• Time to bin the Beeb……

      2 comments

    The news that my fellow Yorkshireman, Jeremy Clarkson is paid around £3 million a year by the BBC should be used by patriotic persons to demonstrate that “something should be done” about the BBC.

    British Gazette readers, please note: This article is in no way a criticism of my fellow Yorskhireman, who like the Editor was born in the West Riding. Readers will know that the British Gazette likes to use a photograph at the top of the article. Above is the delightful Miss Kelly Brook who (as Mr Clarkson must surely agree) is a much prettier sight than the esteemed motoring journalist and broadcaster!

    British Gazette readers will know that this organ has repeatedly chastised the BBC about its role as tax funded broadcaster of propaganda.
    A campaign MUST be launched to disband and dismantle the BBC and to scrap the licence fee.
    The campaign to disband and dismantle the BBC and to scrap the licence fee should not be based on the politics of patriotism. To do so will guarantee failure.

    Calls to disband and dismantle the BBC should be based on the cultural, commercial and economic realities of the present time. With today’s multiplicity of broadcasters both on digital TV, digital and analogue radio and the internet – the requirement for a state funded broadcaster is non existent.

    The disbanding and dismantling of the BBC need not result in many broadcasters and personalities such as Mr Clarkson loosing their incomes. Were the BBC to be disbanded and dismantled such as Mr Clarkson would very quickly negotiate deals with the many other broadcasters to host his popular “Top Gear” TV programme. He would probably end up with even more money! However, not a penny of Mr Clarkson’s money would be paid from what is in effect a poll tax – the BBC Licence Fee.

    The facts of the matter are these:
    - There is no need for a state funded broadcaster in what is supposed to be a pluralistic multi-party democracy. The BBC does NOTHING that cannot be done by commercial broadcasters.
    - The BBC Licence Fee (currently £145.50) is a poll tax that hits the poorest in the community the hardest.
    - The TRAITORS in all three main parties WILL NEVER agree to disband and dismantle the BBC as it is their most powerful propaganda tool run by the Europhile, Green liberal (small “L”) elite.

    How do we tackle this?

    There are those who say that people should not pay the Licence Fee. This of course would result in an appearance before the magistrates, a fine and a criminal record – which means one’s house and car insurance premiums would increase.

    This route is still a possibility but it would require a large amount of money – in the region of £1 million. Herewith the details:

    Firstly, a defendant would be required. These are not few in number. Many poor people (generally women – as they tend to be in when the TV Licence enforcement officers call) are charged with the criminal offence of failure to purchase a TV licence.

    Were “we” to acquire a fighting fund of a necessary size, it would be necessary to acquire the whole hearted co-operation of such a defendant.

    What would be required of such a defendant?

    We would require them to plead “NOT GUILTY” and to argue that the demand for a TV Licence is against their Human Rights. The Human Rights in question are the right to live in a pluralist multi-party democracy (having a poll tax funded state broadcaster is not in line with this treaty requirement). There is also the “freedom of expression” argument.

    Of course, the Magistrates or District Judge will convict. The defendant would then appeal the verdict. This is where the £1 million comes in. The appeals process would have to go right through the English legal system (Crown Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court) before being sent to the European Court of Human Rights. This would require the following legal personnel:

    - An instructing solicitor.
    - Two barristers: a QC and a junior.

    British Gazette readers may well protest and say that the European Court should not be used. The British Gazette would beg to differ: Would readers not appreciate the irony of a European Court delivering the death knell to that most Europhile of British institutions?

    • There is no lawful requirement for a TV licence.

      The European Court of Human Rights has no lawful authority over Britain.

      Legal, is not the same as Lawful, Legem Terrae’

      “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional statutes”. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”.(Divisional Court ruling in the case of the “Metric Martyrs” 2002, (sections 62 and 63)

      Magna Carta
      “…here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.”
      Winston Churchill

      The BBC is a private Corporation and registered as such in Dunn & Bradstreet..
      It may well be a Government approved broadcaster, but it cannot invade the privacy of our homes without our consent.
      Any Parliamentary legislation that contravenes the freedoms granted under, Common Law, Magna Carta, or The Bill of Rights, is invalid. Every judge swears upon their oath of office to protect us against such transgressions.
      We should be able to ban the BBC from broadcasting through our radios and televisions, and fine IT if it does.
      Yes, we do need a defendant, but not a £1million not even 50p.

      No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,…or in any other way destroyed…except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.”
      We need a defendant that knows Common Law and that if the Government wants to remove our liberty or seize our property, it must present its case before an informed Jury.
      It is for the Jury alone to examine the law and judge whether it is just or contravenes our Common Law right to live in our homes and enjoy our property without interference.
      We can never be judged by one man in a wig, only by our peers, the jury.
      We can perform any lawful activity without interference from the state, which as it cannot licence us to perform any unlawful activity, voids the need for any licences at all.
      If someone harms or injures anyone, causes loss or damages to their property, acts dishonestly in their dealings, causes a breach of the peace, or acts in mischief, they commit a Common law offence whether they hold a licence, or not.

      Licencing is a money making extortion racket.

    • I understand your argument Tony, and support every word. However, maybe Peter is on to something here and we should beat the buggers using their own rules?

    Write a comment