How modest are British lawmakers...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jul 9, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    By contrast

    As I see talented mr.Brown stimulates his agitpr... err... absolutely independent, sincere, open to different opinions, superprofessional team for brai... dis... err wrong... for information of Britons about current affairs.
  2. Now I know Im a bit blonde at times but since when has the BBC been the place our laws are created? :?
  3. I believe that the BBC is being actively participated in preparation of public opinion to new laws. So in this sense indeed the BBC is involved in the process of creating of laws.

    However, British MPs are much more modests in financial terms than BBC's top managers.
  4. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    Dream on!
  5. I think you'll find that the BBC are anything but in the pockets of government, Sergey. We don't have government news agencies, the likes of Pravda and TASS have no place over here.

    People at the top get paid/take what they want, the rest share out what's left. Bit like Russia, really.
  6. £100,000?

    The pay rise for BBC staff (the ones that actually do the work) this year is a massive TWO PER CENT.

    Same as it ever was...
  7. I agree about Russia. Main TV channels are run or controlled by the state. Independent TV stations (as Ren-TV) are too weak financially. They are unable to compete with main channels in covering of news. EuroNews channel (in Russian) is widely awailable but unpopular (though personally I watch it frequently).

    By the way there is an interesting situation in Italy. Mr.Berluskoni controls state-run TV as a PM and main private TV channels belong to him.

    No doubt that you are much more better aware about relations between the BBC and DS10. I suspect that they are not so simple as relations between two fully independent subjects. Name of a journalist Andrew Gilligan springs in mind. Why his programme on BBC Radio was not repeated? And why had he forced to quit the BBC?

    The BBC is state funded. It is a huge news corporation. So, can small independent TV-channels compete with such a monster. Hardly it is possible. So the very existence of the BBC bars British public from alternative views and opinions. Yes, sometimes they find their way through BBC but there is a perfect mechanism to silence such views and opinions.

    Do you disagree?
  8. :lol: :lol: :lol:

    I am not sure which BBC news you watch, but when I "accidentally" watch it, it most definitely is in league with the Politburo.
  9. I couldn't disagree more. Just because there may be a "perfect mechanism" doesn't mean it is used. This is something that features in other threads started by you, just because Ifor example) the potential for abuse by a future monarch could (theoretically) exist, doesn't mean it will happen. It hasn't done so far, and I'm talking in the centuries since the Reformation, so on balance our system works without the need for revolution, starvation, repression or threat relative to other countries.

    Enough of generalisations. It is true that the BBC holds a strong stake, perhaps the dominant stake, in broadcasting although the attempts to exert political influence backfired when the government's political appointee, Greg Dyke, was forced to resign along with their Chairman, Gavyn Davies and the very same Andrew Gilligan you refer to. Such an event, cataclysmic for the BBC, tends to serve as proof that they have certainly not been in the pockets of this current government at least.

    Whilst I'm fairly scathing about editorial independence of any broadcaster, I so seem to remember that Gilligan was exposed for tampering with his so called evidence of "sexed up dossiers" during a TV programme made by Peter Kosminsky. I suspect the reason why the broadcast you refer to hasn't been repeated (and I'm curious as to how you could be so sure of that in Russia?) was simply because Gilligan was discredited as a liar.

    Despite all that, he played a key role in the removal of Ken Livingstone as London Mayor through the exposure of Lee Jasper.

    Aside from being a presenter of the popular Despatches programmes on Channel 4, I'd say that Andrew Gilligan's career has hardly suffered as a consequence of his having been caught out conspiring to alter evidence against his own government over WMDs and Iraq.

    With respect, Sergey, the Russians show their respect for reactionary dissidents in a somewhat different way, judging from the way Alexander Litvinenko was "rewarded" recently.

    Law is not made by the media in this country, that is what Parliament is there for. the Police are there to enforce it, the courts are there to uphold it. That's the way it's worked (for better or for worse) for a rather longer period of time than in any other established democratic country.

    As for the obscene pay increases they have awarded themselves, I suspect that they justify those at the top of the scale by saying that they are fed up losing some of their best talent to the commercial broadcasters, which is characterised in their recent loss of Michael Grade to ITV. Personally I think the BBC are anachronistic in this day and age, they waste a great deal of public money, they act like bullies in the world of broadcasting and the public are generally fed up with funding their profligacy. But they are most certainly not lawmakers, not by any stretch of the imagination.

    Sorry it's been a long reply, but hopefully you are now the wiser for it. If you'll forgive me, I have bills to pay and work to do (no, I don't work for the BBC, check my profile)
  10. I'm not sure about "lawmakers" per say but the BBC (and mass media in general) probably have a bigger effect on the country than the gobment themselves!

    Take the "Credit Crunch" (oh how I take that f***ing term) and the "Fuel Shortages"... these are mainly propagated by the media and their incessant scare mongering. Add to this, all the reporting of crime, terrorism, health issues etc. and it's obvious what control they have over public perception and ergo what laws can be passed due to this. I'm not ranting about some conspiracy theory or anything just the disproportionate influence that the BBC has over the population.
  11. Thank you Pyrogenica for such a detailed replay.

    It is outside the theme, but the UK had (and still has) colonies. There were colonial wars, repressions, starvations (the potato famine srings in mind). All inhabitants of Diego Garcia island were forcibly expelled (and animans including dogs were poisoned by gas) in 70's.

    As for political system then it is up to you do decide. I made my notes in conceptual sense. From my point of view all human beings are born equal. It is a fundamental principle.

    In our age of internet it is not hard to get virtually any information (sometimes even secret).

