Time to Deny the Establishment Broadcasting Company its funding

In my last post I said the BBC are really just “The Establishment Broadcasting Company” – the broadcaster of and for the establishment. Their view was outdated in the era of empire radio in the 1920s when they were founded, but today it is totally at odds with modern society and our internet peer-to-peer communication which has more or less broken down the presumed barriers and authority of the “establishment”. But,

the EBC just cannot get it.

Jimmy Saville Paedophile and protected by the establishment at the EBC

Jimmy Saville Paedophile and protected by the establishment at the EBC

It just get worse and worse see this on Bishop Hill: New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right.

For example they will allow all the following to speak on climate:

  1. Nurse – a geneticist
  2. Walport – medical science
  3. Jones (of the notorious Jones report into BBC impartiality) research into medical areas.
  4. Lord Lawson – not a scientist – just a member of the establishment

In contrast, someone like me, when chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum (the only group representing skeptics) who (like Andrew or many other skeptics) had a climate relevant degree (physics), who  has worked in renewables and studied climate for years…

was totally ignored despite the BBC knowing full well who I am and my qualifications.

This proves the EBC take only one thing into account:

“are you part of the establishment”?

And that doesn’t mean just “government”. It means establishment as in “established”. So. e.g. green groups like Greenspin get trotted out as the supposed “anti-establishment” view,. What complete nonsense! They are now so big and so well established that they are just as much the “establishment” as the “Establishment Broadcasting Company”.

To give another example, the SNP in Scotland have got very annoyed at the BBC bias. Does that mean the BBC do not broadcast the SNP view on all kinds of issues from climate to cucumbers?

No!

Does it mean that when the British “establishment” view (in Westminster), is at odds with the SNP, the establishment view is the one they broadcast?

Yes!

Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment, Establishment.

The EBC are not so much biased, as institutionally incapable of understanding how society has changed since the days of empire.

So, when the BBC allowed a church of Scotland minister onto their program to liken us skeptics “paedophiles”, this was “the establishment” encouraging another member of the “establishment” to attack the non-establishment for daring to “deny” the authority of the establishment on climate.

The irony of course, was that it was the EBC who had  the paedophiles. As we all know, the establishment EBC, had the establishment Jimmy Saville, using the establishment authority (which then could not be denied) to force himself on children. And this was hidden by the establishment EBC, because as a member of the establishment EBC he was immune from prosecution.

This is what they mean by us being “deniers”. We are denying their “droit de seigneur”: the EBC’s right to bugger us & our children, either literally like Saville or metaphorically by climate catastrophism.

So, to the EBC, “science” inherently means “establishment science” – which means the Royal Society, chief scientific officer. What it does not mean, is real skeptic science as in evidence based views, and it certainly doesn’t mean the “hoi palloi” like skeptics.

Unfortunately, for the EBC, they are governed by a charter and under that charter they have a legal requirement to be impartial.

And it is a simple matter of fact that the EBC are now acting “ultra vires”. They are not acting within the legal terms of their charter, and just as under the sale of goods act we have a right to demand our money back for goods that are “not fit for purpose”.

So we have a right to refuse to pay for an organisation that completely fails to be impartial on issues such as the climate.

This entry was posted in bbc, Climate, Sceptics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Time to Deny the Establishment Broadcasting Company its funding

  1. TinyCO2 says:

    The BBC only promotes the establishment when it suits them. They’ll merrily support homeopathy (regularly confusing it with herbal medicine) or anti fracking when they want to knock conventional science. They’re usually anti every government policy (and I mean every government regardless of politics). They’re pro Charles when he talks about climate but were anti Charles over Diana. They’re a bunch of self obsessed degenerates who hate everyone who isn’t cool. Aging rock stars are cool, dangerous people are cool, London is cool, drugies are cool, people who have casual sex are cool, pre pubescent kids are cool…

    • Yes, there is the interesting problem when two groups from the establishment have different views. So, taking the easiest example, the BBC are ruthlessly impartial between labour and tory … however if you want to hear a view from a non-politician … you won’t get it.

      So, e.g. on Lord’s reform. The BBC spend hours and hours talking about this or that proposal from this or that politician — which basically amounted to more jobs of politicians (as you would expect).

      But not a word about the hundreds of proposals from non-politicians.

      And e.g. when about 10% of the respondents to the house of lords appointment panel supported a citizen’s jury (I wonder which skeptic might have been involved?) … against all the rules it wasn’t even mentioned in the final report … and of course the BBC never mentioned it.

      So, when it’s greenpeace — against the government — the BBC give “impartial ” coverage.

      But when it’s wind lobbyists in cahoots with government to take away our money …. not a dicky bird from anyone in the public that has to pay for their fraudulent scam.

      But homoeopathy — is now establishment (on the NHS!) — so the BBC can now go on at nausea about it. Because they now have someone in the establishment to present their views for them.

  2. mpcraig says:

    We have similar issues in Canada with own CBC. We give them $1.1B per year and they won’t accede to FOI requests based on artistic freedom or competitive disadvantage or something similar.

    As a taxpayer, the way I see it that our CBC is a business which posts a $1.1B loss every year and I have to bail it out year after year. That’s insanity. Or as you put it, the ESTABLISHMENT.

    • I put in an FOI request to the BBC to ask how many complaint they got on climate. They refused claiming this information had to be kept secret for journalist purposes.

      They are so completely corrupt that they cannot even understand how corrupt they are.

  3. Richard Mallett says:

    It’s not only the BBC. Channel 4, More4 and Eden (for example) regularly feature a Scotsman (Ian Stewart ?) telling us we are getting more ‘extreme weather’ when we aren’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>