BBC found to be the broadcast wing of the UK Government in bias row

The BBC is biased towards right-wing politics, with much of its output manipulated by government sources, researchers have found.

The findings, revealed last year by academics from Cardiff University found that other broadcasters, such as ITV and Channel 4, drew on academic and scientific sources, while the BBC relied more heavily on official lines from Westminster and contributions from business sources.

A row has broken out over the BBC Trust's lack of response to the findings. The BBC Trust is led by former Tory MP Chris Patten, and is charged with overseeing the work of the state broadcaster and responding to viewers' complaints.

Professor Justin Lewis of Cardiff University has expressed disappointment at the playing down of the findings by the Trust and will continue to pursue a written report on the matter.

The BBC has repeatedly attracted criticism of its right-wing output on social media since the election of the right-wing coalition government in the UK in 2010, which lies in contrast to its past reputation (correctly or incorrectly) of bias in the opposite direction.

The findings will be unsurprising to those who watch current affairs programming on the BBC. Previous BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, and Sunday morning stalwart Andrew Marr had both previously complained about times they felt BBC output sat too close to the left.

Many viewers of BBC News are also aware of Political Editor Nick Robinson's past as Chair of the Young Conservatives. Andrew Neil, the BBC's most omnipresent of figures in the corporation's political programming, is a major figure of the economic right.

Bias of BBC output is thought to be only partially related to the political persuasions of their main protagonists though. An article on this issue published today at The Independent explains how dependency on the government to secure a sizeable share of the licence fee for funding represents a major threat to impartiality.

In short, the BBC is a "Public Service Broadcaster" in name only - the need to appease the government effectively renders the BBC a state broadcaster.

A summary of Professor Lewis's view and some statistical comparisons with ITV and Channel 4 can be found in this article by Ian Burrell of The Independent.

Time for everyone to calm down over McAlpinegate

I am sleeping fairly well at night right now. I have never written a tweet implying Lord McAlpine was a paedophile. (Note: tweet is a common definition of a micro-blog post. Additional note: Paedophile is a term describing those attracted to children typically below the age of 13, though in Britain the word is used a little more liberally to refer to anyone who legally is not expected to pay an adult fare on public transport.)

In fact, I have never written a tweet bearing McAlpine's name, prior to his unveiling as the poor bloke BBC Newsnight meant when implying some shadowy relic of the Conservative Party was abusing children.

And despite witnessing many tweets directly claiming he was a paedophile (along with four or five regularly alleged others), I believed it was unethical to "retweet" any of them. (Note for those not familiar with micro-blogging websites: Retweet is the Twitter term for copying someone else's tweet into your own Twitter page for other Twitter members to view.)

There was one notable tweet bearing his name that I may well have retweeted, but it no longer exists, for the author (a highly respected Guardian columnist) has apologised and presumably removed it. For that reason, it is no surprise that I do not even remember if I retweeted it! However, I best apologise just in case.

The tweet in question did little more than question some of the dubious things written about McAlpine on the Internet, but I suspect in the current climate the author will be in trouble over that.

That author apologised in the form of a tweet and linked it towards a more detailed apology. I decided to retweet his apology to my followers - you know, just in case. I hope Lord McAlpine accepts it and that is the end of the matter.

Now that is clear, I add a caveat or two to the above summary of McAlpine vs Twitter. Firstly, I fear that having won the goodwill of the public in light of some rather diabolical allegations, McAlpine (and more significantly those representing his interests post-McAlpinegate) risk overplaying his hand. Secondly, even if McAlpine's response is legally tenable, it is very much in the context of laws that have not caught up with the demands of print and broadcast media, let alone the online variety. First, I shall deal with the former point.

I personally think McAlpine's response is understandable. If I had been subject to the allegations he has faced, I would be on television too, auditioning my croakiest voice and reminding the audience how devastated I am by the allegations. I would have been demanding the BBC justified its research. No question - I would have sought some compensation from the broadcaster.

Having said that, I also think McAlpine has already done very well. His settlement with the BBC must surely be some sort of precedent for dealing with libel through innuendo and cryptic messaging.

I dare say if the BBC was not so on its knees in the fallout of this and the Savile fiasco, they may have had more of a stomach for a fight. They wanted the episode over as quickly as possible and who can blame them?

So you would think that Lord McAlpine would be happy with the settlement for a mischievous report that caused a lot of harmful gossip, and a clear message sent to the world that he is not a paedophile.

No sooner had the BBC surrendered, his legal team outlined their plans to pursue up to 10,000 Twitter users over the publishing of defamatory tweets in what is described as potentially a libel action with the largest number of defendants ever. The response is hardly a surprise when the first defendant (the BBC) settled out of court despite not actually mentioning him by name, instead allowing public gossip settle that matter. I too would be trawling the cyber and the tangible trying to find my next catch.

