BBC Agenda

 
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) claims that they uphold a culture of fairness .....

BBC Founded With Lofty Ideals - Long Dead.

 ... over its front portals were inscribed the words “This temple of the arts and muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931, John Reith being director-general …”

According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2020 59% of the population self-identified as Christian, with only 6.3% identifying as Muslim. But yet, the BBC has somehow appointed three Muslims in a row, as its religious editors?  Strange, but true, and certainly against any chance probability, given the numbers above. The latest, Mr Maqbool, has previously acted as the BBC’s Pakistan Correspondent and Gaza/West Bank Correspondent, so hardly can claim neutrality or non-bias (whether conscious or unconscious) in his views on certain events e.g. Palestine and the Jews. 

Muslims usually claim that theirs is the only true religion "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it." But that as a religion of conquest, it also draws distinctions between its tolerance of other monotheistic 'People of the Book' (ahl al-kitab), (Jews, Christians, and the others such as polytheists or idolaters on the other hand), in Islamic classical law. For instance, Muslim males are allowed to marry a Christian or a Jew, but not a polytheist. Muslim women, however, may not marry non-Muslim men, to ensure that all children are Muslim .... all of which are hardly in-line with the woke ideology that the BBC push, that we are all the same peoples, and share all the same social and cultural values in this happy united land ... that idea actually disappeared in the late 1970's, when the country started to lose its social unity.

Apparently in the BBC's promotions of multicultural programming, there have often been complaints of an anti-Christian bias, and many calls for the removal of the religious editor, but all such calls are ignored by the BBC, which I should point out, is forcibly funded by the population via the TV licence (meaning that we are forced to pay for this alleged religious bias). Now I freely admit that I hardly watch the BBC content any more, and indeed haven't done so for many years, so I really can't say whether there is an obvious religious bias in its programmes or not, but I am aware that there have been complaints that there is.

In many peoples eyes, the BBC has long lost its writ to represent the views of the British people, which was established by Royal Charter in 1927, ‘to inform, educate and entertain’, and “provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them,” and is now often seen by some, as a propagandist medium for woke and anti-majority political and social views. Frankly the argument to make the BBC stand or fall on its own merits, by removing the TV Licence, and letting it go commercial, grows stronger by the year. 

BBC TV Audience Share

Large numbers, complain every year about being forced to fund it, and its current views, which they don't really subscribe to (In 2022/23, the estimated TV licence evasion rate in the UK was 10.31%. This is an increase from 5.50% in 2012/13). This argument rears its head every few years, and each time the counter argument to retain public funding grows weaker, especially as the BBC continue to lose its share of audience, and therefore any claim to mainstream validity .. the next BBC funding settlement is due in the next couple years, so an ideal time to reconsider the question, perhaps by referendum.

Of course, as if to prove the claim that the BBC has a political bias and an agenda, its now had to apologise to President Trump for at least once, and possibly twice, editing speech clips of his in such a manner (by stitching together different sections of a long speech, to create a soundbite that didn't exist before the editing), that it gave a different slant than on the original soundbites. Two senior employees resigned (although not whom ever made the decision to edit the clips), and Trump has declared it evidence of media "fake news" and has threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion or more, although I believe that there are a number of legal hurdles that would make this difficult to win, not least of which are that the programme or programmes were for UK broadcast only (so had no impact in the US or elsewhere, so no impact on Trump or the election which he easily won), and even then to comparatively small viewer numbers.

However this has once again has besmirched the organisation worldwide, at a time when its had serious questions about its biased coverage of many issues. For instance the Gaza conflict, with claims it was using Hamas as a source for a documentary. BBC Arabic has been accused of promoting stories that painted Israel as the aggressor, while burying stories that contradicted that narrative, with some BBC Arabic contributors and staff being reported as having made antisemitic comments on social media including calling for the killing of Jewish people.

Decades of employing only one type of employee, via what appears to be active race and sexuality quotas - under the diversity umbrella - but for example the national census shows under 4% of the population are LGBTQ, and similar figures for some race numbers, but the BBC has reached 11 per cent and more of its staff as LGBTQ and aims for more ..... how is that representing the general UK, when its so skewed above the actual figure and verges on being illegal ... a former adviser to the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee Michael Prescott pointed out that the BBC's coverage of transgender issues was effectively "censored" by LGBT specialist reporters, who promoted a pro-trans agenda. This sort of quota recruiting has led to the whole organisation being institutionally biased towards one world view on both political and social matters. 

Its this unchallenged one sided recruitment process, that makes the BBC in my opinion irredeemable now, because its taken thirty years of irresponsible recruitment to create the current organisational mindset, and would take about the same time with supervised recruitment to reverse that result. A couple of changes at the top won't fix it now .... for some people it doesn't seem to represent many of those who voted Conservative or Reform or Brexit etc, or even normal working class Labour voters in the Midlands and North any more.

We are entering a new era in Britain and the world, and the BBC represents something that has had its time ... we are not Good old Blighty any more ... mass immigration is causing great social unrest, and integration and the multiculturalism model has visibly failed here (and indeed in Europe as well) .... so the BBC's mass diversity recruitment policies, are actually making it less, not more representative of the main UK population, which is about 86% white, or the whole population which is about 96% heterosexual ... figures which are increasingly at odds with the BBC's proposed make-up.

So now's the time to abandon the television licence fee, and let the BBC go private and stand or fall on its own commercial and popularity merits, where it can diversify its staff until they represent another country entirely, and can proudly stand for the left and 'progressive' agenda that they are so clearly are aiming to represent now.