Guest essay by Eric Worrall
British members of Parliament Sir Christopher Chope and Peter Bone have introduced legislation to eliminate the special powers the BBC enjoys to coerce license fees out of poor people.
TORY MPS TABLE BILLS TO DECRIMINALISE NON-PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE, PRIVATISE BBC AND MONITOR IMPARTIALITY
Looking down the legislative agenda there are three Bills coming up for a second reading in this parliamentary session which will warm the hearts of co-conspirators:
BBC Licence Fee (Civil Penalty) Bill
Public Service Broadcasters (Privatisation) Bill
British Broadcasting Corporation (Oversight) Bill
These are, at the moment, Private Members Bills – from Peter Bone and Christopher Chope – so not likely to become law unless the government takes them up. Guido reckons the decriminalisation of non-payment of the BBC licence fee is actually likely to happen.
…
Read more: https://order-order.com/2020/08/26/tory-mps-table-bills-to-decriminalise-non-payment-of-licence-fee-privatise-bbc-and-monitor-impartiality/
BBC climate bias has been well documented by WUWT, including a recent nasty attempt to smear the reputation of Dr. Willie Soon. This abuse all stems from a meeting a decade ago, in which the BBC accepted advice from a secret panel of experts whose names they refused to release, which concluded that the BBC could ignore their normal charter requirement to be impartial when it comes to discussing climate change.
But trouble for the BBC has been brewing on another front.
The BBC uses license fee collection methods which in my opinion are nothing short of brutal. They enforce their special privilege to collect mandatory license fees even if you don’t watch the BBC. The BBC exercise their “implied right of access” to intrude into people’s homes without a warrant, and they demand money from people who refuse to pay on pain of criminal prosecution.
Plenty of people have released youtube videos detailing the bullying tactics allegedly used by BBC enforcers.
If the BBC are stripped of their special fee collection privileges, they will finally face a genuine test of how popular they really are; only people who actually like the BBC will have to pay their license fee.
For some reason the BBC and their supporters are very opposed to removal of the BBC’s special fee collection privileges.
In Germany you are prone to be jailed if you refuse to pay your TV fees (210 EUR/a and increasing), no matter whether you even own a receiver or not – like me since 40+ years. The moment you are not homeless, i.e., once you have a domicile, you are forced to pay.
Remember, the BBC deliberately “hid” the abuses of people like Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris for decades. Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols identified Savile as a “problem” in 1978, and no-one at the BBC cared.
Brings a whole new meaning to “Jim’ll Fix It”!
The BBC has a long history of harassing older people. I grew up in a house with no electricity and consequently without television. My mother continued to live there without electricity into the mid 1990s. At some point during the 1990s the BBC became convinced she was avoiding the licence fee. After a series of letters to and fro over several months the BBC eventually sent one of their people to verify that she was indeed avoiding the fee, they were sorely disappointed. When he eventually found the house and had had a cup of tea and a biscuit he left convinced that indeed she had no TV. The gas lights and paraffin lamps convinced him fairly quickly.
But like all complaints to the BBC, when she complained about their actions she got the standard “we’re right, you’re totally wrong, stop complaining and never annoy us again” reply.
These were the type of “big brother” ads they used to put out in the 80’s to scare people, yes this is the BBC
Just a guess: Could Prinz Philip incidentally be one of the names?
Prinz Philip is a major name within the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which gets a lot of adverts, attention and participation from within BBC.
For the sake of completeness, it should be remembered that the identity of BBC’s secret panel of experts was eventually uncovered. It was not pretty.
Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation… Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ‘climate change’. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ‘best scientific’ expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/here-s-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted
Here is the secret panel of experts who advised the BBC to ignore climate skeptics:
http://omnologos.com/2012/11/12/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/the-secret-28-who-made-bbc-green-will-not-be-named/
A corrupt and totally biased organisation that generates, promotes & broadcasts leftist propaganda and has a profoundly anti-science agenda. The once-venerable BBC, the voice of freedom and hope in a benighted Europe during wartime, is now a sad and pathetic shadow of its former self. Many of its journalists have no qualifications to report on the subjects they cover and they are little more than activists, promoting an agenda of “wokeism”, climate change alarmism, Covid-19 hysteria, BLM hyperbole, anti-Brexit scaremongering and generally anti-British propaganda. They have also made it their mission to try to ridicule & undermine President Trump on a daily basis since he won the election in 2016 and, indeed, throughout his original election campaign.
That they should be defunded is beyond doubt – the sooner, the better.
Ok so you say BBC is biased towards a belief in AGW.
But then so is ITV, Channel 5, Channel 4, France24, Al Jazeera, Euronews, RT, CGTN,CNN,TRT World, etc. I’m sure there must be more but these are the only ones on satellite I can receive/have watched (in UK).
All these have the same view on AGW.
