The legal approach

The legal approach

Charles Moore writes about his decision not to pay the licence fee. He's taken every precaution- a donation to charity of the sum in question; an equivalent sum set aside in case the BBC accept his case that they are in breach of their Charter, and amend accordingly.  

Of course I think he's right that the BBC are in breach, but more precisely I think the concept of a Charter such as the BBC have (and updated just a couple of years ago) an absurdity, a political charade, a conceit played upon the conscience of the public. Moore grounds his case on the failure to remove Jonathan Ross from his post following RossyBrandSachsgate. 

Fair enough, I would say, yet as Moore also points out, there are many reasons to wish not to pay the BBC for the use of your television. 

John Kelly for example has been summoned to court to answer for his non-payment, and grounds his case on the BBC's lack of balance in coverage of the EU. 

Obviously we should watch both cases carefully. I note that the BBC renewed their charter a couple of years ago. In the new Charter I believe there is no reference to impartiality, which was one of the Labour Government's friendly touches for the BBC; removing the impartiality clause really left sites like this one in a changed situation. 

Therefore John Kelly may have a problem since the BBC's partiality is central to his complaint. Instead, the Charter

 talks of the BBC's "public purposes", which are,

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;(b)promoting education and learning;(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; (e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; (plus the promotion of digital telly)

Charles Moore is evidently basing his prospective case on the failure in "sustaining citizenship and civil society" exampled by the Ross-Brand-Sachs scandal. 

I think it's a good idea to keep this little bunch of purposes in mind in all our considerations of the BBC. I have to say the new Charter was a rotten document from the beginning. The bit I quote is the most substantive part of it concerning the BBC's responsibilities, yet where does "news" fit in to the above list? Is is "education"? Or "citizenship"? 

It's hard to see where to fit the BBC's coverage of "Global Warming" into this. 

Bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world is a nice soundbyte, but how does it differentiate between a tourist slot for Brazil and a report on Israel? 

If I was arguing the case for either Mr Kelly or Mr Moore I would want to point out that the current Charter is utterly inadequate as a moral foundation for a compulsory tax on British-based TV owners. 

Then I would argue that its education is false, its citizenship flawed, its culture impoverished and its mission in the world ill-conceived and superfluous. After ten minutes of that, I would apologise for going on (as I am now, in fact), and say that the amount of rational criticism that one can make of the foundation of the BBC is evidence of the injustice by which it is sustained. 

The BBC's ring-fenced status outside the democratic ebb and flow is entirely unjustified. 

The only comfort from the terrible inadequacy of the BBC's charter is that it arose from the friendship between the BBC and an overwhelming Labour majority in Parliament. Therefore logically if the majority is overturned, so can be the BBC Charter, and the institution itself.

Posted by ed thomas at 17:50 3 comments