Fed up UK viewers raise £33,567 in days for legal challenge about BBC Bias

Smashing plan — raising funds to call for a judicial review of BBC bias

David Keighley has a great strategy — instead of debating “the facts” with an organisation that accepts whatever an unaudited foreign committee says — he’s going for the jugular — how do they measure and define impartiality? They aimed initially to reach £30,000 to cover our legal fees but have already achieved that in mere days, such is the anger out there, Australians are even donating. (We get fed the BBC too!) So they’ve just extended the aim to raise £60,000. This is important because we know the BBC has deep pockets — remember in 2006 how they held an in house seminar with high level “climate experts” that turned out to be mostly a workshop with Greenpeace, industry activists and lobbyists. They then spent years and tens of thousands of your taxpayer pounds to hide the identities of the 28 experts.

The BBC will fight this judicial review to the end, unless of course, they actually think they are unbiased. What are the odds?

From the FAQ for the StopBBCBias campaign group:

Dear Auntie: You cannot call yourself impartial if you are measuring yourself

StopBBCBias campaign group launches crowd-funding appeal to fight for a judicial review into how the BBC measures its own impartiality

The BBC’s Royal Charter and Framework Agreement lays down a clear statutory obligation of impartiality. Documents to be filed at the Administrative Court will say that the measures the Corporation has in place to meet this Charter requirement are seriously inadequate, and that this has led to bias and a failure to carry out a main public service duty to its audiences.

We believe that the only way the BBC can be seen to be impartial is to have an independent, objective system of measurement – not one that the BBC runs against itself. Then and only then can it really be called impartial.

BBC 28Gate Where science reporting means asking Greenpeace


Our case

We are a group of private individuals bringing a case for judicial review of the way the BBC measures impartiality. It is our contention that the current methodology – based as it is on opinion polling – is fatally flawed.

Our argument is based on the fact that we believe that opinion polling is not a suitable mechanism to determine whether in fact the BBC is impartial.

We Australians need to get serious ourselves. As far as I know our ABC is so unaccountable it doesn’t even have to do dodgy inhouse opinion polls. We are so far behind…


h/t TomoMason, GWPF, Peter M, El Gordo, Another Ian.

9.7 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

41 comments to Fed up UK viewers raise £33,567 in days for legal challenge about BBC Bias

  • #

    Australia, The ABC ignoring there statutory duty to be accurate and “impartial“, Politicians do nothing, Why?



    • #

      Because there is no realistic way to hold any of them to account via the audience or taxpayers. It’s rogue public media with its hands jammed into our wallets and the ‘authorities’ do nothing because it suits their agenda.


  • #
    reformed warmist of logan

    Good Morning Jo,
    Great piece as usual.
    Please please please someone start the same here.
    BTW. I contributed $5 to Izzy, Last of the big spenders I know!
    But I’d gladly $20 or $30 to this truly great cause.
    The abc (or Gaybc as us conservatives called it in the 80’s), has gone so left for so long, that it no longer even understands the words centre or right, much less credits same with most of the post-war progress in this country & beyond!!!
    I hope someone starts the: Stop “Aunty” from continuing to remain the “Labor-Green” “PR. firm” for much longer fund, asap.
    Maybe 30% centre or right journos could be made to be their new KPI. – else they receive a 30% budget cut FY. 2021-2022!!
    Perhaps they could employ the same QC. who so brilliantly defended Prof. Peter Ridd (Oh sorry, no-one from the left knows that Townsville Uni. actually lost! On all 17 counts!!)
    Warm regards, Reformed Warmist of Logan.


    • #
      reformed warmist of logan

      BTW. II … The term Townsville Uni. was indeed deliberate! …
      Unless & until the regressive progressives in this country & the South Pacific stop trying to re-write history, ie. some in the Cook Islands want to re-name themselves (not to mention the Uni’s & associated GBR. Centre of Excellence’s relentless “Climate-Porn” prognostications about the Reef), I no longer believe that the Townsville Uni. is worthy of the honour of being named James Cook Uni. (Ironic though this may be!)
      To steal one greeny’s great line (Matt Damon); “See how they like those apples!!!”
      Reformed Warmist of Logan.


    • #

      Aunty ABC today news showing Attenbrough at it again with his warmist diatribe, no opposite view to be seen!
      Im still trying to figure him out who he really is..


      • #

        Meant to add the point of his diatribe was that sub Saharan Africa will become uninhabitable due to…and they are ALL coming to live in YOUR place..very soon..better stop breathing CO2 ..fast.


    • #

      What this crowd funding campaign is hoping to do, I understand, is not take the BBC to court for being biased, but to take them to court to prove that their method of determining bias is ineffective and, in itself is biased as the groups being used for their “surveys” are not independent groups.