    I suspect that mr.Gilligan and BBC's top bosses were forced to quit the corporation namely because of the prssure from DS10.

    Btw, do you think that highly esteemed mr.Blair was sincere making his (un)famous 45 minutes claim?

    I believe that personally mr.Gilligan even gained from the scandal. Really (in terms of PR) he won. But freedom of information, freedom of opinions lost. Would weapons experts give any information to journalists being aware that they could be found dead soon.

    Equally I could say that it is possible that dr.David Kelly was "rewarded" by British government. Though in both cases there are no sufficient evidences, only allegations.

    Yes, of course. I meant only influence of mass media that is very big.

    Yes, it's true, except some incidents (as with the Brasilian)

    Yes, the case of Baha Mousa demonstraited it.

    I don't believe that there is a shortage of those who dream to occupy the chairs of BBC's bosses. However the government that pays for BBC wishes to see more tolerant (and well paid) heads.

    You have drawn such a perfect picture. British political system, law enforcing structures, media space are ideal (or almost ideal). But the BBC is anachronic, ineffective, acts like bullies... You claim it likely because BBC's activity is on the surface. But why you are so sure about other matters, that are sometimes very obsure?

    Well, I have commented it before.

    Many thank for your replay.
  12. The 45 minute claim was sourced from the knowledge that Soviet doctrine called for battlefield chemical weapons to be deployed within 45 minutes of the order being given. The JIC concluded -independently- that Iraq had such weapons. Iraqi forces followed Soviet doctrine. 1+1=2.

    Gilligan was sacked not because he highlighted that the 45 minute claim had been indirectly deducted as opposed to being an independent fact, he was sacked because he claimed the government knew it was wrong before they made it - even Kelly stated that he hadn't told Gilligan that. In effect, Gilligan made maybe the worst aligation it is possible to make against a government at best without having the evidence to back it up, and at worst he flat out lied. Keep in mind they shut down, sorry, I mean the owners 'decided to go in another direction', a whole Russian TV station when it alledged Putin was planning to divorce and marry a dancer.

    Equally I could say that it is possible that dr.David Kelly was "rewarded" by British government. Though in both cases there are no sufficient evidences, only allegations.
    Name a SINGLE UK citizen killed by their government because they were considered politically 'undesirable' in the last 100 years. Then look at NKVD/KGB/FSB history. You see why our suspicions are more creadable?
  13. A pleasure to engage in civilised debate, Sergey, and an interesting response from parapauk.

    I have some inside knowledge of BBC operations through a relative who works there and through my own interactions with them, hence my remarks about their arrogance, disingenuity and monopolistic aspirations. At the same time, it cannot be denied that they have hardly been hesitant in criticising the government, as in the matter of Gilligan, Kelly and the whole WMD fiasco.

    All things considered, I am not as uncomfortable about the BBC’s impartiality in reporting as I am at their cost to the licence paying public, but that doesn’t amount to much. As for conspiracy theories, I tend to leave such things in the hands of our imaginative but insecure American cousins, who excel at anything that involves an element of hysteria.

    The Baha Mousa scandal was admittedly not one of our country’s finest moments, I grant you, and we have indeed done many things wrong in history. Being able to recognise the wrongs we have at times perpetrated, and to identify and punish the wrong-doers, distinguishes a civilised race from a barbaric one. Mind you it is hard to equate the gassing of a few stray dogs or the criminal treatment of a prisoner with the wholesale annihilation of what was once known as the Chechen republic. We have an expression over here, "he who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

    (With respect, if one were to compare a list of atrocities committed by the British over the course of the past five hundred years, it would probably fill a shelf. But if one did the same for the USSR over the past 50 years, I rather suspect one could fill an entire library. Parapauk makes some interesting and astute observations on that score)

    Nationalistic pissing contests aside, I hold the BBC in the same disdain that I do for any state controlled broadcaster, and many of the independently run broadcasters, too, for that matter. Having said that, it is only reasonable that lawmakers should respond to public opinion, it is a closed loop, and therefore only proper when they do so. Again, as ParaUK states, is it right to close down a TV station when they are about to report something that could be embarassing to a politician? Of course not.

    Great talking, and hope that there is good news regarding your father.

    (edited for spelling)
  14. What the OP absolutely fails to understand about the British (and most western) systems of government are the checks and balances inherent within the system.

    So, in our system, someone does something naughty. And that means there's someone INDEPENDENT who is out there looking out for such naughtiness.

    It's far from perfect. But it's far, far, far in advance of what he has at home. Which is why he might be sceptical that it kind of works here.

    In the case of the BBC, we have all sorts of people watching over them- from Ofcom, to parliament, to viewers organisations, to Mary Whitehouse, to other media operations like papers and ITV.

    He refers to the BBC as a monopoly of news- far from it. In the UK we also have ITN (independent television news), as well as newspapers and freely accesible foreign news corporations.

    Of course the system of checks and balances is under attack- a good example is how Bush has loaded judges sympathetic to his kind of thinking on the US supreme court.

    But the fact he might want to undermine the neutrality of a truly independent judiciary is that is precisely because it's so effective.

    Something the Russian people might like to consider.

    So, it appears that mr.Gilligan was absolutely right then he alleged that 45 minutes claim was added later apparently to strengthen position of mr.Blair.

    So mr.Gilligan apparently was sacked because he sounded uncomfortable truth.

    It is far from the theme of our discussion. However, Ireland springs in mind. Those who were killed here in 20's were killed for political reasons.

    Suspicions are only suspisions anyway.