Public breast beating? Given the extent to which they are shamelessly sucking at the public tit I think public breast feeding not inappropriate.

Finding failed senior public servants a nice public body to manage has always been the way of things, the lower orders apparently like to see a reassuringly expensive figurehead in charge as it instils confidence in the organisation. They aren't there to actually do anything, God forbid. As General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord put it:

"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."

And George Monbiot was there twittering and spreading his vile corrupt version of what it is to be a investigative journalist.

Edited by user 12 November 2012 05:18:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Not sure what you are suggesting Doc but competition will do more for standards than any regulatory body could, and before you say we have plenty the Beeb straddles the MSM, strangling out any alternative; once it is gone we will see changes not seen in a generation.

At the least we could do worse than see it broken up and privatised.

The BBC was made a stutory corporation in 1927 (when the Tories didn't mind publicly-owned companies) to prevent the takeover of the ownership of the jointly-owned BB Company by an American wireless set company. Do you really want the BBC, for all its many faults, to go the way of water, gas, electricity, train, telecomms, banks, food companies and become foreign-owned with even less interest in British interests?

Steve Jobs was quoted in Wired magazine, 1996:

Edited by user 12 November 2012 11:18:47(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Things have changed a lot since 1927. The question is whether there's a place for public service broadcasting and if so what is that role and its extent and how is it to be made accountable? what's special about radio and TV? Why don't we have newspapers run on the same lines, supported by a tax?

I see a huge, self-indulgent organisation which has gone its own way and lives in a comfortable bubble. British interests? It has a peculiar institutionalised view of British interests which it pushes relentlessly and marginalises any other view. I recall after the Euro elections when the BNP got a couple of MEPs; the BBC noticeably presented a view of shocked horror; mourning. This was nothing like a public sector broadcaster giving unbiased commentary on the outcome of the democratic process.

At least one person thinks Monbiot might be about to get his just desserts.

http://blogs.telegraph.c...for-joining-a-lynch-mob/

Along with the wife of the speaker. Is a "tweet" regarded as libel or slander, who better to investigate than Monbiot.

Personally I don't believe the BBC is reformable, I'd abolish it altogether. The cream would soon find work elsewhere. The adverts would be irritating, but not more so than the climate change propaganda, rammed down our throats at every opportunity.

I see another couple of snouting porkers disappeared this morning - how much will they receive, it's bound to be in six figures, the public trough never lets the piggies down does it?

I hope the BBC and particularly Patten keep taking the direct hits, they are squirming and hand wringing for all they are worth [and figuratively that ain't much believe me], outside of the Broadcasting house the blood is running and luvvies are squealing and mewling galore,

"oh alack and alas, how could you all be so nasty to our beloved and revered, bestial and corrupt, fat kiddie luver auntie?"

And,

"she's cared so much for you"

Yeah right, [Luvvie journos - complicit - all helped the propaganda and falsehoods along].

Auntie, she did willfully trash all of your traditions, knocked you down time and again, despised the plebeians [Andrew Marr a good example], shafted you - ground into dust all of your mores - all of your societal pillars, lied continuously for 40 years about Europe, lied and lied some more about man made fictions galore starting with the Ozone hole and on to global warming, wanted, scurrilously championed Bliar's works and the misanthropy of totalitarian Socialism [the EU] so much so, that it hurt.

Yeah right........."oh alack!"

Let us hope, that a few more weeks of the flying brickbats [and yet what goodies will emerge?] will openly and ably demonstrate to the wider public, that the BBC is zombified - what it has been for fifty years: animated yes but nevertheless actually dead meat.

Sympathy? Do I care?

Do I ***k - end it now, sell it off now.

Edited by user 12 November 2012 14:07:41(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I understand and largely agree, but surely we can only effectively deal with one target at a time. If we have a referendum soon, which looks increasingly likely, then the opportunity to bring down to earth what will be a formidable opponent is surely one we must grasp. The BBC is ripe to have its wings clipped...that should favour us with the battles ahead if nothing else...

I hope that Douglas Murray of the Spectator feels that this is fair use of a quote of his from the current edition - I looked to see if I could suitably cut it but in the end decided to keep the whole paragraph - because it all needed saying:

What to do about Chris Patten? I find this tricky. Having appointed the shortest-termed Director General ever, and put his full confidence in him, the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, probably cannot remain in place. But I am torn on this. Not because I think he is good at this job, but because I cannot stand Chris Patten.

It is not just that his politics are so appalling, but that he is exactly the sort of person – demonstrably wrong on nearly everything that matters, yet constantly failing upwards – who has helped to make this country such an increasingly second-rate power. Personal dislike of someone else’s opinions should probably be separated from any judgment over that person’s job prospects. But all I would say is that if it was anyone else I would say they had no option but to resign or be fired.

My belief is that this is not a malaise which can be cured by removing a few senior figures. It infects the entire establishment - they are all 'failing upwards'. It is actually a feature of the world's establishment - all the politicians are increasingly indistinguishable from one another and move seamlessly between elected positions and multi-national establishment sinecures. Revolution is the traditional cure for this sort of whole-body fever - but it will have to be world-wide to mean anything now....