1. jba

    the way you’ve written that, it implies that the principal aims that you quote were part of Lord Reith’s original charter for the BBC, whereas specifically those two points only came along when it was revised in 2006/7.

    maybe Lord Reith would indeed be shocked at today’s BBC, as most of us are when watching old broadcasts and seeing how prevalent smoking was amongst broadcasters – how rude does it look to us when someone is being interviewed by someone puffing away? yet Lord Reith must have thought that was acceptable. times – and attitudes – change.

    you say the BBC is unrepresentative of the broader population of the country, but the people with -real- power – ie. the goverment – are mostly made up of public school boys… is -that- representative of the majority of the electorate?

    and “profanity is inversely proportional to education”? Kenneth Tynan wasn’t a truant from comprehensive school, was he? Antony Burgess wasn’t a thicko, was he? they weren’t shy of using robust language… or do you think that only educated people are allowed to swear?

    nice plug for your book; looks like the BBC must have felt threatened and have rushed to put the following online – http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/nutrition/index.shtml – as it can’t have been there before from what you say. I mean, I -thought- I’d seen lots of programmes – such as in the Horizon series – about health issues, and other series that explain why certain commercially produced foods aren’t good for us, but I must be mistaken. then again, perhaps you -have- seen such programmes yourself, but interpreted them as lefty propaganda, trying to stop capitalists making an honest profit, and missed the real point they’re making.


    1. Smoking was based on ignorance, as is profanity, your exceptions merely go to prove the rule. A very small number of educated people use profanity as an artifice.
      The government is democratically voted for, so who they are doesn’t matter. The BBC are a self perpetuating cabal.
      The majority of the population watching prime time BBC do not learn about a balanced diet, instead they have criminal and amoral role models foisted on them.

  2. jba

    actually also part of the BBC Charter is the requirement to produce challenging programming – so just because you find something unpalatable, it doesn’t mean it should be on there.

    I’m no fan of the ultra-depressing Eastenders myself, but is it not more a reflection on how life is for many people, rather than an encouragement for people to live that way? I know you’d prefer to be in your Brucie-bubble where there are goodies and baddies and never the twain shall mix, and anyone in unfortunately circumstances probably deserve it in some way, but – as in plays and stories across the centuries – the wrongdoers in Eastenders and the like often get their just desserts.

    exceptions don’t really prove rules. people – educated or not – often swear. it’s not big, it’s not clever, but people do it. in fact there’s something more honest about someone swearing through distress than someone swearing to show off – as often the more educated have been known to do.

    as for democracy.. maybe that’ll happen once News International/Murdoch is long gone. hopefully.

  3. Andyj

    Bad education begets bad education. The BBC is not a public service. They are a propaganda arm to a gov’t of shame and their handlers.

    The police have a shoot to kill policy for anyone who is accusing of carrying a weapon.

    As you know since the napoleonic code took control of the UK in 2001, the police have killed over 2,400 people. Not one has been convicted of anything. Even if caught telling bare faced lies in court, they face no retribution.

    The riots were a surprise?

  4. Peterl

    Reading what you have written makes me think you have some serious issues with paranoia and possible delusions of importance you need help


Leave a reply