His next catch seems to be ITV, who broadcast the segment where Phillip Schofield handed a list of paedophilic names to David Cameron. He (McAlpine, that is!) was believed to be on that list and it is rumoured a camera picked it up. (Note the deliberate use of 'believed to be' and 'rumoured' in that sentence.)

I would be absolutely fuming if I was on Schofield's camera-shot list, and understandably McAlpine must be fuming about it. However, has anyone actually seen names on the list? It may have been caught by a camera, but was that particular camera part of the broadcast feed at the time?

These are crucial questions, because as things stand, despite an apology aired on This Morning, nobody seems to have produced the offending screen caption. I would have thought with the millions of feral Twitter users, ready to shine a light on predatory paedophiles at any moment, the offending screencap would have been doing the rounds within minutes of the broadcast ending. I have not seen any image, and I practically live on Twitter at times!

We were told viewers might have seen the list. It seems nobody has seen it. Someone should tell Lord McAlpine. This time, he is in the clear!

Except nobody will, as his legal team looks towards holding anyone and everyone to account. It is an approach that risks McAlpine losing the goodwill he has earned in the aftermath. I do not have the biggest Twitter feed in the world, so it is not a representative tapestry of views, however I have noticed a change of mood among those I follow.

When BBC Newsnight originally apologised, there was a mixture of sympathy for McAlpine and irritation that a story about child abuse had been superseded by poor journalism. The sympathy towards McAlpine has fallen away on my Twitter feed, and I wonder if he should retreat from further action while he is ahead.

His reputation has ironically been enhanced, as a weak and feckless media (in part brutalised by arcahic libel laws) made huge steps to apologise to him and stress that he is not a paedophile. Many people were quick to sympathise with him.

My second point regarding the post-Newsnight fallout is that I feel that libel laws in the UK need to catch up with the reality of the Internet, or it is going to destroy what is good about websites like Twitter.

Twitter enables lay members of the population to debate, discuss, talk, have a laugh, sometimes troll, sometimes troll aggressively and sometimes troll unlawfully. It is a big room where everyone can shout at anyone, with the rather obvious drawback that whatever is shouted is rendered into cyber-memory. Those words are there forever.

I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that British law is often cast through precedent. There will be many precedents needed in light of McAlpinegate if we are to prevent an online crisis of communication.

First of all, there will need to be an acceptance that although journalists and writers publish on Twitter and other sites, so do people who are not used to their copy being checked by lawyers before they hit the send button. (Note: Journalists have their work checked, and yet they have been known to wrongly accuse – the Chris Jefferies case springs to mind.)

Any developments of law that see thousands of people with a few dozen Twitter followers going to court will be to the detriment of ordinary people, many of whom who already have enough to worry about in day-to-day life. Lord McAlpine certainly would not have the same anxieties and worries that they face.

There is going to need to be a clear post-multimedia agreement governing Internet use which does not penalise ordinary people. I cannot offer much help to those who are directly tweeting allegations about people. As I already said, I am not a legal expert, but I am now old enough to know by now that to call someone a paedophile requires a stack of irrefutable evidence.

I can offer suggestions for those who have retweeted, or wrote implied comments. By letter of the law, it would seem that those who retweet gain responsibility for taking that tweet to their followers, but how many people know this? Any retweet is clearly marked with the original author's name. Ignorance being no defence is a harsh principle to reply here. This is not as black and white as knowing that violence or sexual abuse is legally wrong.

This is important, because there may be no end to this. Courts could find themselves being a revolving door for trivial Twitter actions, with judges having to rule on who retweeted someone else's innuendo. The fact of the matter is that people could potentially be sued for retweeting a comment by a respected Guardian journalist originating from a rather dubious news report by the respected (but heaven knows why!) BBC.

That is the reality, and it seems wrong because it is wrong.

I would suggest that judges become familiar with the Twitter architecture. It is clear how the site works. If someone tweets something potentially libellous with 100,000 followers in tow, then it is obvious that it is going to be spread much wider. This puts the onus on the original author to get it right. Retweeters do so with the original source of their tweet clearly marked, and those retweeters who are clearly not media-savvy should not be punished for not knowing the rules of engagement. If some of those who are media-aware (and legally-aware) cannot get their Twitter activity right, what chance the rest of us?

One logical conclusion is that people will not just be sued for tweets and retweets, but they will also be sued for mentioning the names of high-profile people who are tweeting potentially libellous material elsewhere on the website. For example, Sally Bercow has come in for a lot of unfair criticism for also being little more than careless about who she saw "trending" on the website (McAlpine, since you ask). Assuming her tweets are deemed unlawful, what fate could befall anyone who simply tweeted the text “I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today?"

Most of the "chattering classes" know who Sally Bercow is.

To find out what Sally Bercow has been writing, she is well-known enough to be the first twitter result if anyone enters "Sally Bercow" into the search box.

If I wrote a tweet "I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today," there is the argument that I am effectively signposting people to her page containing lots of questionable tweets.

