Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image


Once is accident – Savile – protection of their own, contempt for us.

Twice is coincidence – McAlpine – assault on their self identified enemies.

Three times is enemy action – 28Gate – lies, deceit, and assault on the rest of us.

But you knew this anyway, didn’t you?

Actually, in the case of the BBC, we all knew that twice was enemy action. Third time was just another example of an ongoing campaign.

A reputation created up over ninety years, dragged into the gutter and pissed on.


  1. Paul Marks says:

    Get rid of the BBC.

    Yet no one in a British newspaper will even suggest this – it is all move the deck chairs about on the Titanic stuff.

    And the rest of the mad stories.

    Soon to be Archbishop demands that Banks are “shamed” (by GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS) into making loans to poor areas – being an ex oil exective does not mean one knows anything about economics (loans down the drain are bad), and being a priest clearly does not indicate any knowledge of morality.

    Using force to make people do stuff is a bad thing.

    Then there was the SAS hero – sent to prison for the “crime” of owning a pistol.

    The stupid lad arrested (yes arrested) for burning a poppy on Youtube.

    And endless othe stuff – mostly anti business and people happy at the victory of Comrade Barack.

    All in the newspapers (most of them free newspapers) on the late night train comming back from the airport.

    I thought of blogging it – but I am too depressed.

    Comming back to this pile of leftist …… is not good.

  2. John Galt says:

    A reputation created up over ninety years, dragged into the gutter and pissed on.

    Your site, your rules obviously, but the BBC’s journey from integrity, through bias to propaganda is not something which is either new or surprising. They’ve had form on this sort of thing before and they’ve been caught out before.

    The BBC has been plugging the same anti-establishment agenda since at least Suez. It’s no surprise that TW3 and the ‘new satire’ originated at the BBC, it was just another way of attacking.

    Don’t get me wrong, the are some good and decent people at the BBC, but the culture is so corrosive that anyone with non-PC or libertarian mentality would not be tolerated and treated not as dissent, but as some form of mental idiocy.

    28Gate shows exactly the contempt the BBC has for impartiality, people with views which do not meet the BBC world view are whitewashed.

    No, since its inception the elitist BBC has been patronising the proles and propagandising its own agenda. Although many journalists have had strong personal integrity, the institution was fundamentally corrupt.

  3. John Galt says:

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again, the BBC is a fundamental threat to this country and its people. It is little more than a nest of Marxist vipers – it is currently weakened by recent events, now is the time to strike it down – Kill it! Kill it with fire before it lays eggs!

    If nothing is done, they will simply pay off Lord McAlpine (with licence money extorted from the general public), pension off some senior managers with golden goodbye’s, fire some middle managers who will be blamed and introduce a new layer of compliance to stop the vipers killing the Golden Goose.

    All the bullshit mea culpa that is going on is not genuine remorse for their actions or the culture that brought it about, it is about protecting the 3.6 billion they get from the licence fee. Because everyone from Fat Pang down knows that there are no technical barriers to abolition, we the completion of Digital switch-over the BBC could move to a pure subscription model and the license fee abolished.

    Those who love the BBC can continue to pay 145.50 per year as a subscription, everybody else can do without. Somehow though I doubt that would bring in more than about 1/2 billion, which would leave a bit of a shortfall.

    With Labour out of power and it’s propaganda arm (for that is what it is), now is the time for the Tories to strike. The only idiotic thing is to do nothing which is exactly what Call Me Dave will do.

    Kill it! Kill it with fire before it lays eggs!

  4. John Galt says:

    Time for John Redwood to lead a coup I think, the only Toriry left with both balls and brains…

  5. RAB says:

    There never was any integrity at the BBC JG, that’s the joke. It has been a patronising propaganda arm of our Ruling Elite all along.

    In the beginning there were four services… The Home service for homely fireside chats, plays and propaganda. Then there was the Third Programme for Classical music, opera and intellectual (Fabian) discourse. And the one most people listened to… The Light Programme. It wasn’t called Light for nothing. This was a sop to the plebs who even then were paying a fee for the privilege of being brainwashed by the great and good, full of comedy and popular music. The bread and circuses channel, Arthur Askey and Can I do you Now sir?, Educating Archie (now that really was an innovation, Ventriloquism on the Radio!???) and popular dance bands of the time.

    Ah but there was lurking in the background the real purpose of the BBC, the World Service; Broadcasting to everywhere but Britain with it’s insiduous propaganda. Not even funded by the Licence Fee, but directly from the Government via the Foreign Office.

    And it is now as it has always been. Nothing will destroy it and no one will even try. This storm will be weathered like so many others.

