Sunday, January 21, 2007
British journalist Charles Moore writes in The Telegraph of London that he is fed up paying a "licence fee" so that the BBC, that anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-capitalist network can steal billions of pounds from British taxpayers.
Here is our question: Why is there not some revolt amongst the British people to stop paying this hilarious fee? Two weeks and the whole rotten system would come tumbling down.
If the BBC is so good, we will give it money
Once the BBC extorts this money, it spends it generously on itself. According to press reports last year, Jonathan Ross gets £530,000 a year for three hours a week on Radio 2 and Terry Wogan gets £800,000 for 10 hours a week.
As it happens, although I possess a radio, I have never listened to either millionaire. But I do not begrudge them their gold. I just don't see why I or anyone else should be made to pay for them.
The Prime Minister is paid £185,771 per year out of tax. The director-general of the BBC is paid £609,000. I shall not attempt to judge who is "worth" what as an individual. But my simple point is that I cannot see another way of paying for a prime minister except through tax (though I suppose he could be "sponsored" by McDonald's or something); whereas broadcasting could get on quite cheerfully without a director-general, because it could get on quite cheerfully without a BBC.
Yet the BBC Charter is once again to be renewed for another 10 years, and the licence fee (at present £131.50 a year) will have its increase announced next week.
It shows amazing docility on the part of the British people that we accept it. Perhaps this is to do with the fact that people over 75, who still have the habit of voting, get their licence free. People under 30, who have virtually no interest in the BBC, seldom bother to vote.
Interesting thinking, but check out Moore's gripes with "the Beeb":
First, there is the bias, or perhaps mindset is a better word.
If (God forbid) you spoke to 100 journalists on the BBC, you would find that more than 85 were anti-American, pro-green and opposed to the war in Iraq. They would be happy making a programme about lying tobacco companies and unhappy making one about too many immigrants.
Virtually every single attitude can be predicted. This week, a new year memo by the BBC's Middle-East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, was leaked. He described the situation in Palestine as "the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement-building – and the financial sanctions imposed on a Hamas-led government".
What about the fact that Israel has actually left Gaza, that Palestinians have misappropriated aid, that "militants" (as the BBC likes to call them) have murdered Israelis, or that a Hamas-led government with Western money might not be a very good thing? Is nothing the fault of Palestinian leaders?
Look at the BBC history website's entry on the Provisional IRA. It fails to mention the fact that they killed actual people, whereas that on the loyalist UVF (rightly) gives the number of victims and uses words like "vicious". The BBC never surprises.
As someone who is rather more pro-American than pro-EU, pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, pro-tax cuts than pro-higher public spending, and a lot more pro-Britain than pro-its enemies, I don't like underwriting a religion I don't believe in. It's like being frogmarched into the pew, preached at against your will and then having your wallet emptied.
Moore nails it right on the head. We feel raped, and we don't even live in the UK to have to pay this phony fee.