill up its present copious airtime.

Financing should be by direct government grant. Appointments to BBC board and trust should be by an impartial commission independent of the government of the day.

Posted by: Ken Stevens | July 27, 2007 at 17:17

The BBC was intended to be a quality public service broadcaster. Yet how often do we see higher culture on the BBC. How often does the BBC show ballet or opera? There is a public service network in Los Angeles called 'LA36' and its high level of cultural content puts the BBC to shame. The idea that the BBC is the purvayor of higher culture is a complete myth.


Posted by: Tony Makara | July 27, 2007 at 17:36

No Tony, when you say "we want out" you don't mean "we the people of Britain", but rather "we, a minority of a small minority". There is no appetite in the country for fiddling with the BBC.

Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | July 27, 2007 at 18:42

Cllr Lindley, Do you seriously think the British public wouldn't welcome a chance to get rid of the licence fee? Especially considering the disgraceful way the fee is wasted. The BBC is a burden.

Posted by: Tony Makara | July 27, 2007 at 20:19

I suspect that the higher echelons of the Conservative party are too scared to launch policies to privatise the BBC. On the one hand they don't wish to incur the collective anger of an extremely powerful and influential organisation which, as Mark Pritchard rightly points out, is practically unaccountable to the people that pay its way.

Further to this I recommend a reading of Robin Aitken's book 'Can We Trust The BBC?' It tells many of the inside truths on just how the BBC operates. Unsurprisingly the BBC have chosen not to interview Mr Aitken about the his book.

Iain Lindley, on what basis or evidence do you make the statement that 'There is no appetite in the country for fiddling with the BBC'?

Posted by: Chris Palmer | July 27, 2007 at 22:52

Our opponents do not need to attempt to harm us. We are so good at doing it ourselves.
Not only do we incur the distrust of public service employees in general, but we pick on those in particular who have the greatest potential to hurt us with public opinion.
Yes, the BBC needs to be managed better, and no one wants to pay the licence fee, but privatising it would be overkill. It would make things harder for its competetitors by chasing the same pot of advertising revenue. Cuts (which would be blamed on us!) would be made in programmes and staffing. Not necessarily any that Conservatives would prefer to lose. The worst offenders would probably survive and encourage even further dumbing down in order to pander to the commercial market.
We would easily be portrayed as the same old Tories, wedded to privatisation and job cuts.
The superficial attractions of this idea would soon be replaced in the public mind by disquiet at losing a great institution (even with all its faults and institutional left wing bias) and confirmation that the Conservatives have not really changed, and suspicion that we really have nothing new to offer.
Why should the electorate trust us if we have no apparent interest in preserving any of the excellence to be found in one of our most traditional institutions?

Posted by: Eric B-P | July 28, 2007 at 13:40

Helen? Wouldn't be Helen Boaden by any chance? One of the BBC Editors who feels a need to explain why the BBC strays from its mandate so often, and in such a way that they really feel they are 'putting it over on us'?

Your first sentence: As an employee at the BBC, I always find it a shame when narrow minded individuals decide to do away with it without actually understanding what we do! highlights the contempt you have for those who pay your salary, and the self-importance with which you regard yourselves.

Personally, I have been observing and commenting on the bias and declining quality and morality of the BBC for a number of years. I believe I also recognize a few others here who have been doing the same. You might ask yourself why we've invested the time and energy that we have to do this, and if you think it's to legally avoid payment of the licence fee, which for the number of hours we spend monitoring and commenting on BBC behaviour, would be a pittance in comparison, you're very wrong.

It's because your organisation is insidious and corrupt, and the values it would brainwash the same youngsters you seem so concerned about, as well as the rest of the adults in our society, not to mention the others you've ingratiated yourselves to, lack proper thought and judgement.

That you really think that if the billions you presently receive would be channelled to schools, that they couldn't do a far better job than you are doing, displays an arrogance that I, and others, already know exists way too much.

Do you think that your children's programme Blue Peter ripping off the public, and now one of its' presenters ignoring the mandate to endorse Ken Livingstone because it suits her personal agenda is a good role model for children?

Your apologies are meaningless, since you use it merely as a strategy to continue your slanted, and in my opinion evil propaganda.

Regarding your (lack of) moral equivalence, inasmuch as CH4 and ITV have done similar scams to yourselves:
THEY DO NOT RECEIVE PUBLIC MONEY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW TO BE A BEACON TO OUR SOCIETY!

Get it?

You should be more concerned about the small and narrow-mindedness of those who run the BBC and do a bit more listening to those YOU SERVE, rather than continue telling us how to think, and worse, how we think. But the psychological profile suggests that the power you enjoy at present prevents you from doing that. This is why we want an end to you as any kind of public representative of our society.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | August 18, 2007 at 21:59