Government licensed extortion? ‘Secret’ model that funds the BBC

In February this year, Indian income tax authorities carried out a brief survey at the offices of the BBC in New Delhi. Following this, the BBC released a lengthy video on their Hindi platform, with the claim that they are an independent media organization funded by the British public. A number of foreign governments took note of the Indian income tax survey. The foreign press, always ready to jump on India’s throat, acted on cue. Civil society groups cried that democracy is in danger in India. Or in other words, the usual stuff. For many Indians and a number of people around the world, the BBC carries an automatic air of respectability. We all know that they are linked to the British state. But we have all been assured that the BBC is somehow independent, factual and most of all, impartial. Not surprising. After all, in disputes around the world, from the Indian subcontinent to the Middle East and Africa, the ability of the British to act ‘impartially’ has never been in doubt. But then Elon Musk came along. And Twitter decided to label the BBC’s official handle as “government funded media”. The BBC objected, saying that they are funded not by the government, but by the British public through a license fee. We have heard that before, but what exactly does it mean? How does the BBC raise money from the public without being government funded? You mean from voluntary donations and such? Does not seem likely. What if I told you that the BBC has its own private army of enforcers with the power to raid any household in the UK? And that the BBC prosecutes over 100,000 people each year, most of them poor, many of them immigrants, some who may not even understand English well. In other words, the least powerful in society. In fact, the BBC’s private army now has a special unit to raid the homes of those who are over 75 years old. Such is the dark underbelly of sophisticated global ‘liberalism.’ How is the BBC actually funded? The BBC has something called a royal charter. That is just a fancy way of saying that the BBC has the legal power to collect a license fee from every household in the UK. Well, almost. From everyone who owns a TV, or a laptop, a phone or a tablet that is. And it is not cheap. Currently, it is set at £159 (nearly $200) a year. What is wrong with the BBC charging subscribers for its services, you may ask. Except ‘subscribers’ is just an Orwellian term. Those people don’t have a choice. Even if you do not watch the BBC, you must pay. And this applies to all platforms, not just TV. Even if you are just watching your favourite YouTuber live on your phone, for some reason, you owe money to the BBC. Two hundred dollars a year. This sounds so absurd that it may take a while to believe it. Indeed, where am I getting all this information? From the website of the BBC! Imagine if you were charged a car license fee even if you don’t own, need or want a car. Or had to pay a license fee to McDonald’s to eat at KFC. Oh, so the BBC is like the government after all. We all have to pay for government services we may never use directly. Even if you travel in your own car, you still pay for the government to run public buses. It’s called taxes. So what is the problem? But remember that the BBC rejects the tag of “government funded media.” Governments collect taxes. The BBC collects only fees. According to the BBC, they are not the government, but a corporation. That is what the ‘C’ in BBC stands for. A very special kind of corporation, with the legal power to throw people in jail for refusing to buy its product. The BBC’s ruthless fee collection model Understandably, the reporting on this is thin, because big media do not like to embarrass each other. A 2014 article in The Guardian describes what happens in the courtroom to the poor souls who are herded together to be prosecuted by the BBC: “Between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2013 you used a colour television receiver without a licence at this address. Do you plead guilty or not guilty?” The victim is a young woman, who apologizes to the court, hoping for leniency. It doesn’t work. She is found guilty, ordered to pay court costs, a fine as well as some kind of surcharge.  There is no way she can pay upfront. The court allows her to go on a payment plan of £5 per week. The Guardian article mentions another defendant who has health issues and who says: “I rang the BBC and asked them to hang on and I will pay, but they wanted it here and now … It wasn’t because I didn’t want to pay, it was because I couldn’t pay ….  I’m already paying these extra things I can’t afford. What do they want us to do, kill ourselves?” He is found guilty and put on a payment plan as well. He can afford to pay only £2.50 a week. Remember that the next time you hear of high-profile BBC reporters and their slick production teams who travel the world looking for human interest stories. Remember it for the next time the BBC says they have come to India to ‘speak truth to power.’ It is all being funded by taking money from the desperately poor guy who can barely afford £2.50 a week! Independent media? Perhaps. But at whose cost? The Guardian article mentions another unfortunate soul who thought he could get out of paying the fee by handing over his TV to the government. Another victim, evidently a foreigner, asked for a Turkish language interpreter. I wonder if the BBC in the UK even has any programmes in Turkish. Must pay the “license fee” though. For the sake of press freedom. These are not isolated incidents. It happens to lakhs of people every year. The BBC’s own website mentions 1,14,531 convictions in 2019 alone. Some 50 people even go to jail every year for this. Who says there is no debtor’s prison in the UK? Or should we call these people political prisoners held by the BBC? If you think it can’t get worse, it does. On its website, the TV licensing authority in the UK says they have a database of every household in the country. They have their team of enforcers and detection vans, who can visit any house any time to check for a license. Remember that this is not even the government, but a corporation. The violations of privacy and civil liberties are simply off the charts. And the BBC does keep it classy. Which is why they just hired an extra unit in their private army specifically to go after those who are over 75 years old but failed to pay the license fee during the pandemic. But if that is what it takes for the global liberal elite to have their ‘independent’ media, they think it is worth every frail old grandmother they can throw into jail. The Nazi roots of the BBC What else could the BBC cover-up in plain sight? For instance, the fact that Lord John Reith, founder of the BBC and its first director general, was a Nazi sympathizer who praised the way Hitler had “cleaned up” dissent against him. Yes, he said “cleaned up”. Exact words. ‘Hitler continues in his magnificent efficiency,’ Reith wrote even as German troops occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939. The BBC website has a separate page on its founder but makes no mention of his Nazi sympathies of course. They also have a bust and a portrait of him at their offices in London, which they refuse to get rid of. Instead, the BBC runs a highly prestigious annual lecture series in honour of John Reith. Because the job of the BBC is to promote Britain’s brand, not to hurt it. Even if they have Nazi skeletons in their own closet. To be fair, Nazi sympathies were actually fairly common among British elites of the time. This is partly because much of the British nobility, including the royal family itself, is of German descent. And the BBC is in charge, whether officially or unofficially, of hiding embarrassing facts. So when old video emerged in 2015 of Edward VIII teaching a young Elizabeth the Nazi salute, the BBC wrote a long article providing context (read excuses). Edward VIII became king, later abdicated, but remained a supporter of Nazism throughout. Incidentally, the real name of the British royal family is the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, named after counties in Bavaria in Germany, and descended from the House of Hanover. It was changed to the now familiar House of Windsor by royal decree in 1917, at the peak of anti-German sentiment during the First World War. In a media appearance last year, veteran journalist Karan Thapar made fun of the BJP’s way of changing historical names that it does not like. He pointed out that the British had the maturity not to rename Hanover Square in London, despite two wars with Germany. Well, Karan, there is your answer. They did not change the name because Britain is still ruled by the House of Hanover. You wouldn’t know if you only watched the BBC. How does the BBC keep getting away with everything? For that, we must ask a better question. Who would gain from calling out the BBC on its extortion of the poorest and weakest in society? Usually, such calling out is the job of the media, civil society groups, intellectuals, activists, NGOs and so on. What do these people want? They want fame, prestige, awards and junkets. The BBC can already help them advance their careers. Why would they go against it? Even if they are not directly connected to the BBC, the BBC brand makes all the difference. Due to its privileged position, the BBC can decide which narrative is ‘cool.’ And so, everyone wants to be like them. Other news organisations copy the narrative of the BBC. Many people in these organizations would aspire to work for the BBC one day, or align themselves with it. Working for the BBC would open doors in important places. On the other hand, BBC alumni would find it easier to enter high positions in existing media organisations or even start new ones of their own. Hence, what appears like a free market is not so free after all. The incentives for going against the BBC simply aren’t there. The other reason is that the BBC is a highly prized weapon of information warfare. Think about it. Using the BBC, the British are able to exert influence over the elites inside every country, well within their borders. It gives them enormous power over world affairs. This would be practically impossible by conventional military means, and too far beyond the resources of a small nation such as the UK. And therefore it is in the supreme national interest of the UK (and more broadly, the West) to make sure that the sun never sets on Britain’s information empire. Even if it means breaking the backs of over 1 lakh of the poorest and most vulnerable residents of the UK each year. The empire always works for the elites. The writer is an author and columnist. He tweets @AbhishBanerj Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .