Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 3, 2009 22:58:27 GMT
Be under no illusion, the consequences of this High Court decision to allow the BBC not to have to disclose how much it spends of public money on salaries, or internal reports about the balance or lack of it in its reporting, brings our society ever closer to an outright dictatorship.
Consider the power that this kind of media operation has, and how little accountability that is required of it, and be afraid - be very afraid.
Consider the power that this kind of media operation has, and how little accountability that is required of it, and be afraid - be very afraid.
BBC wins bid to keep star salaries and Middle East report under wraps (and it only cost us £200,000)
By Liz Thomas
The BBC has won a High Court battle to keep the salaries of its stars a secret.
The corporation spent more than £200,000 ensuring those who fund the service never know how their cash is spent.
Three years of appeals and legal wrangles mean it will not now have to disclose what it pays on-screen talent, production staff or how much money shows cost.
Mr Justice Irwin concluded that the 'BBC has no obligation to disclose information which they hold to any significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, whether or not the information is also held for other purposes'.
Although insiders insist that details of executive pay will continue to be publicly released, the BBC could still use this ruling as a further tool to ensure it does not have to disclose the salaries of top talent.
The BBC has come under fire for the eye-watering sums it pays stars such as Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Chris Moyles.
Ross earns a reported £6million a year and around 40 other stars are paid more than £1million annually.
Jeremy Hunt, Tory culture spokesman, said: 'We have long called for the BBC to open their books to the National Audit Office so licence-fee payers can be sure they are getting value for money.
'If the BBC was more transparent about its finances then court cases like these could be avoided.'
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'The BBC's behaviour is shocking and incredibly disappointing.
'Firstly, the fact that the Corporation has blown a fortune on lawyers trying to obscure the truth shows they see zero need for accountability, even when it's rightfully required of them.
'Secondly, the BBC should be entirely open and honest about how it spends licence-fee payers' money. If they can't justify the amount they are spending, they shouldn't do it in the first place.
'This is yet another example of the BBC being out of touch with the concerns of the people it is supposed to be entertaining, and who pay its keep.'
The case went to the High Court because the BBC consistently refused to comply with freedom of information requests from newspapers and members of the public.
The broadcaster was taken to the Information Commissioner, and the Information Tribunal, who both ruled that it should release the information.
But the BBC appealed to the High Court, which found previous hearings had not properly taken into account its evidence.
It also ruled that the broadcaster was exempt from sections of the Act as a public body, and therefore did not have to give out information relating to its programming in journalism, arts or literature.
A spokesman for the BBC said: 'The BBC was entitled to decline to disclose the information on the basis that the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to it.'
The High Court findings put the BBC on a collision course with media regulator Ofcom and the Conservatives who have both warned the broadcaster that it needs to be more transparent.
Mr Justice Irwin also ruled in the Corporation's favour over a long-running case in which it was fighting the public disclosure of an internal report on its Middle East coverage.
Lawyer Steven Sugar has battled for more than four years for the public's right to see a 20,000-word report by senior news editor Malcolm Balen on Middle East reporting as part of the debate about a perceived anti-Israeli bias at the BBC.
The Corporation, which spent more than £250,000 on that court case, argued the report was always intended as an internal review to help shape future policy on its Middle East coverage and was never intended for publication.
By Liz Thomas
The BBC has won a High Court battle to keep the salaries of its stars a secret.
The corporation spent more than £200,000 ensuring those who fund the service never know how their cash is spent.
Three years of appeals and legal wrangles mean it will not now have to disclose what it pays on-screen talent, production staff or how much money shows cost.
Mr Justice Irwin concluded that the 'BBC has no obligation to disclose information which they hold to any significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, whether or not the information is also held for other purposes'.
Although insiders insist that details of executive pay will continue to be publicly released, the BBC could still use this ruling as a further tool to ensure it does not have to disclose the salaries of top talent.
The BBC has come under fire for the eye-watering sums it pays stars such as Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Chris Moyles.
Ross earns a reported £6million a year and around 40 other stars are paid more than £1million annually.
Jeremy Hunt, Tory culture spokesman, said: 'We have long called for the BBC to open their books to the National Audit Office so licence-fee payers can be sure they are getting value for money.
'If the BBC was more transparent about its finances then court cases like these could be avoided.'
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'The BBC's behaviour is shocking and incredibly disappointing.
'Firstly, the fact that the Corporation has blown a fortune on lawyers trying to obscure the truth shows they see zero need for accountability, even when it's rightfully required of them.
'Secondly, the BBC should be entirely open and honest about how it spends licence-fee payers' money. If they can't justify the amount they are spending, they shouldn't do it in the first place.
'This is yet another example of the BBC being out of touch with the concerns of the people it is supposed to be entertaining, and who pay its keep.'
The case went to the High Court because the BBC consistently refused to comply with freedom of information requests from newspapers and members of the public.
The broadcaster was taken to the Information Commissioner, and the Information Tribunal, who both ruled that it should release the information.
But the BBC appealed to the High Court, which found previous hearings had not properly taken into account its evidence.
It also ruled that the broadcaster was exempt from sections of the Act as a public body, and therefore did not have to give out information relating to its programming in journalism, arts or literature.
A spokesman for the BBC said: 'The BBC was entitled to decline to disclose the information on the basis that the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to it.'
The High Court findings put the BBC on a collision course with media regulator Ofcom and the Conservatives who have both warned the broadcaster that it needs to be more transparent.
Mr Justice Irwin also ruled in the Corporation's favour over a long-running case in which it was fighting the public disclosure of an internal report on its Middle East coverage.
Lawyer Steven Sugar has battled for more than four years for the public's right to see a 20,000-word report by senior news editor Malcolm Balen on Middle East reporting as part of the debate about a perceived anti-Israeli bias at the BBC.
The Corporation, which spent more than £250,000 on that court case, argued the report was always intended as an internal review to help shape future policy on its Middle East coverage and was never intended for publication.