Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Gerald Warner: Ross's Bafta nod is last resort of the scoundrel BBC

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 March 2009
The Beeb is a toxic reservoir pumping poison into British life
'BLIMEY, that is a bit of a surprise." This was the reaction of Andrew Sachs last week on being told that his erstwhile tormentor Jonathan Ross had been nominated for a Bafta award. Such endearing naivety suggests that Mr Sachs does not understand th
e nature of the beast that is the Barrow Boys' Corporation or the wider degeneracy infecting the media and popular culture.

What may have surprised even some sceptical observers is the revelation that the nomination of Ross was made by the BBC itself, while it had suspended him for 12 weeks as a cosmetic sanction after the Sachs incident. The extravagant cynicism of the Corporation in nominating a disgraced broadcaster – the implication being that he represents the best of its output, a product in which it takes pride – for a senior award is a classic example of the arrogance prevailing within Broadcasting House.

The BBC is a toxic reservoir pumping poison into British life. For decades it has spearheaded the drive to pollute our society with everything that is degrading and vulgar. Its targets are "bourgeois" morality, marriage, the family, religion (except Islam), patriotism, civility and every remaining vestige of the Judaeo-Christian ethic. "Pushing the boundaries" and "edgy" as euphemisms for crass and obscene are part of the weasel-worded vocabulary the BBC uses to evade its responsibilities as a "public service broadcaster".

The causes it promotes are moral anarchy, the European Union and the myth of "manmade" climate change. Its unwatchable television programmes alternate between brain-dead "reality" shows, soaps and, at the moment, an obsessive cult of Charles Darwin – rumoured to be making an imminent guest appearance on EastEnders. When Auntie BBC attempts to resume her long-discarded gravitas, to lend authority to her crank causes, she becomes priggish and boring as only a po-faced liberal authoritarian can be.

Debauching the nation's values is profitable work. Jonathan Ross's extravagant £18m contract is notorious, but less well known is the remuneration that BBC executives guzzle from the trough of licence payers' involuntary contributions. The BBC has 744 senior managers. Of these, 13 have salaries of over £250,000 a year; 83 earn more than £160,000; 172 are paid in excess of £130,000; and 343 losers earn not much more than £100,000. Mark Thompson, the director-general, who displayed so much hand-wringing ineffectuality during the Ross affair, trousers £816,000 a year.

Not everyone shares in the bonanza. There have been 7,200 job cuts at the BBC over the past four and a half years, with a further 1,200 being made this year. Earlier this month, Thompson announced a reduction in bonuses for some presenters and the freezing of executives' salaries. So, some poor souls in very senior positions are going to have to muddle along on little more than £250,000 a year for the foreseeable future. If you have tears…

Sometimes the serfs refuse to pay their feudal dues to our majestic public service broadcaster. In 2006, the courts fined 113,874 licence defaulters and put 24 of them in prison. A study claimed: "Most offenders end up defaulting on their fines because they need the money for things such as shoes and clothing, food and housekeeping, rent, rates, unspecified bills, light and heating, and public transport." Right, so, just because some selfish single mum wants to be a bit flash and wear shoes, BBC executives are to have their well-earned salaries endangered? Throw away the key.

The licence fee is the most unjust impost in Britain. By what right does the BBC act as gatekeeper to 196 other TV channels? It is as if one wanted to shop in Harvey Nichols, but had to pay £139.50 to Jenners for the privilege. The Corporation's own research shows that, if the licence fee were abolished, 58% of viewers would opt out of BBC channels. It cannot happen soon enough.

Of course, the BBC is not the only degenerate element in the media. Civilised values have collapsed across the whole spectrum. The Jade Goody phenomenon, whereby the death of a young woman was turned into a voyeurfest, is just the most recent example. The BBC had no responsibility for Big Brother; but it patently regretted that, rather than taking pride in it.

It is now up to the British Academy of Film and Television Arts to decide how it will reflect on its credibility if it gives an award to Jonathan Ross. Since it gave one last year to Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, the television programme on which Gordon Ramsay used the 'F-word' 80 times in one episode, the auguries are not good for an assertion of the decencies.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/03/2009 02:00:14
What a load of rubbish Gerald, Andrew Sachs has ALWAYS understood the nature of the beast, as indeed did his grandaughter the satanic sl-ut herself (that's the name of her dance troupe should anyone have the vapours).

What you don't seem to understand is that the BBC have got to keep the immoral majority happy. That's the people who didn't write in to the BBC in disgust at Ross and Brand's antics - they thought it was all quite funny.

The BBC are walking a very difficult road. Well, various Governments have set them up to do that by demanding that they ''compete'' with commercial rivals. I think the Tories were rather keen on that.
2

Garry Otton,

ScottishMediaMonitor.com 29/03/2009 08:16:20
"For decades (the BBC) has spearheaded the drive to pollute our society with everything that is degrading and vulgar. Its targets are "bourgeois" morality, marriage, the family, religion (except Islam), patriotism, civility and every remaining vestige of the Judaeo-Christian ethic."