      They want to start a process where the broadcasts being made by the ABC are assessed, independently, to identify whether their broadcasts adequately explore both sides of an argument. It is already known, for a fact, that the BBC will no longer allow any discussion on global warming -climate change – climate emergency as, according to the BBC, the matter is settled and there is no point in allowing “climate deniers” any airtime. This would obviously not meet the criteria of no bias, if viewed by a truly independent process.

      The same would be true for their ABC. Let us see how the UK process goes and what lessons we can learn from it. Perhaps we could initiate something like that here in Australia too.


  • #

    Hmm.. crowd-funding vs the ABC. That could be interesting. Could it happen?


  • #

    Break-up the BBC, sell all the assets that do not directly function to inform, educate, and entertain (IN THAT ORDER) with a focus on the UK nation, and reduce the standard household ‘license’ tax to £25 + discretionary amounts viewers/listeners considers applicable.
    Everyone on means-tested support and/or over 75 years old allowed to pay ONLY a discretionary amount that the means-tested and OAP householder considers appropriate!


    • #
      Another Ian

      “Everyone on means-tested support and/or over 75 years old allowed to pay ONLY a discretionary amount that the means-tested and OAP householder considers appropriate!”

      Does that mean you can send a bill?


    • #
      Kinky Keith

      A good point TomO.

      Everything thing to do with the sound operation of our Australian community has been, “privatised, devolved or given over to a committee” to manage.

      This avoids the inevitable public complaints.
      Water, health, education, basic services like sewage and electricity, and so on.

      No doubt “somebody”, somebody very specific, has turned a wonderful profit and service delivery is ugly and expensive.

      But the main point is, there are two institutions that have not been “privatised” and are still with government:
      The public service, at all levels, is the plaything of politicians as is our wondrous public broadcasting unit.

      A good friend of a politician could disappear inside one of these institutions or universities, never overexert themselves and live happily ever after.

      This is Not ethical government!


    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Let’s start called the BBC what it is : The British Propaganda Corporation = BPC

      And the ABC, the “APC’

      Naming the situation is an important step to destroying the problem & regaining our ABC.


  • #
    Kinky Keith

    Love that big green statement.

    Where Science Reporting ………

    It says so much.


  • #
    Rupert Ashford

    Hope it’s not on GFM – their community standards might demand it to be shut down. 🙂


  • #

    An impartial climate debate,
    To which skeptics could start to relate,
    Never was and won’t be,
    At the old B.B.C.,
    And those who await it will wait.


  • #

    Whod have thought…holding the govt to account…..


  • #

    Let’s do it.


  • #

    Progressive regressives, rejoice!
    It all will be out of our hands soon, whatever people do or do not.
    In 5 years there will be many driverless cars on roads, in 20 years – very few drivers.
    The number of passenger cars will follow the number of drivers.
    In 5 years the robotic surgery assistance will be widely accepted, in 20 years there will be less “manual surgeons” than kids today able to write with a pen.
    And on and on…
    So here is my hope – AI will take over the world before the regressive progressives destroy it.
    The real measure of it will be AI assistance to Courts.


  • #

    The BBC justifies its unique compulsory funding model — a television tax household tax* — by claiming that it provides a fair and balanced public service. Its treatment of climate change, or the EU debate, shows this is simply not true.
    The illusion that the BBC is in charge of it’s funding through the ‘license’ fee was enhance by George Osborne when he was Chancellor, when negotiating with the BBC over ‘licence fee’ agreement (i.e. how much of the household tax the BBC would get) made the BBC responsible for funding the £700m welfare cost of free TV for the over-75s (those registered blind still had to pay half-price). BBC insist they lost significant funds with this settlement. The total income from ‘licence fees’ was £3.83 billion in 2017–18 (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/bbc_annualreport_201718.pdf )

    IMO A better model would be gradually reduction of the BBC’s burden on the tax system over 10 years, with year-on-year reductions, till it was only £1 billion maximum (i.e. ‘licence fee’ down to 1/3 of the current value), the shortfall then being made-up on a pay-per-view model.
    Also note that IMO if the BBC continues to propagandizes topics like the EU, climate, and making itself the news, then the move to a pay-per-view model should happen very much faster!

    *It IS a household tax now as any device — PC, Phone, TV or any other future technology that can receive the BBC TV signals are deemed subject to a ‘licence fee’ at the rate of one fee per household.
    All ‘licence fee’ money goes into the Government’s general taxation fund, and the BBC has then to negotiate for it’s allowance from the Chancellor or his representatives.
    Also see Wikipedia’s mangled version at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom


    • #


      …till it was only £1 billion maximum (i.e. ‘licence fee’ down to 1/3 of the current value), the shortfall then being made-up on a pay-per-view model.

