Concerns for the BBC

I DO not claim or even think the BBC is perfect and with streaming, free internet, catch up, etc, the licence funding option may well be becoming unrealistic, but why does our government so resent this national jewel?

I am particularly peeved, as one of 177,000 people who responded to the consultation request in a supportive way that it now seems the press has been briefed to brand us “lefties and disruptives?”

The BBC is undoubtedly extravagant and has far too many middle managers with long fancy job titles and far too few programme makers.

But, however much the Conservatives detest BBC impartiality, it belongs to the British people, not this particular “five-year government” and most particularly not to George Osborne and John Wittingdale, who have both made little secret of their antipathy.

Everywhere I go in the world people love the BBC. Public service broadcasting in the USA is a pale underfunded limitation, in the Far East only the BBC is believable, and in many of the most despicable regimes, it is illegal even to listen to the BBC. That should surely tell us something?

When the public are asked: “Of all new sources (TV broadcast, newspaper, magazine or website) which one source are you likely to turn to for accurate, impartial news coverage, six out of nine say the BBC (10 per cent don’t know). ITV, Sky and all the red tops and broadsheets together assemble a pitifully low level of credibility and it’s years now since ‘Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster!’ The current debate began last summer with a green paper focussing on ‘market impact’, arguably the concern of commercial competitors rather than public support and public interest? Then came consultation.

As so often what the establishment means by “consultation” is a few quangos, a council body here and there, maybe a utility, possibly police, a small selection of the great and the good, peppered with odd members of the general public (who are mostly then gently ignored or at best overlooked).

The Department of Culture Media and Sport received almost 200,000 replies, such is the growing power of social media, combined with the public’s appreciation of genuine independence.

Embarrassed by this justifiable out pouring of public support, the consultation is now in trouble.

One could have much more confidence the government would act impartially if they weren’t so cosy with Rupert Murdoch.

David Davis MP, a Conservative who has long since abandoned the ‘greasy pole’ accused Cameron and co of “shamelessly courting Rupert Murdock.”

In 2010/2011 George Osborne held 16 meetings and dinners with News Corp executives.

George Osborne met Rupert Murdoch four times between May 7 and the end of June last, just days before he announced a much reduced funding deal for the BBC.

The two unminuted meetings in June 15, also preceded the decision to relieve the BBC of £700m to pay licences for the over 75s.

Not just a lifelong ambition, Murdoch also has a clear financial interest in a weakened BBC. Whilst it is understandable George Osborne would want Murdoch’s backing for the top job in 2020, is quietly emasculating the BBC the price of this support?

I’ve no clue what is in store for the BBC, but I sincerely hope it is not a much diminished, less popular institution forced, demoralised, into the so called ‘commercial arena’. I suspect however it may well be an unequal contest, facing an unholy alliance of the Mail, Telegraph, Murdoch press, television and film interests, AND the Tory government?

It would be nice to know where Robert and Justin sit on this. While they are Conservative politicians, from what I know of them, I am not at all sure they would support the dismantling of the BBC for political advantage. I hope they too can see its value, not just the cost.

There are very few remaining things that make our nation stand tall on the world stage. The BBC is one of them. Emasculating the BBC will see it join a sad list, electronics, coal, steel, railway engineering all twilight industries now, abused by investors, private capital and politicians of every hue.

JOHN STOOKE Haydon End, Swindon

The town’s poor roads

I AM writing in response to two subjects in Cllr Dale Heenan’s article on Friday, January 29.

Firstly, regarding highways investment for Swindon, I would think two of the priorities for repair and resurfacing should be the Magic Roundabout (must be the busiest area in town) and which has not been repaired in years, and also the Moonrakers Roundabout which is a main route from the A419 into Swindon, and is also in need of dangerous potholes being repaired.

Secondly, he says about the major road projects taking place in preparation for the building of thousands more homes for the Eastern Villages development. When do they plan to build a new hospital for these new homes? We all know our hospital is far too small for the size of the town now.