This could happen to a lot of other people too. This is why the law as it stands cannot work.

I also fear what the consequences of these issues could be for opinion. A lot is written about high-profile Members of Parliament, for example, Nadine Dorries, who has recently been a resident of a jungle somewhere on the other side of the world. Dorries has always attracted a lot of criticism from those on both the left and the right because of her unconventional approach to public office.

Nobody can expect to be sued for describing her as a ghastly, awful woman, as it is an opinion that is not necessarily damaging. However, some may feel that Dorries has gone on a TV show to boost her own profile. They may argue that she is deserting her constituents while doing that. They may believe she is not fit to be an MP on that basis.

My fear is that Dorries may consider those viewpoints to be damaging and contest them on that basis. If a portal is opened to sue people for expressing such sentiments on Twitter, then the whole principle of debate is at risk.

Admittedly, criticising someone's fitness for office is not comparable to calling someone a paedophile, but the recipient could still fight the Twitter membership on the basis they feel it is damaging to their future employment opportunities and reputation. There are stakes here that are much bigger than context of one accusatory episode where this is located. The law must reflect that.

For now, I believe everyone has to calm down a little. We must cool down with the feral accusations. I can understand why feelings are running high though. I used to think, and still do to some extent, that Brits are extremely paranoid and irrational when it comes to the issue of paedophilia.

The Sun mixes up coverage of right-wing politics, international affairs and celebrity gossip with regular titillation stories from the courts about paedophile activity. If the stories look peculiarly out of place outside of the context of a local newspaper, it is because they are. In some ways, the newspaper's obsession with the issue is borderline creepy.

It has been known for innocent people to be attacked in the street because they happen to resemble a paedophile mugshot published in the tabloid press. This is not on.

I do believe though that Britain has a bigger paedophile problem than I originally thought. In some ways, the Internet has flushed them to the surface in much the same way as rain brings out slugs. Without being rumbled by an eagle-eyed computer repair engineer, Gary Glitter would still be enjoying regular paedophile holidays to the Far East, unchecked.

Shouting out the names of presumed paedophiles on Twitter is not the answer. We need to apply pressure to get these high-profile child abuse cases re-opened and re-examined, so the offenders can be brought to justice.

It is not just ordinary citizens, many of whom are worried parents and people with good hearts, who need to cool down though. A little understanding needs to be shown by those who are trying to control what is published on the Internet.

Let us not forget the public was wound up by this story by the very classes now trying to stamp down on Twitter activity – those in the media. The wind-up process started earlier in the day of the Newsnight report into the child abuse scandal, when someone connected to the report tweeted to tell people it was likely to be screened and involved an old Tory.

The idea may not have been to cause feverish speculation, but it had that effect.

When the news report went out and (quelle surprise) nobody was named, that raised anger levels further. Bearing in mind Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards paedophila, this outcome should not have surprised anyone, apart from maybe the most moronic of TV executives.

So whereas the Twitter community needs to calm down a little now, so must also those who are the most condemning of us.

The BBC's long journey to restore trust and its purpose

Regular readers of this website will be long aware of how critical and disillusioned I am with the BBC's efforts as a public service broadcaster. I am critical of the BBC because I love it, but it is a hard beast to love at the moment. The way it handled the report into the North Wales Care Home scandal, and the testimony given by Steven Messham - a former abuse victim, and clearly someone who is a vulnerable man - was disgraceful.

The BBC is in the wrong whichever way you look at it, and I can see at least two ways of looking at it.

Firstly, assuming the truth that Messham wrongly identified Lord McAlpine as one of his abusers (and we have to learn to question everything now), then the original report into the North Wales Care Abuse on Newsnight was an appalling misjudgement.

Secondly, and conversely, if the sceptre of legal action has bullied Messham into submission, leading to the BBC to cowardly shelve their story and prepare a hasty apology, then the behaviour of those at the BBC is appalling in that sense as well.

Either way, the BBC is in the wrong. Either way, Messham has been treated badly.

The crisis has led to questions about the BBC's purpose, and the future of public service broadcasting in this country. Well, it beats having to indulge in the uncomfortable question of how we are going to get to the bottom of the problem of child abuse when the mere suggestion of legal action sends researchers and investigators on the run.

One problem in particular is trying to unravel the following question: How can we on the left be taken seriously when we cannot even get our story straight as to what the BBC actually is?

On one hand, we are fighting its corner on the grounds it is a treasured institution and provides a public service, or at least it is meant to be when it is not either (a) wrongly making indirect paedophile allegations, (b) backtracking from legitimate allegations when the kitchen gets hot, or (c) both. We justify our position on the basis that the Tories would love to dismantle the BBC. On the other hand, we complain that it has become a Tory mouthpiece, that is complicit in the protection of establishment figures, perhaps like the one mentioned above.