    Let’s see what coverage 28 Gate gets from dear old Auntie, considering how much of our money they spent trying to conceal it. No Mea Culpa’s this time I’m betting, like the Savile miasma, which is a very convenient cover for what they are really up to and like.

  6. Sam Duncan says:

    What John said. None of this – neither the bias nor the journalistic incompetence – is new. There have been many “regrettable, isolated, incidents” over the years.

    When I first read about the 28, my immediate thought was, “Busted!”. When Anthony Watts juxtaposed Climategate email #4894, that went double:

    … we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
    say something.

    This is the BBC’s own Alex Kirby, quoted by Phil Jones. I’ve always said that I thought the BBC was trying to be impartial, but its employees’ bias was bound to show through no matter how hard they tried to conceal it (did so in my first comment in years over at Biased BBC just the other day, in fact). But clearly they’re laughing at us and their charter. They don’t care. The IBT seminar was just a paper-thin attempt to conceal the fact.

    But it won’t make a blind bit of difference. This time next year, the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC and its tax will still be here, the deckchairs shuffled a bit, with a new lick of paint, but otherwise unchanged.

  7. john b says:

    My view on the Beeb is different from most here: I’d be delighted if they’d let me pay gbp150 a year for their programming, but (because international copyright law is a farcical mess), I can’t. News is a mess, though.

    Anyway. Agree with you all, Savilegate is the best chance you lot have of getting the Beeb turned into a subscription-programming-provider with a direct-funded web and news operation.

    If you want to make the most of this opportunity, the important things to focus on are:
    1) evidence of sheltering paedos;
    2) evidence of smearing innocent people as paedos in a piece whose reporting values would shame the Daily Star;
    3) evidence of exposing abuse victims to humiliation and public attack by reporting their more deluded allegations without fact-checking.
    4) arguments about poor value for money/payoffs/salaries, lack of unique mass market programming, and excludability in the digital age

    …because the public-in-general care about paedos, callous attacks on innocent people, fat cats, and whether or not they’re being ripped off, and they’re the ones you need to win over to your side.

    If you want to ensure that your campaign fails, then the best things to focus on are:
    1) arguments about global warming;
    2) arguments about party bias;
    3) accusations of Marxism.

    …because the public-in-general don’t care about the two very much, and think that people who make the third one are frothing Roderick Spode-ish lunatics. Some people care about all three a great deal (as above), but they’re almost all people who already want the BBC abolished and have wanted it abolished for donkeys’ years, so you’ve got them on side already. They’re best kept away from sight of the people you need – the ones who’re angry about being mugged for gbp150 a year to fund rapists, incompetents, and Jonathan Ross.

    There’s still a major problem, after you lot missed a great opportunity 10 years ago. The original plan for the DTTV rollout was that it would be led by OnDigital (later ITV Digital), using receivers that looked like Sky boxes and included SIM cards that allowed access to encrypted channels. After ITV Digital went bust, and nobody else wanted to step in, rollout responsibilities went to Freeview (led by the BBC*) instead. The strategy shifted to one of zero-encryption: although the underlying standard supports encryption, most TVs and set-top boxes don’t.

    Which means that to make the BBC subscription-only, you need to tell everyone that they need a new TV or at least a new STB if they want to keep watching EastEnders. On top of the DTTV one you made them buy last year. I don’t rate your chances of that one… so I’d also recommend keeping an eye on, and focusing some of your campaigning efforts on, emerging new TV standards.

    * not /all/ managers at the BBC are incompetent. The ones who locked DTTV into the free-to-air model were strategically brilliant.

  8. John Galt says:

    Some questions for the BBC – By John Redwood

    1. Why did they have a long record of failing to offer reasonable air time and fair treatment to Eurosceptics? Why did it take external studies to reveal the shortage of airtime given to critics of the EU, the adverse way they were introduced and treated, and the more frequent interruptions they suffered?

    2. Why are critics of global warming theory either ignored or treated as cranks, when there is still serious scientific and economic debate about the causes of climate change, the extent of it and the best way of responding to it?

    3. Why does the BBC normally interview people from a left of centre perspective – demanding more expenditure, higher taxes, more government intervention – rather than from a right of centre perspective, asking people why they don’t cut taxes, control spending and reduce the role of government? Shouldn’t a balanced broadcaster do a bit of each?#

    4. Why are losses, unusual tax arrangements, financial engineering in the public sector treated more leniently than similar things in the private sector?

