Wednesday, December 22, 2010
These are the legal basis of their claim to the right to our money. The Agreement pdf sits alongside the Charter providing detail of what the Charter means. In it we find that the previously discussed Editorial Guidelines ate not merely guidelines but written into their legal duties.
44. Accuracy and impartialityThis is essentially the wording used in the "guidelines" and if they are in breach of it they have no legal validity.
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due
accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
(2) In applying paragraph (1), a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.
(3) The UK Public Services must not contain any output which expresses the opinion of the
BBC or of its Trust or Executive Board on current affairs or matters of public policy other
than broadcasting or the provision of online services.
Beyond the simple issue of breach of contract lets look at the European Declaration of Human Rights
ARTICLE 10So if the BBC have failed to show due balance, across their broadcasting they have also interfered with the human rights of all those whose views have been suppressed. If, for example, they have had UKIP spokesmen on significantly less than 4 times as often and BNP ones significantly less than twice as often as Green ones they clearly not only defrauded supporters of the former but interfered with their human rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
If the evidence that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming is less than 10s of thousands of times greater than the evidence of severe snow then their claim to have maintained "due balance" is false & they have defrauded all their licence payers for over a decade & not only have no right to demand money from them, until they have proven themselves honest, but I suspect, have a legal duty to refund that money.
If they have and are totally censoring reporting of racial genocide, something which Damian Whyte of "BBC Information" promised to deny & when presented with the facts specifically then found himself unable to do, then they have clearly breached the duty of "due balance" (they have also made themselves complicit in crimes against humanity but that is meat for another time). and are not entitled to demand payment from the public, indeed they owe money.
That they have censored to promote warming alarmism, one particular [political party & racial genocide appears to me to be indubitable. I believe that there are many other subjects on which such accusations could be made with a degree of credibility greatly exceeding the "balance of probability" standard used in civil courts. It seems easily provable that, even by the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" they have censored & lied in these instances.
If somebody not only defends a licence fee prosecution of the BBC but counter sues for previous year's payments they would also be able to call a number of top executives & Trust members & make them testify, under oath, how the decisions to censor everything from the weather to NATO police's Crimes Against Humanity were taken. That opens whole new cans of worms. I suspect it would go viral online, though unmentioned by the MSM.