We bemoan that fact that Andrew Marr is like Jeremy Paxman when confronted with a Labour MP, but becomes Phillip Schofield when confronted with a Tory (at least before Phillip Schofield decided that his This Morning sofa would no longer be a cosy seat for politicians).


The truth is we are trying to save an institution that is presently not on our side. Has it ever been really? Have we been admiring of an institution that has been contemptuous of us all along? This is the broadcaster that provides employment for Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson and a plethora of other people whose views are far removed from the left's ideal.

Amazingly, the funding mechanism that props up the BBC, and which many leftists are trying to preserve, is its very problem. Implicit in any relationship between BBC and government is where the broadcaster would be left if the licence fee was abolished - something the present Tory government has exploited fully. This makes it a state broadcaster, not a public service broadcaster. And it was a state broadcaster, as opposed to a public service broadcaster, that I witnessed as the BBC provided its interminable apology during Friday's Newsnight, as Messham's testimony was safely returned to the bottle it came out of.

Abolishing the licence fee is a form of commercialisation (not the same as privatisation, as the BBC could still have its own corporate structure) and one which I feel would benefit the broadcaster and the public it is supposed to be serving. The broadcaster could be truly independent and not the publicity wing of the Conservative Party, employed to prevent Lords, MPs and other establishment figures. The public would no longer have to pay a household tax for the privilege of watching television, regardless of whether their home is flat or a castle.

Who knows? With a little self-financing, the broadcaster may be able to restore the many events it lost to Sky, ITV and Channel 4 - cricket, golf, football, horse racing and Formula 1 to name a few. If that does not earn a little goodwill, then nothing would.

Another problem with our argument on the left is we support the BBC, not because we are happy with it, but because it supposedly represents what Rupert Murdoch is not. I have never bought into this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief. We cannot accuse Rupert Murdoch and his publications of hypocrisy over their criticisms of the BBC handling of the Savile and McAlpine issues if we are hypocrites ourselves.

After Murdoch's institution was found to be hacking people's phones, we were calling for the splitting Murdoch's press on the grounds that the family of publications had become too big and unmanageable. The BBC seems to be cursed with the same illness - bloated, huge and unmanageable. It allowed Savile to stalk its corridors for years, taking his prey back to dressing rooms to rape them. This is of course unless the BBC has since cowardly decided (after speaking to a lawyer or two) that Savile did none of these things after all and can now rest in peace.

Yet whenever I mention the possibility of splitting the BBC, I get quite a reaction. The idea of splitting the BBC is immediately conflated with dismantling the BBC. This is not what I am suggesting, though in the defence of my critics I have not been able to make this clear.

What I suggest, is that if the notion that running The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and (then) News of the World is too big a task for the Murdoch family, then BBC's radio, TV, local, commercial and news departments also should be split. Each can have their own management. Each still be nationalised, but funded commercially. Each operating in the public interest. Each still operating under the banner of the BBC.

As I keep saying though, there are aspects of the BBC I do love, but the news operation is now seriously dragging everything else down. Maybe the BBC should stick to what it is good at, and dispense with the current affairs.

I get through my work days thanks to Radio 2 - Britain's top radio station for good reason. Chris Evans has a cheery voice which starts the day well. Simon Mayo (my favourite of all the broadcasters) has a reassuring delivery with a wicked sense of humour, and that's not to mention Ken Bruce, Jeremy Vine and others. Radio 5 does sport extremely well, and allows the broadcasters (such as Alan Green) the creative freedom to be as critical as they wish.

Meanwhile, over on the television, some of the documentaries and research the BBC brings us is amazing. If BBC Four was ever abolished, I would probably fall out with the BBC for good!

So, I am not against the BBC. However I would be lying to say I am happy with it. Many are complaining the BBC is in disarray after a disgraceful process leading to poor Messham's discredited testimony (which has also served to knock back the cause of child protection for at least three decades). However, we are witnessing is the first steps by the BBC to repair itself, as only corporations can.

George Entwistle, who must be the shortest-lived Director General ever, has rightly resigned. In a way, I have a lot of sympathy with him. He was handed an unenviable inbox. His handling of it was appalling though. His appearance in front of MPs in light of the Savile fiasco was weak. The BBC's handling of the Messham evidence was no better.

Many employees within the BBC promptly gave a character reference about what a nice person Entwistle is - and I believe them. Sadly, I have heard it all before. They are the same parting gifts given to a football manager who loses seven of his last eight games in charge and is shown the door. "Nice fella, but we couldn't get results."

I am certainly no apologist for the previous Director General, Mark Thompson, either. I have no doubt though he would have come out fighting. We may never know if he would have sanctioned the Newsnight apology for running the story, but there must be a chance he would have stood firm. Notably, there is the unresolved question: Why is the BBC apologising for Newsnight, despite the name of the alleged abuser being circulated around the Internet, rather than the BBC? I am not certain if anyone at the BBC can answer that one either.