      That should be —
      …till it was only £½ billion maximum (i.e. ‘licence fee’ down to 1/6 of the current value), the shortfall then being made-up on a pay-per-view model.


    • #

      So we could challenge the BBC tax as unlawful, as the BBC fails to meet its charter of balnced view.

      Excellent…a possible legal precedent….anything that deprives govt of unnecesary tax burden and subsequent income has to be a good & fair thing…..


      • #
        el gordo

        Dunno about the legal approach.

        ‘So while the Charter is contained within a piece of legislation, it is not law. It imposes no duty to act, or refrain from acting, and it imposes no penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. In fact, section 6(4) explicitly excludes the courts from enforcing the ABC Charter. No wonder the ABC routinely ignores its charter – there is no duty upon them to follow it.’

        Catallaxy Files


    • #
      Gerry, England

      Not true that devices are subject to the TV tax – only watching broadcast TV requires a licence. The BBC iplayer has added the question of whether you have a licence before letting you watch but then we can lie as well so say Yes. They are actually very scared of taking this too far in case the majority turn round and say just become a subscription service and they struggle to oppose it.


  • #
    el gordo

    In 2014 Rhonda Jolly did an Overview of the ABC for the government and I found this gem

    Journalist Tom Switzer has argued that ABC left wing bias is not deliberate, but at the same time it is entrenched and incestuous. In 2006 Switzer concluded:

    ‘A left-wing conspiracy is not necessary at the tax-payer funded behemoth, because (most) ABC journalists quite spontaneously think alike. They just can’t imagine that someone could possible oppose the Kyoto protocol or an Aboriginal apology or a labour monopoly on the waterfront because, to them and their friends, these are self-evident truths.

    ‘Nor can they imagine that someone could possible support a monarchy or Tasmanian timber workers or close Australian-US relations because, to them and their friends, these are unfashionable views to be ridiculed. It simply doesn’t occur to them that sane or civilised people could disagree with them.


  • #

    ABC is ripe for down-sizing:

    AUDIO: 2min44sec: 10 Jul: ABC AM: Sir David Attenborough calls for ‘radical’ action on climate change
    By Rachel Mealey on AM
    Sir David Attenborough, perhaps the world’s oldest environmentalist at 93, has told British politicians they can’t be “radical enough” in dealing with the threat of climate change.
    He’s warned a parliamentary committee that it’s essential to stick to a new target to decarbonise the economy…or risk social unrest and mass migration if climate change is not tackled in time.
    Sir David Attenborough, environmentalist, broadcaster

    ABC concerned about taxpayer money being wasted:

    AUDIO: 12min21sec: 10 Jul: ABC Breakfast: Hamish Macdonald: Four Corners shows ‘fundamental misunderstanding’ of water plan, says Webster chairman
    The Four Corners report this week on large corporations being handed public money to expand their lucrative water holdings has sparked widespread calls for a full and independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan…
    Critics of the basin plan say it’s being “rorted” by big business to make a profit at the expense of taxpayers with little water being recovered for the ailing river system.
    Guest: Chris Corrigan, chairman, Webster Limited

    TAI’s Slattery gets the headline here, even tho she’s already featured heavily in the 4 Corners’ program:

    AUDIO: 17min09sec: 10 Jul: ABC Breakfast: Hamish Macdonald: Murray-Darling water plan a ‘fraud on taxpayers’, says senior water researcher
    To better understand this controversial water infrastructure scheme, RN Breakfast speaks with Michael Murray, the general manager of Cotton Australia, and Maryanne Slattery, a senior water researcher at The Australia Institute.

    CAGW mob all concerned about taxpayer money!

    8 Jul: ABC Four Corners: Cash Splash
    Maryanne Slattery, Senior Water Researcher, Australia Institute:
    All subsidised by tax payers and worse I think Australian tax payers will be really shocked to find out that that money is actually going to foreign investors as well and that’s just absolutely perverse…
    And then when you realise they’re being paid for by the Commonwealth, under a supposedly environmental program, that’s just horrifying…

    Dr Emma Carmody, Senior Policy and Law Reform Solicitor, Environmental Defender’s Office: The point of the subsidy is to save water and return that to the river system. It’s not to allow the beneficiary to take more water. And in fact, it’s so perverse to my mind, it’s almost worse than water theft, because it’s the government and taxpayer money that’s being used to sanction this kind of behaviour…

    (ABC’s) Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop: MaryAnne Slattery left the Authority in disgust in 2017, concluding the Murray Darling Basin Plan was a fraud on Australian taxpayers and the claimed savings from the water infrastructure scheme were grossly exaggerated…


  • #

    The BBC is a law unto itself. I mean, who else would sack Jeremy Clarkson??