So since you must get your news from somewhere would you like to name a few news stations I could watch for your truth please?
Could you also tell me why these MSM all follow the AGW belief What is the purpose?
The point is you have to pay for the BBC whether you like it or not and it doesn’t have to justify itself to anyone. Also, why MUST you get your news from somewhere? What is the imperative to ‘get’ news? I watch and read none and get along just fine. I have better things to do with my time.
+97
People aren’t FORCED to pay for those other left-wing fake-news outlets, G-half-runt !
Nearly all the MSM are far-left wing.. of course they support far-left-wing causes. !
Also, most of them are just like you, having basically zero comprehension of anything resembling actual science….
They are brain-washed marxist/socialist journalists, who just “accept” the climate lies, because they know no better.
for eg ABC in Australia, 80% of the presenters are Greens voters.
At least you realise and admit that most of the MSM are highly biased to the far-left agendas abd group-think.
I think you are right about the general and thoughtless adherence to the alarmist line in the media, but the issue is that you don’t have to pay a lot of money to many of the media outlets you list. The BBC is a monopoly you are forced to subsidise.
“So since you must get your news from somewhere would you like to name a few news stations I could watch for your truth please?”
Nice straw man there.
It’s not about “our truth” vs “your truth”, Fox vs MSNBC , Guardian vs Breitbart. That’s an in group/out group problem that is being magnified today for clickbait ad revenue, it’s polarising society into black and white thinking…… of which you seem to be a victim, as you put it “us” and “them”.
A wise man should prefer the colour grey.
I think the question is where is the journalistic balance?
Where is the counterpoint?
Where are those that might have something pragmatic to say about renewable energy?
Why are pertinent questions never asked? “devils advocate” if you want.
I don’t want to watch political bubble TV, I want to see debate with facts presented from both sides in the arena of ideas, so I can make a judgement using my own brain.
I don’t want propaganda, black or white.
Being a socialist, ghoulfont believes that truth is something that those in authority decide.
Yes,I believe it’s called ” truthiness ” ,Mark.
Actually Ghalfrunt ,you’re quite right.You could also have included Sky News and most of the daily newspapers in the UK.And that’s the problem.Bad news sells.Want a cheap headline? Pick out a bad weather event ,call it “Climate Change” and Hey presto!There’s seldom a week goes by without a weather event in the world and so these “journalists” have an easy gravy train.Of course these events have been happening since time began but with today’s communications and easy travel, (ever wondered how BBC correspondents and journalists arrive so quickly at”disasters? “),we are bombarded with bad news.
Of course there’s more- much more -to it than that.There has for many years been the assumption that compassion is the prerogative of the Left.And that the Left has the monopoly on not only compassion but on the means of being compassionate to “the poor and uneducated.” Whether they like it or not.And so Groupthink flourishes -often in so-called called intellectual middle classes – and in the BBC we have the classic situation of total Groupthink on certain issues.Climate change.Trump.Brexit.Tories.All bad,WE know best.Channel 4 is similar,as is ITV (Groupthink is “catching” and it’s fun! Nobody disagrees as they all find more innovative ways of setting the world to rights!) ITV is interesting as many of their newsreaders ,and even weather presenters think of themselves as ” personalities ” and give their views on certain subjects.Ain’t life good!
Sadly ,these ,and others- even the dishonest and corrupt “climate scientists” are” useful idiots” and tools of Big Money-the Gores ,Suzukis,Gates etc – some of whom are in turn dupes of the UN and the Club of Rome.In his book 1984 Orwell provided many serious warnings and memorable quotes.But I think his most important statement was that the objective of power was not money or sex or prestige .The objective of power is power.
Oh and by the way Ghalfrunt,try Talk Radio in UK if you can get it.Good luck!
All the activist journalists agree with me. Therefore I must be right.
Many here say that you need bad news to sell the info. This is where the BBC wins. It does not need to sell anything. There are no advertisers to placate.
I agree it is not good being forced to pay a license fee. But then how would you fund an advertiser free service.
The BBC is rightly famed for its natural history programmes. It is famed for its comedies. It is famed for its dramas. You would loose these. since minority interests can be catered for without worry of funds.
You want both sides presented – but if science says one thing is valid where do you draw the lines at the other side – do you present UFO stories as fact? Do you have anti vaxxers presenting invalid beliefs?
most here seem to believe hcq treatment is valid but double blind scientific trials say it is not – who chooses the truth? why should we present only vague references to hcq working when there is valid evidence from scientific studies showing it is ineffectual. This just muddies the waters!
“You want both sides presented – but if science says one thing is valid where do you draw the lines at the other side ”
Wow… just wow.
I understand now why you draw such contempt in WUWT comments.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” ~ Richard P. Feynman
Since I don’t go to news channels for the truth, I can short-cut that one for you.
Go to the data.
