The Pro-EU agenda of the BBC

[Teddy Bear]

In direct proportion to its anti-US stance, the BBC is pro-EU. Like the 3 wise monkeys, it will not hear, see, or talk evil about this conglomeration of ill-fitting units, strung together by unelected and overpaid bunch of petty and controlling bureaucrats - much like those that run the BBC.

Unlike any other media organisation, the BBC is required by its mandate to be impartial and balanced. It has NO RIGHT to be pro, or con the EU, and should share the views from both sides.
in its usual contempt for balance when pursuing its own agenda the BBC gives us 10 reasons the EU has been positive. Where is the balance?

Ten things the EU has done for you
Europhiles and Eurosceptics can argue until the cows come home about whether membership of the EU brings more benefits or disadvantages.
But both sides can agree that many, if not most, of the laws passed in the 27 member states stem from EU legislation.

To mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome on 25 March, we note here 10 good things the EU has done for the ordinary citizen.


EASY TRAVEL

It is much easier now for Europeans to move to neighbouring states

In the old days, travellers in Europe had to put up with different currencies, regular border crossings and customs checks, and even trains of different gauges - you climbed out of a French train, walked across the border, and got into a Spanish train of a slightly different size. Now one currency, the euro, suffices for most European countries and border posts have been abandoned between the 15 countries that have implemented the Schengen accords. Holidaymakers are fully covered for any emergency hospital treatment they may need in another EU country, driving licences issued in one EU country are valid in any other, and any driver insured in one member state has at least third-party cover in the rest. If you are travelling with a tour operator, the company must have systems in place to get you home if it goes bust while you are away.


LIVING ABROAD
Europeans are generally free to go where they want within the EU to live or work, and some 15 million Europeans have moved across borders to exercise this right. For example, more than 300,000 people are drawing UK state pensions in other member states (mostly Spain and Ireland). Older member states have imposed temporary labour restrictions on workers from countries in Eastern Europe which joined in 2004 - but these will gradually be phased out. An EU citizen living in another EU country enjoys equal treatment with nationals of the host country in terms of welfare protection, and can stand for office in local and European Parliament elections.


EQUAL PAY & NON-DISCRIMINATION

The EU has standardised and strengthened workers' rights

The principle of equal pay for men and women was enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which first established the European Community. The principle has been turned steadily into reality. A 1975 directive ensured that women paid less than men for the same job got the right of redress through the courts, and protection against dismissal. More recently EU legislation has awarded part-time employees, who are often women, the same rights as people working full-time. Discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation is also outlawed. And age discrimination laws which came into force in the UK and other member states in 2006 stemmed directly from legislation passed at EU level.


PAID LEAVE
The EU Working Time Directive ensures that all Europeans get at least four weeks of paid holiday per year. In the US, there is no statutory minimum and many employees get only two weeks of paid annual leave. The same directive guarantees workers 11 hours rest in every 24 hours, one day of rest per week, and a rest break if the working day is longer than six hours. EU legislation also sets minimum standards for paid maternity and paternity leave throughout the EU.



FOREIGN STUDY
Thousands of students take part in foreign exchanges ever year under the EU's Erasmus programme. In the 2003-4 academic year, 7,500 UK students spent between three and 12 months at a university in one of the other member states. The programme helps students learn foreign language, gain experience of another culture, and profit from the host country's expertise in their field of study. People who want to attend a university in another EU country can also apply to do their entire degree course there, without having to pay extra charges imposed on foreign students from outside the EU.


CHEAP FLIGHTS
The EU swept away barriers to free competition in the air transport market in the 1980s and 1990s, paving the way for the emergence of budget airlines. Between 1992 and 2000 prices at the cheaper end of the market fell by 40%. At the same time, consumers benefited from a wider choice of both carriers and destinations, the number of routes linking EU member states increasing by nearly 50%.


CHEAP TELEPHONE CALLS
During the 1990s, the EU broke the monopolies held by public telecoms operators. The result was a doubling of the number of fixed-line operators between 1998 and 2003, rapid introduction of new technology, and lower prices. According to the European Commission, the price of international telephone calls in the EU has fallen by 80% since 1984. The EU has now begun taking action to reduce the cost of roaming on mobile phones.


CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumers can send back a product bought anywhere in the EU if it breaks down within two years of purchase. People shopping on the internet, by telephone or mail order, can also change their mind within seven days, and cancel the contract without giving a reason. EU law prohibits misleading advertising and requires that all products put on the market are safe. Shoppers who buy goods for their own use in one EU country can take them to another EU country without paying excise duty, as long as they accompany them.


FOOD LABELLING
Under EU law, all ingredients used in food products must be listed. Any GM ingredients must be flagged up, as must colouring, preservatives, sweeteners and other chemical additives. Any ingredients that consumers may be allergic to, such as nuts, must be marked, even if the quantities used are very small. EU laws define the conditions food must meet to be described as organic, and ensure that a name associated with a high-quality product from a particular region, such as Parma ham, cannot be used to describe a product of lower quality, or one from a different region.



CLEAN RIVERS AND CLEAN AIR
The EU is widely credited with forcing the pace on improvements to the quality of air, rivers and beaches. Member states might have done the job independently in their own time, but peer pressure upped the tempo when European ministers got together to pass laws. Measures such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive have led to dramatic improvements in the rivers over the last 30 years, making possible, for example, the return of otters to the British countryside. Other legislation has greatly reduced the problem of acid rain; the UK, once the "dirty man of Europe" cut sulphur emissions by 73% between 1990 and 2002. And if 30 years ago most British beaches failed the test of the EU Bathing Water Directive, now 98% of them get the thumbs-up.

[Teddy Bear]

Now the reason for the BBC EU bias becomes apparent
(hat tip - giddyboy)

Tuesday, March 13, 2007
MEP asks Scotland Yard to investigate BBC relations with EU

The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England, detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.

He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.

Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims. The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.
The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law. It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs. All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says. He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years.

“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says. “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.

“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.

The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:

BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?
You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter. There appears to be a prima facie case of malfeasance.

This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months. If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.

In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter.

The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago.
Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.

Solid proof exists that this is not the case. That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years. I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.

You might also find a recently published book instructive - Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken. Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years. His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.

This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.

I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy.

The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set.

As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter. The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability.
It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations. When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda.

Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased. Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?

Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:
a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors "to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation". Lord Hutton's report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.

Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration. Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.

b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors "to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality". The BBC clearly supports Britain’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro. The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above. Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation.

Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site. Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU. In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC's bias towards the EU.

Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs. At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.

c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003. He stated that the BBC's attitude was…
"the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism. It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t".

Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU's policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels. Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.

d) The BBC's governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU. Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.

But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence. Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not "deliberate"? Since when were such events "accidental"?

e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).

The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons. Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.
The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.

I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.

Ashley Mote can be contacted at [e-mail]
www.ashleymote.co.uk