    5. Why did all the layers of BBC management fail to instill into Newsnight after the Savile crisis the need to investigate thoroughly and present a case with evidence to back it up where there is plenty of evidence, and to cancel an enquiry where there is insufficient evidence?

    6. Why, after the failure of the Newsnight team on the Savile issue, did management not require stricter reporting and higher standards for future work?

    7. Which managers approved the Macalpine piece? Had anyone on Newsnight read the Waterhouse Report which had looked at these allegations years before? Had they seen the comments on their witness? Why did they fail to put the allegations to the person they were falsely accusing? Why did they tweet out that they would be revaling a top tory paedophile, only not to name one? Why did they not expose again the actions of Labour Clwyd County Council, which was responsible for the children’s home and the social service department in question? Why did they not remind us of the 7 people who were successfuly convicted of crimes in the North Wales abuse tragedy, none of whom were prominent Conservatives?

    8. What changes did Mr Entwistle wish to put in place? Why did he not tell the Select Committee or the Today programme about these?

    9. If Mr Entwistle “exemplifies the highest sdtandards of public service broadcasting” why did these obvious errors occur on his watch?

    10. What is the BBC going to do about its top heavy and clearly ineffective management? Shouldn’t the editors of flagship programmes be responsible for their journalistic output, discussing it with lawyers and others where necessary? Isn’t the only other person who must have a view in difficult cases, the Editor in Chief?

    12. Why does Mr Entwistle get such a large pay off when he has done the job for such a short space of time and decided to resign because he did not think he had done or could do the job well enough?

    The BBC Trust needs to tell us what value we are getting for the all the expensive layers of management in the BBC. They need to tell us who is responsible for controlling editors whose journalistic standards are not high enough, or who is responsible for appointing them.

  9. john b says:

    Excellent example. His 5-12 have a good chance of gaining sway with the public, particularly if 7 were less blatantly partisan.

    Nonetheless, his first three points are ones that he and you have being banging on about for years with absolutely no traction at all made, because the small % of people who have the slightest interest in the topic already have an unshakeable opinion one way or another. And point 4 is silly; if the government dodges tax due to itself, that’s exactly the same as if the government, erm, paid itself tax.

  10. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    The 28-gate stuff is perhaps the worst of a bad lot. Joanne Nova reports that of the 28 people in attendance, three were more or less scientists. Of those, none represented the contra-position.

    So fundamentally, you have a meeting with the like-minded and announce the opposition are really barking mad so bugger giving them any coverage in accordance with your charter obligation (the thing which allows them to extract forcibly their money).

    I could find no coverage of this story on the BBC website, perhaps someone could provide me with the link?

  11. NickM says:

    Obviously the BBC is statist. It isn’t just funded by the telly tax you know. It gets a grant from UKGov too. It then makes utter crap like the One Show or that dancing show. That’s the answer to Mr redwood’s point the third. Because seeing as there are hundreds of commercial channels (and I have enjoyed Dave’s reboot of “Red Dwarf”) if it is considered arguable whether schools and hospitals ought to be state funded it becomes utterly risible to argue that Alexander Armstrong presenting “Pointless” ought to be.

    Actually what gets my goat about Aunty is not it’s political bias (we are all biased politically – and pretending not to be is myth-making – relocating the centre so to speak) as much as it’s output of utter drivel and the idea that prole-feed like Eastenders is “Public Service Broadcasting”. The BBC attempts to compete with the likes of Sky and ITV yet has an attitude of sanctimony over the public service remit that takes the breath away. How the fuck can they claim to be a public service yet make schlock like “Hole in the Wall”? Lord Reith must be unquiet in his grave over that. And good. He ought to be. They make two shows I watch – “Masterchief” and the Who obviously. Oh, and Sherlock and Dirk Gently but they are very short series.

    So apart from sticking great culinary artists like Monica and Jean-Michel or stuff by the Grand Moff Steven or the footy results or the increasingly bewildering weather they can sod off. I do watch the BBC News channel but that is because it is basically exactly the same as Sky News but doesn’t have as many ads. And if I want to know in the morning who we are currently at war with I don’t want to watch an ad for effing Yakult.

  12. Sam Duncan says:

    Of course, Nick, Dave is the BBC too. UKTV was a 50-50 joint venture between Creepy Uncle Beeb’s commercial arm BBC Worldwide and Telewest, later Virgin Media, until Beardy Branson sold his share to a bunch of Yanks. There was talk when it started of the channels being BBC-branded, but the uncommercial arm put the kybosh on it.