AGW sells to idiots.
The BBC exercise their “implied right of access” to intrude into people’s homes without a warrant, and they demand money from people who refuse to ”
The BBC cant enter your home without a magistrate order, what they do is send there thugs around to intimidate you into letting them in, they need to see a device that’s capable of receiving a television signal ,even if you dont watch the BBC that’s enough for a conviction, they have a data base of all UK addresses if theres no licence registration at a address they first bombard you with threatening letters.
The “oversite ” bill is far more important ,but it appears it’s a private members bill ,unless theres a lot of surport its unlikely to get passed the first reading , it will show if it fails that the government propaganda machine will still spew its lies,deception and half truths out to a gullible public.
Decriminalisation of not paying the licence fee is a farce, millions of people already avoid paying , buy making the BBC a none licence view, the propaganda machine will be freely viewed ,this plays right into the governments hands ,scoring brownie points for election purposes and keeping the government arm of propaganda alive and well. Climate is one of many BBC agendas pushed on the public.
I had the misfortune of reading one nights BBC schedule the other day,its a disgrace.
Remove the BBC altogether.
I am so impressed Jeremy Clarkson was allowed to run the Top Gear episodes for so many years – I miss him!
Would Clarkson in 2020 be allowed to so boldly express his love of ICE, and his hate to caravans and battery cars?
In 2016:
Jeremy Clarkson: Top Gear problems got ‘bigger and bigger’ BBC News
Never had one and never will, i would rather sit in a cell than fund those marxist bastards.
Up until 5 years ago i had never had one of their goons at the door, had 2 visits now in total, see i dont watch tv so i dont care about them calling, i use my tv as an extension of my laptop, i.e. a 40 inch screen to play poker on, or watch streaming services.
I voluntarily let the goon in to check once and the letters stopped for a year, second time i shut the door in his face after telling him we dont accept cold callers or door to door salesmen…
Seing a device capable of receiving TV signal is no help to them. They must prove it is used for that purpose, and not only for streaming watching videos etc. You don’t have to let them in on the first place. Their implied right of access is is only up to your front door.
Gee whiz, someone at BirdBrained Corporation thinks people have to watch TV and pay for it, even if they don’t? Wow. Glad I live in the Good Ol’ USofA. If that crap ever starts here (unlikely) I have two burned out TVs they can just haul out of my house so that I can use the space for storing dry goods for the hard times ahead.
I knew they were bad over there across The Pond, but I didn’t know they were that bad. TV in USofA is so godawful bad now that it isn’t even worth getting a working TV any more. Books are better. And I keep getting sales mails from AT&T – remember them? I do not miss any of that crap. Very glad we have choices.
I quote from griff ” The BBC don’t support the climate skeptics view because it has no basis in fact” well here are some facts about UK weather.
1/ 1976 Is still the hottest summer ever recorded.
2/ 1869 was the mildest winter
3/ The winters 2009/13 were the coldest since 1985/89 only 1962/66 were colder.
4/ During the last 17 years seasonal rainfall has been normal for normal for 90% of
the time.
5/ Arctic sea ice reached a minimum in 2007 and 2013, and has increased since then.
6/ Antarctic sea ice is still at it’s normal range.
7/ Snow fall in the Alps has been at or above normal during the last ten years.
So the climate is well within it.s normal range. Only extreme in the eyes of the BBC
Scepticism is always valid – because scepticism is the basis of scientific enquiry and unless griff is against scientific development he has to be in favour of scepticism, and unless he is against climate science he also has to be for climate sceptics because scrutiny and a belief current understanding has to be challenged in order to progress is what any real science would embrace.
But like most of the people who attack “climate sceptics” he has no clue either about the essential role of scepticism in scientific enquiry or about climate sceptics in particular (beyond the lies he swallows from those like the lying biased corps).
For clarification:
In the UK you should have a TV license if you watch any live TV (not just the BBC) on any device including a computer, mobile, games machine etc. This includes watching TV that is broadcast in another country.
You need a TV license if you record live television
You do not need a TV license if you only watch catch up TV, excluding BBC iPlayer
If TV Licensing believes you’re watching ‘live TV’ or using BBC iPlayer without a licence, enquiry officers may pay you a visit. They can’t enter your home without permission, but can apply for a search warrant to do so.
The BBC have abandoned all sense of impartiality on far too many subjects, so I have abandoned my responsibility to pay their absurd TV fee.
To “table” a bill means to “place it on the table;” that is, to take it out of consideration during the current session. The writers of the article don’t seem to know this.
That’s what it means in the US. Putting something on the table means bringing it up for discussion.
US and Britain, two countries separated by a common language.
Ah, thank you, MarkW. I had assumed that since the Colonies stole all that parliamentary procedure stuff from the the land of Parliament, we would at least use the terms correctly.