There are many gunning for the BBC at the moment. The newspapers, led by the Murdoch press, would love to see a weakened BBC. They are leading with hypocritical headlines about the chaos. Make no mistake, they have no right to take a moral position. Innocent people suffered when the Murdoch press published photographs of sex offenders, due to the fallibility of human judgement when faced with someone who vaguely resembles one of the Murdoch mugshots. Yet, if the BBC does not reform, people like Murdoch will win. If the BBC does not appoint a strong leader in the wake of Entwistle's resignation, again their enemies will win.

Despite Entwistle's fate, much more needs to be done at the BBC to restore lost trust in the broadcaster. A sacking is not going cure this mess. There is still a lot a lot of goodwill out there towards the BBC, as tweets from my friends on the left reassure me. This goodwill is not infinite though. I sign off with a question with words to the effect of those asked by an excellent user of the oft-maligned twitter website: "How did Savile get away with has paedophilic behaviour for so many years? Look at what has happened over the past seven days, and you will find your answer."

Savile latest: paedophilic cover-up at the BBC and the discrediting of 'Newsnight'

The disgust of many regarding the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal is difficult to quantify. Some see our anger about Savile's sick conduct a matter of great hysteria, and a mindless assault on the BBC. Others believe that we would be making a greater fuss if Savile's behaviour had been facilitated within a Murdoch institution, such as Sky TV. I believe this effectively means the public have been fair and balanced in their response to the scandal. We believe that the BBC must be held to account, while appreciating who the main perpetrator was.

Allow me to deal with the Murdoch point first. I am a big critic of the BBC. The reason for this is I believe it was a great institution, but at present it is doing itself a huge injustice, not just by the way in which it is failing to report important events (such as the government assaults on the NHS), but because of the shambolic handling of the Savile scandal. Despite my affection for the BBC, there is no question the physical abuse that occurred within the boundaries of the broadcaster is far more appalling than the phone-hacking at the News of the World. The phone-hacking, let us not forget, was itself serious enough for Murdoch to close the newspaper.

Savile (right) with friend, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Source: (The Sunday Times)

When the phone-hacking scandal came to light, I was one of those who made a case for breaking up Murdoch's stranglehold on the British media. It would be hypocritical for me not to insist upon the same with the BBC. It is a massive institution, which as with Murdochsville was (and possibly still is) also a fertile environment for wrongdoing. This must take two parts - the abolition of the licence fee and a splitting up of BBC operations.

First of all, the licence fee needs to be abolished, and quickly. The funding model for the BBC is archaic. Every household in the country with a television set (almost everyone) pays a tax, not to watch BBC programming, but to merely be able to use the set in their household. A great chunk of the licence fee then goes on funding the behemoth. This includes paying the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to spread their political messages overtly through light-entertainment programming in a manner that makes an absolute mockery of the BBC's veneer of impartiality. Every television owner has to pay the licence fee tax, whether their home is a mansion or a flat. It is grossly unfair. I have spent the past decade or so trying to make my fellow members of the left see this.

The template for a modern BBC is that of Channel 4. They are largely funded by advertising, but still maintain an independence, resulting in brilliant documentary programming such as Dispatches, and the most balanced news programme on British television. It can be done.

Secondly, and most crucially, the BBC needs to be broken up into sections covering radio, TV and local output. Anyone who has read The Corporation by Joel Bakan will realise that the bigger corporations are, the more susceptible they are to pathological and downright criminal behaviour, that would lead to imprisonment if carried out by individuals. Bakan largely wrote about private enterprises, but his argument can be applied to the BBC - itself a huge corporation, which is clearly a breeding ground for pathological behaviour and secrecy.

I still find it difficult to comprehend how an institution is large and sophisticated as the BBC was able to create such a huge monster in Jimmy Savile, and keep it active for 40 years. In the meantime, Savile was a prolific abuser, who raped children at every possible opportunity. Other BBC staff chose not to say anything despite admitting they knew (or had strong suspicions) about Savile's individual pathologies because he had amassed a lot of power. This Savile case is a warning to broadcasters, who still to this day over-inflate the importance of their highest-profile stars by giving them as many presenting gigs as they will accept. We know who they are. They are the ones who always seem to be on the television, no matter what time you switch it on. They reach a point where they are untouchable.

However, excuses about 'untouchable' presenters do not wash. The "I was a new member of staff" excuse is symptomatic of this. Does the novice member excuse remain relevant long after those using it cease to be newcomers? Fair enough if in 1971 a newcomer felt unable to report Savile's paedophilia - but what about 1981 and 1991? Another cop-out is the old "things were different in the 1970s" excuse. Savile was someone who seeked out physically and psychologically vulnerable children to attack. That is not a bit of 1970s experimentalism; that is abuse.