    So, given that repeats of shows like Top Gear, QI, Antiques Roadshow, etc. are pulling in enough revenue to keep several stations going – and even, as you say, in the case of Red Dwarf, commission new content – where’s the justification for using the licence fee for stuff like that? Surely it can stand on its own two feet?

    I’ve never really understood what “public service broadcasting” is supposed to mean. Other than “Things like the Proms and Radio 3 that the people who like them wouldn’t be able to afford if they didn’t make the people who don’t pay for them under duress”.

  13. Paul Marks says:

    If people want to give donations to the BBC – to stop such “terrible” things as “The Proms” being televised on Sky Arts instread (of course for many years “The Proms” were not on television at all – there was no television), they should do so.

    No Television Tax – and no waffle about “international copyright law” either.

    “Internationl copyright law” has got nothing to do with this discussion.

  14. john b says:

    Paul Marks, yes of course it does, otherwise I’d be able to pay the BBC a hundred and fifty quid and watch them from Australia, and Yanks would be able to do the same in Yankland (not BBC America, but actual multichannel iPlayer). We can’t, even though BBC Worldwide would be delighted to sell us them and has been trying to work out a way to do so ever since iPlayer UK first launched, because of the utterly stupid nature of international copyright law.

    (quiz for the day: spot the man who hates anti-free-choice bureaucratic restrictions, except when they happen to be imposed for the benefit of nominally private sector companies…)

  15. bloke in spain says:

    Excellent appraisal of the situation from john b. He’s done something there that so few do. Present a strategy gets from where you are to where you want to be.
    I’d also add, if you want to get rid of the BBC you have to envisage a future that’s better without it than with. You can’t sell anything purely on negatives. You need to turn the situation round to the BBC having to defend the status quo against attractive progress.
    For instance, the argument – with the demise of the BBC comes the loss of BBC programmes. That’s simple nonsense. For a start the BBC doesn’t make that many programmes. It commissions programmes from independent production companies. And even those it does make: If the BBC went, the next episode of East Enders would appear seamlessly bang, on time. Why? Because East Enders is a popular product & there’ll be hot competition to buy the rights to make it. In fact there’s a good argument, post BBC, the viewers would get a great deal more Attenboroughshite or Today or Panorama whatever particular brand of audiovisual opiate numbs your braincells because it’s tried & tested formula that sells. And would be a great deal cheaper to get to air without having the deadweight of the BBC imposed on it.

    The futures bright, just not maroon.

    Incidentally the digibox problem as per john b’s a red herring. The service providers would be falling over each other to give them away. Hell, they can’t be expensive. I seem to have accumulated half a dozen of the things before I left London. Mostly not unwrapped.

    But a slight worry: They’ll want to sell the Beeb off. Its accumulated value has been financed by the Licence Fee. It’d be a bloody shame if the proceeds ended up with the Government to piss. Should stay with those who paid for it.

  16. Paul Marks says:

    John – you can shove your BBC where the sun does not shine.

    And please stop lying about Sky television and Association Football.

    The Association Football people can sell the rights to watch football to anyone they want to. Nothing to do with “bureaucratic restrictions” or whatever other bullshit you decide to come out with.

    If you offer more money than Sky they will sell them to you.

  17. Mr Ed says:

    I believe that the issue with the iPlayer overseas is not copyright law as such, but rather contractual issues over such things as sport viewing rights. E.g. If a motor race is broadcast, the rights owner sells the viewing rights for each broadcast area around the World, so UK, US, Brasil and so on. iPlayer being accessible in, say, Australia would mean that the exclusive deal for, say, ABC would be diluted if not worthless if any person in Australia could view the content via the BBC. So the rights owner does not sell the BBC the right to put the race on iPlayer outside the UK, for fear of cannabalising the value of his product.

  18. johnpd says:

    Three cheers for Mr Redwood. I enjoy following his blog.
    The BBC must be broken up & become a subscription service.

    James Delingpole’s take on Aunty is vitriolic, & justified. is a great read.

    We live in interesting times.

  19. Paul Marks says:

    The BBC have engaged in a liefest about Corby.

    A normally Labour seat has been tranformed into a seat that “always votes for whoever wins the general election”.

    Totally untrue – and a lie that (in various forms of words) has been repeated again and again on BBC radio and television.

    Yet noone in government is even suggesting getting rid of the BBC tax – they can lie all day and there are no consequences.

    As for Sky – I think I have thought of a solution that will suit John B.

    No copyright law.

    Just have Sky cameras (or whoever pays the football clubs the most money) in the football ground and have a coded signel.

    No need for any “copyright” stuff.

    Of course I can not understand why anyone would want to watch this utterly boring game – but that is another matter.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: