The Spectator's Notes

29 November 2008

In his speech announcing his Pre-Budget Report, Alistair Darling said that he was going to put up the top rate of income tax to 45 per cent from 2011, because he wanted the burden to be borne by ‘those who have done best out of the growth of the past decade’.

I am not seeking such a lawyer for my own case, however, because I am not trying to win a legal battle, but to make a point about what is — to use a favourite BBC word — unacceptable. No one who listens to the calls made by Ross and Russell Brand to the 78-year-old Andrew Sachs, later broadcast on Radio 2, could possibly imagine that either man should work for a publicly funded broadcaster. Brand has gone, but Ross will be back at the end of January, still on £6 million a year. This fact, and the amount of money paid to this repulsive man, are in absolute opposition to the Public Purposes set out in the BBC Charter. The BBC is breaking its moral contract with viewers, so I feel released from my duty to pay it a fee. From the point of view of its own interest, by the way, it is mad not to repudiate the Ross contract. The £6 million for Ross is an extreme boom folly, like RBS paying far too much for ABN Amro. He would be lucky to get a tenth of that from the commercial sector if he went back on the market today. Besides, since he will presumably be banned from throwing obscenities at embarrassed guests when he is back on air, what will he do instead? Where will his act go? If Ross is having a mid-life crisis, brought on by all that money, the thing to do is to disappear for a year or two, become relatively poor and happy, and then return with a new haircut as the presenter of Songs of Praise.

In what may be the offer of an olive branch, Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, has invited me to lunch at his office. I have gratefully accepted. What is the correct etiquette though? It is normal on these occasions to have a courteous exchange of views, but the example of Jonathan Ross shows that one gets further by ‘pushing the boundaries’. If I ring Mr Thompson on his answering machine with a series of lewd suggestions about members of his family, or ask him whether he masturbates about octogenarians, perhaps he will acknowledge my comic genius and offer me £6 million a year.

‘Doing nothing is not an option’ is a phrase one hears very frequently in the media, delivered by people advocating something or other, usually involving legislation and more government spending. Is it ever actually true? If it is, how sad.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Charles Moore | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (3)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

mondayclubber

November 28th, 2008 12:01am Report this comment

Careful Charles ,letter in todays Guardian

I would like to reassure your readers that absolutely everybody risks prosecution if they are watching television without a licence. Last year, we prosecuted 151,000 people. We do not take personal opinion into consideration and we do not shy from prosecuting. If and when their addresses become unlicensed, this will apply to Noel Edmonds and Charles Moore as much as it applies to anyone else (Letters, November 25).
Ian Fannon
TV Licensing

"We do not take personal opinion into consideration" So are we not allowed in Labour Stasi Britain to have one

Peter

November 29th, 2008 6:49am Report this comment

Have any aspects you outline been tested for legal validity? I know that much in our glorious legal system is open to (a word the BBC will love) 'interpretation'. Also can't help that so much is also 'unique' and beyond any other financial relationship I have experienced.

Beyond what has troubled you, certainly I have to believe any contractual arrangement between me and many aspects of my public broadcaster's service for a fee have been breached, from highly questionable information being selected and supplied, actions unrepresentative of my views being carried out, commitments against my wishes as a stakeholder (I see this word is now lampooned, but know of no other way to describe the relationship) being made, and a template-based faux 'complaints' system that is a joke.

David Short

December 3rd, 2008 3:14pm Report this comment

It would not be the BBC that breaks the law, but the odious 'TV Licensing' which holds the contract for recklessly pursuing and harassing honest people.

And when did any institution have an activity as its name without a noun; 'TV Licensing' is illiterate as well as charmless and criminal. No BBC spokesperson should be speaking on behalf of this independent 'body'.

Post comment