Skip to main content
Daylight Robbery

I see that the Conservative Party have pledged to end the BBC's license monopoly if and when they are voted back into power. Not this century then.

The first time, parliamentarians have broken ranks and have decided that the BBC is a monopoly of kinds, exercising a license fee on the general population which seems very close to extortion in the eyes of some.

Why, in God's name, should I have to pay to watch television I ask? The BBC, after all, rolls-out a constant diet of mindless and politically-oriented rubbish and game shows for the underclass audience and counts 'Holby City' and 'Eastenders' among its programming triumphs.

I rarely if ever watch the BBC which appears to hold an idealised vision of Britain as a multi-cultural playground and has thrown any responsible sense of morality and responsibility out of the window in exchange for 'on message' trendiness.

Ah but I'm told that it does wonderful documentaries and has a world-leading news site. This is apparently worth £116 a year but if you happen to watch BBC Breakfast News, you'll understand why I watch Sky News instead.

No, the BBC has been a protected animal because the politicians were frightened of its power. However, since the last local elections, any sense of an unbiased political stance has been lost and the Conservatives have realised that hoping for any sense of balance from a left-wing dominated news organisation is as pointless as expecting good press from 'The Socialist Worker'.



The BBC will however fight to the last. The license fee is worth too much and without it, the organisation would have to compete on merit as opposed to political influence.

George Orwell, like communism, was a 20th century phenomenon and he happened to work for the BBC. Neither have a claim to the 21st century other than as examples of how the broadcast medium can exist quite comfortably as an extension of political authority.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…