The most sickening aspect of all is the secrecy and cover-ups continued to the present day. The BBC's once-flagship, but now discredited, current affairs programme Newsnight will never be the same after the stigma associated with the apparent decision by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, to ditch an investigation into Savile scheduled for late last year. The researchers, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean are convinced the decision was made because the BBC had some gushing tribute programmes to the paedophile already filmed. Despite none of the pressure faced by commercial broadcasters to pursue ratings, the decision was taken anyway, and the news story was suppressed for months, until it was picked up in an investigation by ITV.

At this point, I wish to explain selectivity bias. In research, to bias a project by choosing samples or examples which tell a preferred story at the expense of others is an unforgivable academic sin. In fair and balanced research, all narratives must be collected and accounted for. With issues such as the NHS, and now Jimmy Savile's perversions, Newsnight has shown to be lacking in this important academic test. Their biases are demonstrated - not by what is included in their programmes, but what is excluded. Never again would, or should, anyone trust Newsnight as a neutral and impartial news source. The best thing the BBC could probably do is develop a new news programme to take its place - one more up-to-date and respondent to emerging interactive technological trends.

The Jimmy Savile scandal has created a huge problem for the BBC, which will be faced with legal actions from Savile's victims, and rightly so. Other institutions trusted the paedophile because of the exposure he was given by the BBC. Children who thought they were safe on BBC premises were taken into dressing rooms and abused by dirty old men. This is not a problem that the BBC can now escape from, and having held their hands up and all but pleaded guilty to failing in its duty to the public (Panorama, BBC, 22/10/12), the BBC will need to take its punishment on the chin.

Seen but not heard - how victims of paedo Jim were let down

"Children should be seen and not heard." I never did care much for that expression. Even as a child, I could detect oppression a mile off, and for me that phrase was oppressive. Now, in light of the revelations that for 50 years Jimmy Savile was presenting a paedophilic lie to a public tricked into adoring him, I realise how dangerous such beliefs are.

Fast forward to 2012, and those who cannot accept they have been hoodwinked by a cunning confidence trickster for the past 50 years are now trying to say that victims are wrong for waiting until he died to come forward. Yet these children, now adults, were terrified to come forward. It was safer to be seen and not heard.

They were terrified of not being believed. They were terrified of what the consequences would be if they were believed. They were terrified of being the ones who threatened the charity work he was using as a cover for his misdeeds. The victims who did come forward to the police while he was alive found their complaints ignored.

Those who should have come forward, did not. These same people - other celebrities 'who knew', agents and assistants - are still not exactly falling over themselves to come forward now either. In some ways this is understandable, for they should be in the dock for treating his depravity like a joke. "We all knew about Uncle Jimmy" they smirked, as though he was nothing more than a slightly more paedophilic version of Benny Hill.

This is serious though. Anyone who knew Savile's behaviour was more than just a little tomfoolery, and kept his dirty little secret for him, should be put on trial.

The BBC should also be closely examined over their mishandling of the affair. For 40 years, they put Savile on television and radio, gave him children's programmes to work on and made a hero out of him - meaning that in some small way we were all victims of the decades-long stunt.

Following the emergence of the scandal, one which took an ITV documentary to reveal, the BBC response has been defensive, then inconsistent, before finally realising that an independent investigation is inevitable.

This is more evidence that the BBC is far too big an institutionalised beast, and should be broken up, with its local and national, TV and Radio divisions split, so that institutionalised power bases cannot be formed so easily. If there is a call to break up the Murdoch press over transgressions due to its size and crass bureaucracy, then a call to split up the BBC in the same manner is a perfectly acceptable one.

The BBC is not the only organisation with questions to answer. Police forces received numerous complaints about Savile's sick actions over the years. Any police or Crown Prosecution Service failings must be examined.

Then there are the "charity" visits to hospitals where nurses told child patients to pretend to be asleep. I can understand how the nurses felt. Sometimes it is easier not to act, for speaking up often opens up a vault of greater unpleasantness. Anyone who has worked in a public facing role, perhaps in a bar or a restaurant, will have experienced the situation where someone deeply unpleasant occasionally visits. The desire is to impose a permanent ban of the person from the premises, but often it is easier to tolerate the oaf, usually with the comfort of knowing they will be gone in half an hour. Life can carry on as normal until their next visit.

However, this is insufficient in this situation. If these health practitioners knew something, they should have done something. This was about someone taking children to his grubby car to abuse them.

The children who were victims of Savile were let down by everyone. The abuses were allowed to happen by those charged to look after them. Although the misery they experienced was clearly known about, they were left to suffer in silence. To put it another way, they were seen but not heard.

Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press

Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.

The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.

Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.

The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.

Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.

Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.

Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.

Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.

Welcome to Roy Hodgson - Good choice for new England manager

The media's favourite for the England manager job, Harry Redknapp, has been overlooked for the role in favour of West Bromwich Albion boss, Roy Hodgson. As a consequence, quite a few toys have been pinging out of prams in some media institutions and in parts of Liverpool.

The depressingly predictable reaction was led by the Liverpudlian critics of the media. BBC Radio Five Live was producing interviews, with 'objective' Merseysiders sought for their opinions. Further noise was being made by the station about Hodgson being good for average teams punching above their weight and little else - perfect for England then!