The BBC pumps £10m annually into its so-called 'Religion & Ethics' Dept. (I know... About the only time you'll see them in bed together!) It interrupts the morning news with the proselytising 'Thought for the friggin' Day'. As a militant Catholic, Conservative writing in a broadsheet top-heavy with religionists. What more do you want, Geraldine?
3

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 29/03/2009 09:07:25
Darwin a "crank cause"?! Gerald Warner is obviously one of those who believe that "The Flintstones", featuring the co-existence of men and dinosaurs, was a historical drama.

Off he goes on yet another anti-BBC rant, with only a passing nod, in the second-last paragraph, to the fact that "the BBC is not the only degenerate element in the media". Too right......

I entirely agree with # 2 Observer. The BBC is in a mess mainly because successive governments, both Tory and Labour, have required it to "compete" in the "marketplace". I would even go so far as to say that the recent scandals involving telephone vote-rigging etc happened within the PRIVATE production companies that the BBC, under its new business model of "outsourcing", is compelled to employ.

It's obvious, post-Hutton, that the BBC has lost its confidence. You know that to be a fact when Kelvin Mackenzie, of all people, is a frequent guest on its programmes, lecturing the BBC about morality and ethics! Coming from Rupert Murdoch's cat's-paw, that's rich.

Jonathan Ross's main sin, as far as I'm concerned, is that he's a one-trick pony, a one-note samba. Sex, smut, nookie is all he talks about (he is actually quite an intelligent and literate chap but that's not his designated public persona). His show is BORING, which is the cardinal sin of TV chat-show hosts. But British TV is mostly rubbish. Why single out the BBC?

# Garry Otton's point is well-made. I would only add the question (addressed to Gerald Warner): how much money is (say) Sky TV spending on a "Religion and Ethics" department?

Gerald Warner - if you want to talk about scandal, how about Private Eye's recent revelation that Lord Rothermere, ownner of The Daily Mail (scourge of single mums, immigrants and benefit fraudsters) has been describing himself as "non-domiciled" (despite spending most of his time in a castle at his 220-acre estate in Wiltshire) in order to justify his ownership of the Mail newspaper group via
4

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 29/03/2009 09:09:39
/..........[CONTINUED]

Gerald Warner - if you want to talk about scandal, how about Private Eye's recent revelation that Lord Rothermere, owner of The Daily Mail (scourge of single mums, immigrants and benefit fraudsters) has been describing himself as "non-domiciled" (despite spending most of his time in a castle at his 220-acre estate in Wiltshire) in order to justify his ownership of the Mail newspaper group via offshore tax havens such as Bermuda?

Private Eye says that this "fairly significant news" has been met with an "omerta" of silence from the rest of the media, suggesting that most of them are "at it".

However, Gerald Warner, as a Daily Mail writer, clearly finds it more rewarding to sink the boot into the BBC.
5

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

29/03/2009 10:26:41
Anyone wondering what kind of television we'd get if Warner had his way and the BBC was got rid of only have to read this article.
6

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

29/03/2009 10:37:06
It's funny that Warner lambasts the BBC for lack of 'patriotism' and for indulging in a 'cult of Darwin'. I would have thought one of the things England did have to be proud of was it's scientists?
7

Osama Bin Liner,

Edinburgh 29/03/2009 11:11:56
The posts above highlight Warner's all too one eyed and very personal slant on things. Obviously he's paid for his opinion but there must come a time when the editor reads another bile-infected rant and thinks enough is enough. It was mildly entertaining to see Warner's froth spill onto the page the first time but now it's tiresome. His views are presented as if he's the guardian of the nation's morality but, as others point out, his highly selective targeting undermines any vestige of credibility he once had.
8

Radge,

Aberdeen 29/03/2009 12:09:35
#8 Cut the crepe. You'd have nothing to do on a Sunday morning if GW disappeared from the SoS (as he did for a while last year).

Furthermore, grow up; he is paid to present his highly opinionated column partly so the likes of you can fulminate and then calm yourselves down with a nice rub down with the Guardian.

By thw way, where's my favourite Lackey Tvrd to say something witless?
9

Teemackell the Scribe,

29/03/2009 13:31:46
"Cut the crepe. You'd have nothing to do on a Sunday morning if GW disappeared from the SoS....he is paid to present his highly opinionated column partly so the likes of you can fulminate and then calm yourselves down with a nice rub down with the Guardian"-#9, Radge

Are you a social anthropologist specialising in this sort of thing? I know, personally, several Guardian readers who also take SoS and open it FIRST at GW's column and behave, verbally, in the manner you describe posters above. Other such anecdotes reach my ears. Has somebody thought of doing research into it? Perhaps a grant could be secured by examining the impact on global warming of hot air generated by such reactions of the Warner Guardianistas.

10

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 29/03/2009 14:19:01
No doubt the author will be delighted at David Cameron's
response to our bankrupt state when people are going through these "difficult times"?

Freeze the annual BBC TV licence!

11

Observer,,

Glagow 29/03/2009 16:14:50
9 Personally I wouldn't miss a Sunday episode of Gerald Warner, he is addictive. I just wish they'd bring back John Macleod to the Herald as well.
12

Osama Bin Liner,

Edinburgh 29/03/2009 17:10:35
#9 You have a point. Reading Gerald Warner gives me the warm feeling that comes with not sharing his Victorian morality and having the ability to understand that society changes and the BBC with it.

However the thrust of my point was that his need to resort to such extreme language and the selectiveness of his targets betray the paucity of his argument and his journalistic integrity.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.