We’ve had this discussion in earlier articles that the use of “table’ in regards to legislation means opposite things to American influenced societies versus British influenced societies.
http://www.cambridge.org
Keep in mind that in USA influenced government, most items “tabled” require a vote to be brought back to official consideration.
Items not brought back for official consideration are vacated at the end of annual session.
All too often, “tabled” is the kiss of administrative death.
Perhaps the organisation is feeling the heat building. The radio 4 news this noon time actually featured a report from a reporter broadly positive about mr Trump. Haven ‘t heard that before.
According to one CNN reporter, all white Republicans aren’t just racists, they are all white supremacists who believe that killing blacks is their inalienable right.
Non-white Republicans are all willing stooges who are only permitted to show themselves by the racists so that they can make racism acceptable.
CNN are racist – because racists are obsessed with race and attribute all kinds of thinks which have nothing to do with race to someone’s supposed race.
Biden did say earlier this year, that blacks that vote Republican aren’t real blacks.
PS: When did whites get the right to decide who was a “real” black?
PPS: I thought race was one of those things you get to self identify. Sort of like gender.
Perhaps this should be called the “Orwell” bill after the prescient author who wrote a book in which a public entity very much resembling the BBC took control of all public messaging and thought.
This is the BBC
Eric has new shoes. Eric has new shoes.
Tom has gone on holiday. Tom has gone on holiday
The red queen is sad. The red queen is sad
That was the BBC
Despite the nostalgia it has been a tool since its beginning under Reith.
The new Woke is here. It’s about time.
The BBC news has become the broadcasting arm of BLM and Antifa. Its so focused on the US now that it might as well be a branch of PBS.
The question a lot of UK people are asking is why they are paying for this stuff via a hypothecated tax.
In addition, when its not broadcasting BLM and Antifa propaganda, its continual climate change alarmism, diatribes about the British Empire (of all things), repeated bows to the trans lobby, and continuing invitations to ‘experts’ who turn out to be Labour Party activists….
Defund the thing.
Didn’t think of that. What a waste of money.
Yeah, I think they’re going to regret invoking the D-word. It ain’t the police who are going to be defunded.
There are supposed to be some riots in Oakland tonight. It’s probably the most racially diverse big city on the planet, although it pains me to type the word racially when no one here actually notices skin color, etc. It’s so peaceful and actually lovely to be so diverse that you don’t even think of a “black person” to quote the race-baiter fake-democrats. You think of him or her, my friends, as a person.
This is about Trump destroying their fake causes last night, and I’m no Trump fan, but he did.
Good grief, I have just read the BBC want to impost a council tax like tax on everyone (I remember the council tax riots of the 1990’s) to maintain it’s revenue stream.
A couple of ideas have been floated by them to generate the funds. One is to levy a household tax along the lines of the UK local government tax, the Council Tax.
The other was to tax Internet access.
To which an acquaintance with the typical wry sense of the ridiculous that you so often find in the British proposed with a completely deadpan expression something like the following.
These were good ideas, the idea of taxing some essential and handing the money to the BBC must be right, after all its a national jewel and the envy of the entire world, but perhaps they have chosen the wrong things to tax.
His proposal was to put a tax on food. Everyone has to have food, so that way it would be impossible to evade or dissent from, and there would be none of the bad publicity and resentment that come out of the current prosecutorial and criminal regime.
If people thought taxing food was controversial, though he could not see why it should be, to fund such a noble organization, the envy of the entire world after all, then perhaps a tax on electricity consumption would be a substitute. At any rate, the thing is to have something which is absolutely unavoidable.
I was wrong. It was the poll tax riots I was thinking of. That was before the poll tax became the council tax per individual in a house as apposed to rates on the house. I was threatened with court action for non-payment of my council tax because I, legally, paid by non-direct debit (I forget the actual term for the process now) which took the banks longer to process.
The poll tax was a per-individual tax.
Every person whose name was on the electoral register had to pay the tax.
It directly led to thousands declining to register to vote to avoid payment and thereby being unable to vote.
Labour lost as many as three-quarters of a million votes by this [thinly-disguised] vote rigging tax.
The council tax is a tax on the value of the property, paid by the householder.
You need to look at other European countries….where a load of different means are used to collect the same fee. Very few are free.
The BBC should be made to stand on its own feet.
This is what happened years ago with TV ONE in New Zealand .
We used to have the same nonsense here years ago and all TV owners had to pay a fee each year .
TV ONE has to stand on its own and attract advertisers to pay the running costs .
That is one thing that New Zealand has got right and there is good competition between One and Three .
The BBC has become a mouth piece for every green and climate change useful idiot and governments around the world should be wary as free speech and ideas are the life blood of all true democracies.
Just look at the US where a great number of the television networks are so biased towards one political party that CNN leading the charge should be renamed the Communist National News .
Enough said