Hodgson is a risky, but brave choice. As with Harry Redknapp, he has been managing for around three decades, mainly giving the smaller outfits a taste of the big time. Neither have set the world alight, and this parallel not be forgotten. For every one person who remembers how everything went wrong for Hodgson at Liverpool, how many remember Harry Redknapp's tenure at Southampton?

The top candidates were Arsene Wenger (who could do with one last challenge), Jose Mourinho (though now likely to stay at Madrid) and Pep Guardiola (depending on how serious he is about a break from the game). These are managers who have constantly achieved. If England is as great as the implied arrogance wishes us to believe, when people suggest that Hodgson is not right for the job because he is seen to fail with the very best, these are the managers we should be looking towards.

Hodgson is a good enough choice for England, though whether he will be given the chance, or whether (as with at Liverpool) minds are made up already, is anyone's guess. If it is the latter, then I have no desire to watch the miserable unfolding of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The one reason above all why Hodgson is good enough is because he is not the man the current senior players in the England squad wanted. I cannot say I have a great deal of warmth towards the modern day footballer, and any moment when they do not get their own way is a victory in my eyes. If we have nothing else, we have a manager who will not suck up, nor be intimidated, by the likes of Terry, Lampard, Ferdinand (Rio), Gerrard, Rooney and others, who have done absolutely nothing of note in their England careers.

Good luck as England manager, Roy.

Galloway by-election win needs Labour reflection, not revolution

This was meant to be Ed Miliband's finest week since taking up the reins as leader of the Labour party. As one scandal after another hit the Tories, Miliband found himself suddenly in the driving seat; the likely victor of a future general election. The Tories floundered under the weight of criticism against taxes on pasties and pensioners, the creation of a fuel crisis and NHS reforms. At one point, Labour built up a massive 17 point lead in the polls. Nothing could go wrong. Then along came George...

George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.

I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.

Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.

Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.

It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.

The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.

He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.

Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.

The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.

The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.

Introducing Vulture Funds

Picture the scene: you are broke, you need money, you borrow money from someone who knows you cannot afford to pay it back, who then kindly sues you for 100 times what you borrowed. This BBC report explains the controversy of a character called Peter Grossman, who runs what the BBC describes as a 'vulture fund which buys up the debts of poor nations cheaply and then sues for 10 or 100 times what they paid for them'.

At a time when there is a global financial crisis, such a practice is a highly unappetising thought. It is also a reminder that while many people around the world suffer financially, there are people out there who are profiting from the misery of others.

Illegal in the UK, charities are calling for a block on Grossman's gross attempt to sue the DR Congo for £100m through a loophole that enables him to make the claim in Jersey.

And rightfully so.

Bin Laden's death and excessive liberalism

BBC's Question Time ought to come with a health warning. Not a week goes by without the programme raising my blood pressure, often due to my irritation with intolerant right-wing panelists. This week's death of Osama Bin Laden led to an unusual changing of sides, whereby I found myself allied to the panel's neoconservative.

There were mitigating factors. The liberal element of the panel were represented by the unusually erratic former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Alibhai-Brown is highly intelligent, but her delivery makes it difficult to warm to her. It was not helped that both took the position of arguing that as with all criminals, Bin Laden had human rights and should not have been killed.

As they discussed his rights to having a fair trial, I suddenly found myself trapped alone, with an equally difficult to warm to neoconservative, in the real world.

In this real world, my limited knowledge of the rule of law and terms of engagement were over-ruled by a sense of relief that Bin Laden no longer walked the earth.

In this real world, I felt that Bin Laden's right to a fair trial was pointless convention. What was he going to do? Plead not guilty to the atrocities he has frequently boasted about on tape?

In this real world, I realised that dead or alive, Bin Laden was a huge trophy that would have sent blackmailers into overdrive?

In this real world, the comparisons between Nazi war criminals and Bin Laden were false comparisons because the nature of the conflict is different. When the Nazis surrendered, the game was up for them. Al-Qaeda is something more fluid and evolving. Nazis on trial did not inflame their dead ideology. Bin Laden on trial would have been a massive wind-up.

The fact of the matter is those leftist intellects mean well, but often find themselves in the position of defending the indefensible. As someone also coming from the left, my kindness does not stretch infinitely and sometimes I wish I could shake some of the others.

I admire the ideals coming from many writers of columns often seen in The Independent, The Guardian and The Observer, but often their thoughts are simply not palatable to the public. If they were, then perhaps they would sell more than a few hundred thousand daily papers. Trying to sell the idea Bin Laden was a man with rights is a difficult one.

The last word should be with Barack Obama, who I believe when he said Bin Laden's death makes the world a safer place. It will be safer, but not entirely safe of course. There will continue to be risk, but I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden being alive today would be of help to anyone. I am not even convinced it is what Bin Laden himself would have wanted.