  • #
    el gordo

    Auntie critiqued on the Murray Darling program.

    ‘Both Mr Littleproud and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority say the ABC did not contact them for comment for the program. The Land has asked the ABC to give their views on the criticism of the program.

    National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson said the NFF would be “methodically working through the inaccuracies and errors pedalled in last night’s program and would register a formal complaint seeking corrections from the highest level within the ABC”.


  • #

    Hi Jo

    A lot of people think that somehow the solution to media bias on global warming madness is to privatise the public broadcasters. It won’t change anything and here’s why…

    Recently I’ve been watching Sky News UK on our pay TV late at night and I can tell you that every presenter on that station bangs the climate crisis drum with as much, if not more, violence then those on the BBC. They are a privately funded service so they can take whatever editorial line they want but the point is that public or private funding is not the root problem.

    The real problem is that 99% of people in the media seem to be scientifically illiterate. They do not understand science so they do not know what questions they should be asking of people who make extraordinary claims supposedly based on some scientific study. So we get what we see today were Sir David Attenborough makes some outrageous statements about the Great Barrier Reef and no one questions him or even his scientific qualifications to make such absurd claims. Accept gods voice of authority or someone might think you’re a bit odd, maybe even dangerous.

    The solution is to fix the education system so that future generations of media types have the ability to think critically on all issues, not just science. Governments can do little to change how the media operates in a free society but they can certainly purge the socialist collective from the classrooms, that is something they can control.


    • #

      I agree that the problem is in our education system but I am also aware that it has been assiduously degraded since the ructions of 1968 and it has spent the last two decades beyond any possible recovery and has now morphed into an iniquitous major money spinning industry exploiting foreign students whose marks are augmented through group assessment policies where the assessment load is borne by the native english speakers.


  • #
    Peter C

    What has Changed at the BBC? Nothing as far as I can see.

    In 2010 Andrew Montford and Tony Newbery (Harmless Sky) made a submission of bias to the BBC, regarding the reporting of Climate Change.

    It was well reasoned and referenced with actual verified claims.

    Newbery then pursued an FOI claim against the BBC to obtain the names of the panel of “experts” who attended a BBC seminar. The result of that seminar was that the BBC issued a directive that Climate Skeptic views were not to get equal time with Climate Change supporters.

    An English judge denied his request after the BBC spent years defending non release.

    The names came out soon after. The seminar was packed with representatives of activist green groups like WWF and Oxfam. Not one truly qualified scientist.

    Despite this nothing has changed at the BBC.

    I hope that the crowd funded group can get some change but there is no reason to think that they will until there is a big change politically. If Nigel Farage become PM we might see something happen.


  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Media bias my ass; just caught an excerpt of news on our channel 7 (my wife’s watch).
    They were showing a clip of none other than Britains most illustrious wildlife expert (Sir) David Attenborough. Here is the almighty pouring out his noble heart and soul to an elected panel of British MP’s studiously listening to, and hanging onto his every word; he is telling them that we, the great, unwashed British public are in the process of destroying our beloved planet by way of our exorbitant lifestyle CO2 pollution. And so to save the world, and all of us, from the IPCC disaster that must befall, maybe we, the public can be persuaded to fly less (and eat less etc), and to help persuade us all to this end he suggests that the cost of air tickets be increased! What a load of supersillious rot from someone in his esteemed position, so well off financially and who has himself has travelled the whole world for decades, spitting out CO2 pollution for all his life! (British MP’s should be listening to their constituents!)
    In truth I cannot see the smarter, working class members of British society swallowing this kind of crap from the likes of David Attenborough. I sincerely hope they come to their senses and tell him politely to ‘bugger off’ back to the bush.
    That’s my rant, Regards GeoffW


  • #
    Steve Richards

    The BBC has a history of bias. Look at the Balen Report from 2004.

    The BBC had been accused of being anti-Israel in its reporting. To demonstrate its squeaky clean balance, a report was commissioned and thousands of hours of news as viewed and analyzed.
    The report was presented to the BBC and they promptly refused to release it.
    They were taken to the high court and supreme court and won.

    The report is still secret.

    I think a wise person would conclude that a company seeking to demonstrate its fairness by commissioning a report would release it if the report demonstrated its fairness.

    To keep this report secret leads to the only possible conclusion that the BBC admits to being biased, unfair and untrustworthy.

    See the quick summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report

    If the BBC considers it correct to keep a taxpayer funded report on the Arab/Israeli conflict secret, you can imagine how far they will go in distorting the reporting of little old climate…


  • #
    Gerry, England

    Thanks to all those Australians that have helped fund the fight. If we can win the case against them it will damage the reputation of the BBC around the World where it is still seen as something it hasn’t been for decades.