BBC is taking revenge, says MP
A CONSERVATIVE MP has accused the BBC of making up false allegations about him in revenge for his campaign against the licence fee.
Andrew Bridgen claims that inaccurate stories have appeared on his local BBC website in Leicester, linking him to a family vegetable processing business which he ceased to have any interest in following his election to Parliament in 2010.
The MP for North West Leicestershire, who has also accused the BBC of breaching the requirement for impartiality by giving his rivals undue airtime to attack him, claims he became a target after attempting to introduce a measure to end the criminalisation of those who failed to pay the licence fee.
The measure passed the Commons but the Lords voted to delay it by two years. In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Bridgen said: “By leading the debate and setting the political agenda on the decriminalisation of the licence fee, I have set myself on a collision course with the might and influence of a £5 billion worldwide media organisation, which has attacked my family business, falsely reporting ‘facts’ and attributing comments to me which I did not make.”
A BBC spokesman denied any bias against Mr Bridgen.
In its mission statement, the BBC says that it “exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain”. It exists, therefore, to report the news in an impartial manner – not to
make the news or to push a particular agenda.
I would contend that the BBC is now working outside its remit. Far from being an impartial spectator to events, it has become an active participant in our national debate, whose influence is unauthorised and unwelcome.
Current and former employees have acknowledged what you might call the “Guardianisation” of the BBC’s editorial line. You only have to consider a range of topics such as climate change, the EU and immigration to see that the BBC treats those who have concerns about such issues with an institutional disdain.
But its meddling with the news agenda has recently reached new heights, especially concerning the TV election debates. Even the BBC’s own former chairman, Lord Grade – a man who recently brought about an amendment in the House of Lords to protect the corporation’s income stream – expressed outrage at the BBC’s threats to “empty chair” the Prime Minister if he did not cave in to its demands.
Finally, and most important, there is the TV licence fee. This month we had a debate on the decriminalisation of nonpayment of the fee in Parliament. This was due to the amendment put down in the House of Lords, which was then supported by five ex-BBC employees parroting the BBC PR machine’s line that this will cost millions of pounds of revenue should decriminalisation be legislated. The debate was riddled with dubious warnings that local radio stations and Cbeebies would have to close if people were not jailed for being too poor to pay for their TV licence.
This month has also seen the suspension of the Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson for an alleged fracas with a producer. It has been speculated that the programme’s brand is worth tens of millions of pounds in annual income to the BBC. Should Jeremy Clarkson finally be forced out of the BBC, a reported aim of senior executives, how will that revenue gap be filled?
Remember this: the BBC – thanks to its ex-employees in the Lords – has achieved a delay in possible decriminalisation of non- payment of the licence fee for another two years. On current trends, that will see 100 more people put in prison and over 300,000 citizens criminalised, simply because the BBC judges it to be a price worth paying for the maintenance of its revenue stream.
You really do have to question the moral approach of an organisation that applies such standards to the public it is supposed to be there to serve. It will also be revealing to see how Jeremy Clarkson is dealt with compared with Russell Brand, who, in spite of his disgusting behaviour towards Andrew Sachs, is now a leading presenter on Comic Relief. Perhaps this is because his extreme Left-leaning views are more palatable to BBC executives.
By leading the debate and setting the political agenda on the decriminalisation of the licence fee, I have set myself on a collision course with the might and influence of a £5 billion worldwide media organisation, which has attacked my family business, falsely reporting “facts” and attributing comments to me that I did not make.
I am fearful of retribution from the BBC after last week, having been picked out of a possible 46 East Midlands seats as a focus for the regional news programme in the upcoming election, effectively granting my opponents a disproportionate amount of prime BBC airtime to attack me.
The BBC has a budget more than double the size of the Foreign Office – and is an empire of an organisation. I believe serious questions must be put to the BBC at Charter Renewal about its agenda and transparency.
This must be done without fear of its monolithic PR machine, which wields so much power. “Auntie”, as she was once affectionately known, is no longer with us. Instead, we are faced with one of the last vestiges of corporatism, a leviathan that seeks to change our national culture and that holds even our highest elected representatives in contempt. The BBC has shown it is willing to ride roughshod over our democratic processes, so it must be tackled.