Old

Probably the shortest title ever written on this website, earlier I was locked in discussion about old people, and what sort of prejudice they face. In a world where racism and sexism are long identified issues, the issue of ageism has come to the fore in recent times. How bad is it?

In the previous paragraph, I deliberately used the word 'old' and not elderly, as the world 'old' is seldom used politely. It is quite rare for the word 'old' to be used sensitively, for instance 'old dear', but regularly compounded with an insult. Here are a just a few examples of the lovely phrases associated with the word 'old':-

Old git
Old codger
Old bastard

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Still, it is good to see that ageism is not institutionalised in this country - unless you ignore the fact that unemployed over-50s find it incredibly difficult to find work (link). Despite the BBC Panorama episode investigating this problem, let us not take too many lessons from the corporation since the BBC has recently suffered the indignity of having its ageist practices shamefully exposed when former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her employment tribunal against the corporation.

Maybe when I will migrate when I reach the big 5-0. At the very least I wont have to suffer any jibes.

More BBC cuts

An entertaining and highly amusing BBC special about Top of the Pops from the 1970s, screened earlier in the week, had me starting to think about cuts to the BBC again.

There needs to be no reminder this page constantly speaks out against the folly of excessive government cuts to the public sector based on ideological motivations. The BBC is quite different. Although it is a great British export, for example the World Service, the domestic product is a symbol of excess and waste.

BBC Three and Four are the worst examples of complete waste (yet the broadcaster wanted to take the knife to minority cultural interest radio stations such as the Asian Network and 6 Music) and I would get rid of both BBC Three and BBC Four. Some of the excellent programming that occasionally appears on BBC Four could easily be given airtime on BBC Two.

However, this week I have finally embraced repeats. After years of moaning about the things, I realised after watching the Top of the Pops repeat that they can be fun, special, nostalgic, and most importantly, cheap. The BBC must have a bulging archive (not including the material they have long lost) and it is time to put it to use.

Obviously the most interesting repeats would be those programmes unseen for a long time. Would we really want to see more repeats of Dad's Army? Do we really want to see repeats of programmes initially aired only months, weeks, or worse still, days before?

If done correctly, repeats would be interesting. How interesting would it be to watch old episodes of Tomorrow's World? It is time to stop paying excess money to provide vehicles for the same old faces and start reviving some of the quality material collecting dust in the archives.

Cutting the BBC to the bone?

I will admit my agenda straight away. I do not have much affection for the BBC at this moment in time. I support the licence fee and believe the BBC to be, historically speaking, a great institution for this country. I also strongly enjoy the BBC output. The trouble is, as a BBC viewer, I rather feel as though it has become the political wing of the Tory-led government - far from being independent, and far from being the left-wing biased organisation it often finds itself accused of.

Whether it is Jeremy Clarkson and friends sharing their very centre-right world view with viewers, or the BBC appointing a past Tory chairman - Chris Patten - as chairman of the BBC Trust, or inviting David Cameron on to the popular teatime tribute to touchy-feeliness The One Show, there are times when I feel the BBC has its colours nailed to the mast in a way we are supposed to believe they do not.

With that in mind, I will not be sorry to see the BBC pared down a little. Not that it would fill me with pleasure, nor would I not want to see the BBC cut to the bone, but it certainly has some fat to lose.

The BBC director general, Mark Thompson has outlined some cuts which could be made. Here are a few I would like to see:-

1. There is a lot of waste in channel use. Are BBC3 and BBC4 vanity projects or are they really needed? Regarding BBC3, I can live well enough without Snog Marry Avoid? (Produced by Endemol - who else?). In fact most people of most ages could live without the cheap and tacky rubbish that fills BBC3. If they cannot, then there is always ITV2. BBC4 has more depth, but I have noticed a few repeats on the channel. It did give me a chance to watch Electric Dreams - fantastic viewing. BBC3 and BBC4 could be merged though, and renamed. Alternatively, they could be abolished altogether and their programming used to fill gaps on BBC1 and BBC2.

2. For earlier in the day, I do not believe the BBC need to spend on two children's TV channels, even if they are pitched to different age groups. I was lucky if I got to see two hours of children's TV after school.

3. Abolish all the lifestyle shows in the daytime on BBC1 (which usually involve an auction room or rebuilding a property) and replace them with the testcard. I have missed that blackboard and chalk.

4. Local radio should be peak only and give us Radio Five Live at other times on FM.

5. Stop sending George Alagiah on holiday to disaster zones when the news can be presented from the studio.

6. Bring more BBC World news to our British screens. We would love it.

I am sure I could think of many other savings the BBC could make. However, the BBC must remember the inclusive principles that guide it. That means protecting the Asian Network. It also means continued support for 6 Music, which is one of the few refuges from the R n' B and pop which saturates mainstream radio elsewhere. The BBC is at its best when it caters for everyone, regardless of interest. It must be kept that way.