Why is it that Oxford, whose population is far less than Swindon, has three hospitals? J RICKETTS Yeats Close, Swindon

It’s smoke and mirrors

DURING my 30 years working for Wiltshire County Council, I was told, time after time, after time, by the (then) Thamesdown BC elected members that once Swindon got full control as a unitary authority we would be assured of a wonderful improved environment, with standards of service undreamed of by backward facing WCC.

Now you can twist what actually happened any way you like. You can blame central government, the wicked Tories, the economic changes in the world or whatever but I have lived here since the former HRDC was told the same old rubbish by the earlier SBC when we were about to be taken over by them and the fact is that the New Jerusalem has failed to appear.

Rates go up and services go down. Money is given on the Old Boys network to fund crazy wi-fi schemes that fail. Ill-planned conflicting and over-lapping road repairs with confusing signing, new roundabout works lasting for months (Rodbourne bridges) and railway bridge closures when other roads are also closed or under repair, bring the town to a standstill. On this estate, we can’t even get a few give way lines painted at the road junctions, not to mention failing to control rat runners, failing to pull down a derelict pub and giving planning permission for a gross over development of the site that will cause further traffic and car parking problems at this busy junction.

Oh and there is also the Don’t Park Can’t Ride site; aka foxes’ paradise and the Moonrakers’ bottleneck giving everyone time to sit in their car and admire the giant potted trees.

Now benevolent Auntie SBC wants to devolve certain services to the parish councils to save money.

Oh goody, some will think. But the sting is in the small print. The inheritors of these devolved services will then need to increase the parish precept to cover the costs and any idiot except, it would seem, officers and members of this local authority, know that losing the economies of scale available from having a single management and shared equipment, will mean an overall increase in costs for which we, the citizens will actually end up paying.

I believe we are being asked to vote locally yes or no on this devolution but am unsure what that means in terms of whether or not it will happen. I suspect it will have no effect on the SBC decision any more than did the huge petition over Lydiard Park leasing, so I shall not be participating in this Soviet-style fake democratic process, though I shall attend and spoil my ballot paper.

It’s all smoke and mirrors in SBC politics – come back HRDC.

TERRY FLINDERS Swindon

Taking responsibility

HOW public spirited yet anti-social for the Adver ‘editorial’ to join the ranks proposing that it has to be ‘the authorities’ who should stop us from doing the things we should not do.

A lorry tips on its side apparently because an extra sign was not working. The precautionary principle at its worst. No mention of the professional training every HGV driver has to undertake. No mention of the statutory signs all in-place and the chequer yellow/black all there to discourage.

Will the Adver soon be running a ‘Georgie Davies is innocent’ campaign for the bin lorry driver in Glasgow; clearly it was his employers who had failed to stop him lying about his health.

Will the national railway have to spend even more on fencing to prevent those who will not be kept out from trampling it down?

Yes it is inconvenient. Yes it is unfortunate that the driver was injured. Yes it is miserable that as tax payers the many have to pay for the behaviours of the few; to pay for the needs of the few.

But let us not extend supporting the less fortunate to proposing that those who are paid to do better are somehow made less blameworthy because the authorities didn’t stop them.

But should a regional newspaper air such views? I think it is irresponsible; what kind of lead does it give to us mere ‘members of the public’?

I do not need to be responsible.

Someone else should always do more to help and protect me from myself!

GRAEME CHRISTMAS Lakeside, Swindon

Pay out for refugees

IN RESPONSE to G.M.Thompson’s letter cost of refugee kids (SA 30.01) He asks if we can afford to take in 3,000 refugee children. I will assume that his calculations are correct and it would cost £432m over 10 years. There are 30 million workers in the UK. If they were to pay the suggested cost, it would work out at £14.40 each over 10 years, or £1.44 a year. Therefore, in answer to his question of can we afford it? I would say yes. Yes we definitely can. More pertinently, can we afford not to?

MR A MATTHEWS Swindon PS Can I pay my £14.40 in advance?