Blame the BBC for the riots

John Charles Walsham Reith, 1st Baron Reith, KT, GCVO, GBE, CB, TD, PC
John Charles Walsham Reith

The BBC is what is known as a public service broadcaster and it is paid for by a hypothecated tax, the license fee. The principle behind this were laid down by Lord Reith and they became the BBC charter. Two principle aims of which are sustaining citizenship and civil society and promoting education and learning.

But the reality is that the BBC tries to compete against commercial television for viewing figures and in doing so it puts out pure populist rubbish like the soap opera East Enders, which was designed to compete against Coronation street. This soap opera contains very high levels of immorality and lawlessness and in doing so serve as a role model for the rest of society, the exact opposite of what the BBC should be doing as a public service broadcaster.

In addition the BBC has employed foul mouthed presenters like Jonathan Ross who think that it is OK swear on air and the BBC seem to have almost encouraged this culture of profanity, despite the fact that profanity is inversely proportional to education. So once again they are letting us down as a public service broadcaster. Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave.

And the BBC have almost unbelievable power, more than the state broadcasters in many dictatorships. The BBC have several television channels BBC 1 to 4, BBC News, BBC Parliament, BBC World News and two children’s TV channels (that is 9 channels). They have national radio channels, BBC Radios 1 to 7 and lots of local radio stations. Then there is BBC online, Europe’s most popular content-based web site. In fact the BBC is the largest broadcast news gathering operation in the world.

An additional BBC problem is that all the power resides with a left wing, liberal, university educated metropolitan elite who are totally unrepresentative of the broader population of the country.

So when we have a major breakdown in public morality, such as happened in the riots it is impossible for the BBC to not take some of the blame. Their power on public conciousness and morality is so great. If the BBC promoted the virtues of moral behaviour, nuclear families, abiding by the law, self improvement and hard work as they should then we would have a far better country. We live in a country where most people don’t even know the basics of nutrition and a healthy lifestyle, which the BBC do little about. My GigaLiving book will help correct this if people read it.

There are many problems with the BBC, it is broken and it needs fixing. It sits at the centre of national life yet it propagates views and lifestyles that are not in the best interests of society.


  1. 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 – – 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. 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. 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. 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.