The BBC. Part 1:

Examination of the Finances and bias of the BBC.

There is a debate in full flow in society today in regards to the BBC. Are they the trustworthy news agency that they claim or are they hiding an agenda that does not bode well for the English public?

Our tale with the BBC starts with gagging orders.

Over the past 8 years, the BBC has spent £28 million on gagging orders on 539 members of staff.

These gagging orders have been put in place, so it has been claimed, in order to silence whistleblowers or victims of sexual bullying or harassment.

There can be no doubt that money paid to the BBC by licence payers is meant to be for entertainment purposes and not to prop up a corrupt organisation that has to continuously pay for the silence of those with damaging claims.

The BBC calls these payments “Compromise Agreements” and contain confidentiality clauses are embedded in them. So strict are they that a person can not tell their partner or family about it.

Amongst the payouts, the biggest went to BBC managers. It is rumoured that around 70 executives were given payments each £100,000 13 more given in excess of £300,000.

To give an example of the payouts and how they can be applied we can look to George Entwistle. He received a payout from the BBC of £450,000. He received this after resigning following the Jimmi Savile scandal even though he was only in the job for 2 months.

We have to wonder though why there is a need for such lavish and such consistent payouts. In 2009 payments totalling £5.4 million were made to 95 individuals. This implies that almost two people a week were getting vast payouts and told to keep silent.  The figure of 28 million is bound to be higher when you consider the legal fees that have to be paid to solicitors etc…..

There is then the consideration that the BBC in 2018 spent £6 million sending out letters threatening to fine people for not paying the licence fee. Let us not forget that each fine is £1000:00 pounds. Around 28.6 letters were sent out at a cost of 22p each. The BBC employs Capita to chase up unpaid licence fees.

Capita is paid £59 million a year by the BBC to prosecute members of the Public.

We then need to look at the Capita fishing trawler approach to the cause which shows that some prosecutions were thrown out after it emerged the accused are vulnerable or unwell. These cases even contained a father who is unable to watch TV due to a brain aneurysm. Capita still thought he should be dragged to court and made to pay.

Each year around 179,000 people are prosecuted for not having a TV licence. It comes as a shock that 1 in 10 criminal cases in England and Wales are due to the non-payment of the TV licence, (Criminal trial). Of those who do go to court more than 99% of those convicted receive a £1000,00 fine. The person still has to buy a TV licence on top of this.

It is estimated that in 2018 such fines raised £30 million for the Government coffers.

The TV licence, Awesome eh?

Another area that BBC falls short in is under the Freedom of Information Act.

Remarkably the BBC has refused at least ⅓ of requests for freedom of information. It uses a very little known rule of which very few other organisations use, this rule states that FOI does not apply for “purposes of journalism, art or literature”. So The BBC can throw in any amount of editorial bias they want, they do not have to explain to you, the money giver, why they force you to listen to the news with a particular bias. It would seem you are paying to be indoctrinated but not being told why.

There can be no doubt that the BBC is biased in their reporting.

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias.”

Said Andrew Marr in 2006.

Maybe this explains the BBC, they attract a large number of young people, as does Corbyn and the Labour Party.

Out of every poll ever done the majority of findings show people feel that the corporation has a left-wing biased, as we can see from Andrew Marr and his own statement, there is a distinct bias away from the centre and right.

We also have of course the BBC pro-remain bias that is forthright in its presentation.

The BBC claim that they do not get money from corporations and as such can remain impartial. However, the opposite is very different. The BBC do get funding from the EU,  a political organisation. The following was given to the BBC by the EU:

2013-14 £878,000

2014-15 £779,000

2015-16 £676,000

If we look at these figures we can shrug our shoulders and give plenty of “Maybes”. However, we then have to ask why it is that in 2016-17 those payments jumped to £2.3million?

Did something happen around that time?

Unfortunately, under the FOI act, we will not be told.

The BBC also makes money by selling its programmes, books and magazines based on its programmes and making audio books. Though the vast amount of its money comes from licence fees the BBC uses that money to make programmes etc.. So you give the BBC money and with that, it makes more money.

Now I have known for a long time that managers and staff at the BBC get expense accounts. All companies usually do. This is nothing new, but in the BBC case, this money comes from me and you.

So when we see BBC executives ordering meals with impunity and laughing and joking about it,

We have to ask where have the morals of BBC executives gone, what makes them feel that they can act that way?

Are they really that socialist with other people’s money?

The BBC is a corrupt organisation. In part 2 we will explore their behaviours.