ANOTHER VOICE

Mrs Thatcher should privatise, close down, or blow up the BBC

AUBERON WAUGH

It is a pity that general reaction to the White Paper on broadcasting was recorded before two developments of last week. They may not have changed the attitudes of many people to the British Broadcasting Corporation but they will certainly have crystallised them. In my own case, I find that my attitude has definitely changed. Although I do not suppose I have ever Spent more than five minutes a month thinking about the BBC, when I did so it was usually in terms of vague approval. The Corporation may have been infiltrated a bit by tiresome and half-witted lefties, but they were only part of the general mix, Which allowed for some measure of variety and independence; by and large, with occasional lapses and in spite of all tempta- tion to court the mass audience, it stood for intelligent radio, 'quality' television and keeping the yobs at bay. There were even a few people on the payroll whom one might have known at school, or at university — educated, gentle people such as one might even now meet at a dinner party in Islington or Shepherds Bush.

This opinion, although firmly held, was equally firmly built on foundations of almost total ignorance. It is very rarely indeed that I watch television for more than half an hour a week and I always fall asleep after the first five minutes. On the very few occasions I have dined in Islington or Shepherds Bush, I cannot remember once having met an employee of the BBC. But I am well aware that there are many people who are not as lucky as I. Some have no legs and are forced to sit in front of the television most of the time. Others are very, very old and lonely because all their friends have died. Many are prevented from leaving their homes of an evening by Bottomley's vicious police patrols, others are prevented from going to the cinema by the suicidal policy of cinema managers to ban smoking in their theatres. Although the Government has not yet passed a law making television watching compulsory, it has manipulated large sections of the Population into positions where they have no alternative. It was on behalf of such people, believing that they viewed the BBC, on the whole, with gratitude and affection, that I professed to hold my earlier, fatuous opinion.

Nothing I have seen on television made me change it. I don't think I have even watched my statutory half-hour in the last

two weeks. The whole subject is as much terra incognita as it ever was. The reason I now find myself baying for the BBC to have its licence money withdrawn, to be split up and privatised, to be closed down or blown up, is because it has become apparent that BBC employees are far from the intelligent, independent-minded peo- ple I took them for. In fact they must comprise one of the largest collections of cowards and sycophants in the country. Two things convince me of this sorry state of affairs.

The first follows from last Wednesday's publication of a good-taste code book entitled BBC Producers' Guidelines (avail- able from BBC bookshops at f6). My complaint is not so much that the BBC hierarchy should decide to issue this fatuous and insulting document. Em- ployers will always want to humiliate their employees as much as they can. The document serves as an escape road for higher executives. When next there is a row about some programme, they can point to one article or another in these moronic Guidelines, and declare a Guide- line has been transgressed. Then they can take appropriate disciplinary action against the transgressor. I have discussed the details of this ludicrous document else- where — how it urges producers to allow no mention of racial origin or disability or colour or even sex or age (my italics) when they are immaterial'; how it stresses that in drama there are few circumstances in which it is justified to show scenes where people are dying and how, on a slightly more sinister note, there should be no 'undue concentration' on the bloody con- sequences of a terrorist attack.

It is an insult to the intelligence, of course, treating producers as 'kids' in a play-group, able to respond only to simple rules which are passed to them in a specially fatuous, patronising voice. Any- body who thought about it would know that a producer either has the necessary judgment or he does not. If he doesn't, he should be sacked or re-employed in some other capacity. But what convinced me that BBC employees, collectively, are an appallingly spineless bunch was that no- body protested. The message was that they would try to be good kids just as long as Sir didn't take away their jobs.

The next revelation came through the post in the shape of some photocopies from

Ariel, the BBC staff magazine, for 21 February 1989, sent anonymously. This anonymous missive is the only evidence to date of any spirit of rebellion against BBC managers who, with the support of the unions, have decided to turn the whole gigantic BBC empire into a no-smoking zone. It is explained to employees in special kiddies' language:

This means from April 1 * Smoking will be banned in corridors and lifts.

* There will be no smoking in toilets. * All BBC vehicles will be non-smoking. * There will be no smoking in restaurants and conference rooms. . . .

Smokers in non-smoking areas will be able to get help and advice on giving up smoking from their local medical or nursing officer. Counselling is also available from Central Welfare.

Employment Policy head Geoff Jones told Ariel: 'We're not trying to victimise smokers or try to say that you must not smoke, but we are trying to protect the legitimate interests of non-smokers.'

The same issue reports that the BBC is giving 'careful consideration' to the unions' claim for a pay increase of 16 per cent.

In fairness to the cringing hacks of the BBC, I must admit they have all been fed a stream of deliberate lies and distortions on the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke (FTS or 'passive smoking') by the Health Education Council and British Medical Association, as well as by such professional pleaders as ASH. I am not suggesting they should hang their union leaders or put Broadcasting House and the Television Centre to fire and the sword. But the very least they could do is set up a free union and disrupt proceedings until their demands are met. For years now I have been popping into Longhorn Place to contribute to radio programmes for a derisory, sometimes non-existent fee. Now I no longer see it as a Good Cause. I hope other journalists follow my lead in refusing to have anything further to do with the BBC, although it will make little enough difference, I fear. The great thing is for the Government to move in and privatise those parts with profit-making potential while doing down the rest. We already have a reasonable enough channel in Channel 4. More BBC means more Health Education, more left-wing indoctrination, more bore- dom and irritation. Come on, Thatcher. Show us your metal.