The public broadcasting Bourbons

THE BBC CARRIES an institutional liberal bias; an accusation they no longer take exception to when confronted by it: rather, the corporation's management from top to bottom behave like modern day bourbons; arrogant, haughty and overconfident in the belief that they rule by Divine Right. The fortress they call home is the nearest you will come to a liberal Lubyanka; where political correctness has drawn many of the teeth from free speech; and where social engineering effects the corporation's employment and programming.   

                

               There is a deliberately designed quota system in play regarding programming. For instance, if you scrutinise the BBC 24-hour news service day after day (which 90 percent of the few people who view it never do), you will come to the conclusion that minority placements, whether by colour, gender or disability; or a combination of all in a single individual, will be given priority and woven into the multicultural tapestry of the BBC. But I errantly conclude that even within those politically correct chosen from among the BBC's news readers, correspondents, and foreign correspondents, political and economic correspondents, there is a hierarchy – at the apex of which sits all shades of colour bar white; beneath this will sit women; and bringing up the rear, the disabled.

                

                The trouble with a quota system is that there is an ideological purpose to it based upon allocation and proportion, and not upon talent. The BBC whenever it sends an individual journalist on what used to be called in the 1950s an outside broadcast; it seems to me a deliberate policy by the BBC to include in such broadcasts whether it is at a school, in a shopping centre, or even a BNP coffee morning; there should be a quota of ethnic minorities put in front to the camera at every opportunity to show how politically correct the BBC now is.

                

                 Every broadcast, whether news or drama; all have to have their share of ethnic minorities, including the infirm – such a categorisation of people reminds one of the Nazi categorisation of separating Jews, gays, and gypsies. It is only this process of social engineered separation of identifiable minorities practised by the Nazis that I compare to BBC methodology. The BBC is not Fascist, but their liberal social engineering and liberal agenda has many of the impulses of the restrictions placed upon Europe by the Nazis.

                

                  I am not saying it should not be the case that the media needs to reflect the needs of multi-ethnicity, feminism, and the disabled. But this should not be as part of an ideology called multiculturalism, which the BBC has bound itself up with: it is only through a process of natural selection based only upon ability and not quotas that should be the template. Quotas breed resentment among those who do not fit into the favoured minority categories - which means the white indigenous population.

IF THE BBC was operating in the private sector none of the above would matter because people would have a choice of whether or not to buy through subscription into the BBC's agenda. But unfortunately such a choice does not exist.  Because of the licence tax which everybody under 75 but over 16 has to pay for just owning a television set on penalty of either a £1000 fine or imprisonment – I suppose this is to be regarded as liberal hard love at work.

               

                 No one should be made to pay for a television set above and beyond the cost of its acquisition on the open market. It is scandalous that, in order to pay for the BBC, the purchaser of a television set has to pay a further payment of £145 a year, just to own a television set: where else in the world outside of a Communist country does this practice still exist?

                

                 If, for instance, I do not like ITV One, Two, Three, or Four; or Channel Four; it does not matter because I am given a choice of what to watch. None of these channels demand from me any payment (they survive on advertising) except for the BBC. Why does the BBC; who regard themselves as a popular world-wide broadcaster need to rely upon the British taxpayer to keep the whole edifice of the BBC solvent?

                

                 In the very early years of television - which was what the licence fee was meant to subsidise; the BBC was the only channel available and therefore the institution merited a licence tax to own a television which would be used to provide the British people with this single channel of entertainment; and the BBC solicited the affable moniker of 'Auntie' in those early years and into the 1970s, from the licence payer.

                

                  But ITV, a channel, as in the American mould, funded by advertising proved effective competition to the BBC. In the late 1950s and early 1960's independent television attracted more and more viewers to their popular programming all for gratis - the BBC must go it alone; then they can be as politically correct as they like because the consumer will have a choice to watch the BBC, and have 145 quid a year to spend on some pay to view channel which meets their viewing needs, sport, movies, and news channels like Sky and Fox.