The BBC is Irredeemable

[David Guyatt]

I would like to argue against this.

It's the BBC NEWS that should be transformed from it's current narrow pro government propaganda model. To just get rid of it leaves us with Sky News as the principal UK broadcast news outlet and that's even worse. Murdoch would love it and has been working behind the scenes for years to get rid of the BBC. This campaign is right up his street.

Also, putting the Beeb to sleep, ignores the fact that it produces some fine drama.

The problem is not the BBC per se, but the senior management and the government (especially Blair's government) for hindering it and making it so fearful about its future funding from government, thereby making it supplicant.

The whole thing needs to be re-worked and real independence assured.

The BBC as an entertainment provider will continue long after the licence fee - it will simply reform itself into a subscription channel (something BBC Worldwide are already working towards). The news and current affairs section is the one thing that the government won't allow to be touched, since it has far too great a value as both whipping boy and propaganda machine - Murray is right; it's a lost cause and all of these campaigns to save it are drawing focus and resources away (probably deliberately) from the dismantling of the NHS and state education system and government land-grabs for fracking etc.

As for Murdoch - his television channels still only have limited subscription in the UK, so he's already doing the maximum damage he can through the newspapers he owns. I don't see people flocking to Sky in the event of the BBC being privatized - some would happily pay to receive the likes of Doctor Who, Sherlock and The Great British Bake-Off others would just be content with Freeview. Besides, the current model for television is quickly becoming outmoded - Netflix, Amazon etc are the way of the future.

I'm old fashioned about these things and dislike subscription based TV and also intensely dislike privatization of national treasures - and favour public service television.

This whole discounted privatization process started with Thatcher in the early 1980's so that her buddies in the City could cream in fortunes at the expense of the taxpayer. Basically, the British public having already funded something into being, then had to buy it again privately if they wished to retain a stake - but if they couldn't afford to invest they were simply fooked royally. For me it was and remains a giant con - a redistribution of money from the many to the few.

Murdoch is not a fit and proper person to own a TV network in my opinion. His lies before Parliament in the phone hacking inquiry demonstrated that. And, of course, BT was once a nationalized service that was privatized and now uses business practises that are at least as awful and deceitful as Sky. Imo. I find it hard to difficult to imagine any major private corporations that act honestly these days. The fact that regulation in the UK is so designedly inadequate simply attests to the notion that this innate crookedness was knowingly factored into the privatization process.

Thatcher herself made millions upon millions - arguably while in government service as a result of backhanders from the Al Yamamah arms deal. Her successor, John Major, who used to wear Marks & Sparks shirts and suits when PM, quickly became a multi-millionaire after leaving government service. Ditto Tony Blair. Ditto Cameron (except he arrived in government a millionaire) and doubtless will do even better once he fucks off in 2020.