Every Briton who owns a TV is required to pay a licence fee of £127 per year. It's a legal mugging that enrages me more and more. Wonder why? This says it all.
Thanks for posting this, David. It sparked a fairly noisy discussion in my office this morning. It also connected well with another discussion re the 'sailors selling their story' debate.
The Beharry affair is a real shame IMO. As a VC winner, Beharry and his story is an institution in itself (indeed, this is IMO what makes his case different to the Iranian hostages as media story sellers); an institution that deserves, ney, has the right to be celebrated. The BBC, of anyone, should support this. This is utterly disrespectful of the institution of the Victoria Cross.
I find the attitude of the BBC unfathomable. A few years ago I had one of those polite discussions where both sides recognized the existence of an unbreachable wall of incomprehension between them. It was with a BBC producer who had contacted me about a programme they were doing on a war-related topic. I asked him why the BBC never spoke about OUR troops. He said it compromised objectivity; I said he worked for the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, supported by the most regressive and medieval form of tax in the land, in the light of which it seemed fair to, you know, show some partiality. He didn't agree obviously.
I'd be interested in your view of the sailors debate. I don't know how I feel about it; or rather I hold simultaneouosly two opposing views on it. On the one hand, it's just sordid and cheap and implicitly a slap in the face to those who have sacrificed and endured much, much more for nothing more than a paycheque, a ribbon and the satisfaction of having done their duty; on the other hand, they didn't create the sordid 'Big Brother-esque' cultural landscape that creates celebrities out of the crass and undeserving; I don't think Faye Turney is the same as Jjade Goody; and if I made £17K a year and someone offered me £80K for two hours work I'd be sorely tempted. The decent thing to do is to talk and donate the proceeds, IMHO.
In any case, I think all this steers us away from attention to the really biq questions here:
1. Why the government is so flatfooted in its policy toward Iran since this isn't even the first time they've kidnapped sailors.
2. Why the RN, since this isn't the first time this has happened(!), is swanning around the Persian Gulf as though they are enforcing the mooring of spectators' boats at the Henley Regatta not operating eyeball-to-eyeball with a crafty, capable, and unpredictable belligerent.
I am drawn by your invitation to assert my own view of the 'sailors debate' but, as has been the case on several occasions in the past, I fear that a mere post could not begin to do the whole affair justice. This is a dissertation subject in itself.
I think this whole thing is interesting for a host of reasons; one of which is the idea that, in the absence of a declaration of any intent (connect with the many earlier discussions under the heading of 'those were the days'), no formal relationship beyond routine diplomacy exists and the tactical and operational stakeholders are thereby not resourced to respond to events. Everything is assumed under some kind of operational emergency assumption (ie, we'll deal with it when it happens) and, as such, people are not prepared (briefed, exercised, mind-setted, indoctrinated etc) and units are not appropriately equipped. I think that (even if I am failing to adequately describe it here), this is a, perhaps even the, crucial problem of contemporary/future 4GW type warfare where we are constrained by a long-established but out-dated principle of operating within the constraints of a formal policy declaration. Where conditions of 'war' do not exist, there are ways around this problem (as has been the case with the UN's case in Iraq) but this is too cumbersome, time-consuming and, crucially, operates from outwith individual states' sovereign constraints.
The [BBC] has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
We had a Mozart opera cancelled, in Berlin recently, because it was feared that the display of Mohammed on stage could alienate Muslims in Germany. I don’t think that people who have that kind of problems with 18th century music can be alienated any more… if so, I could not care less.
5 comments:
Thanks for posting this, David. It sparked a fairly noisy discussion in my office this morning. It also connected well with another discussion re the 'sailors selling their story' debate.
The Beharry affair is a real shame IMO. As a VC winner, Beharry and his story is an institution in itself (indeed, this is IMO what makes his case different to the Iranian hostages as media story sellers); an institution that deserves, ney, has the right to be celebrated. The BBC, of anyone, should support this. This is utterly disrespectful of the institution of the Victoria Cross.
I find the attitude of the BBC unfathomable. A few years ago I had one of those polite discussions where both sides recognized the existence of an unbreachable wall of incomprehension between them. It was with a BBC producer who had contacted me about a programme they were doing on a war-related topic. I asked him why the BBC never spoke about OUR troops. He said it compromised objectivity; I said he worked for the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, supported by the most regressive and medieval form of tax in the land, in the light of which it seemed fair to, you know, show some partiality. He didn't agree obviously.
I'd be interested in your view of the sailors debate. I don't know how I feel about it; or rather I hold simultaneouosly two opposing views on it. On the one hand, it's just sordid and cheap and implicitly a slap in the face to those who have sacrificed and endured much, much more for nothing more than a paycheque, a ribbon and the satisfaction of having done their duty; on the other hand, they didn't create the sordid 'Big Brother-esque' cultural landscape that creates celebrities out of the crass and undeserving; I don't think Faye Turney is the same as Jjade Goody; and if I made £17K a year and someone offered me £80K for two hours work I'd be sorely tempted. The decent thing to do is to talk and donate the proceeds, IMHO.
In any case, I think all this steers us away from attention to the really biq questions here:
1. Why the government is so flatfooted in its policy toward Iran since this isn't even the first time they've kidnapped sailors.
2. Why the RN, since this isn't the first time this has happened(!), is swanning around the Persian Gulf as though they are enforcing the mooring of spectators' boats at the Henley Regatta not operating eyeball-to-eyeball with a crafty, capable, and unpredictable belligerent.
I am drawn by your invitation to assert my own view of the 'sailors debate' but, as has been the case on several occasions in the past, I fear that a mere post could not begin to do the whole affair justice. This is a dissertation subject in itself.
I think this whole thing is interesting for a host of reasons; one of which is the idea that, in the absence of a declaration of any intent (connect with the many earlier discussions under the heading of 'those were the days'), no formal relationship beyond routine diplomacy exists and the tactical and operational stakeholders are thereby not resourced to respond to events. Everything is assumed under some kind of operational emergency assumption (ie, we'll deal with it when it happens) and, as such, people are not prepared (briefed, exercised, mind-setted, indoctrinated etc) and units are not appropriately equipped. I think that (even if I am failing to adequately describe it here), this is a, perhaps even the, crucial problem of contemporary/future 4GW type warfare where we are constrained by a long-established but out-dated principle of operating within the constraints of a formal policy declaration. Where conditions of 'war' do not exist, there are ways around this problem (as has been the case with the UN's case in Iraq) but this is too cumbersome, time-consuming and, crucially, operates from outwith individual states' sovereign constraints.
The [BBC] has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
We had a Mozart opera cancelled, in Berlin recently, because it was feared that the display of Mohammed on stage could alienate Muslims in Germany. I don’t think that people who have that kind of problems with 18th century music can be alienated any more…
if so, I could not care less.
Completely missed that story, but it snugly fits the picture. It really is time to abolish the BBC.
Apparently 18 Doughty Street are thinking of campaigning to scrap the licence fee (detail on the iniquities of which is available here).
If only there were more than one point of view available from British broadcast media ......
Post a Comment