Nick Booth: The BBC is a candidate for a bonfire of the insanities

Broadcasting trade papers are reporting that the BBC has brought in mandatory carbon footprint rules. All independent programme makers will now have to log the carbon footprint of their output, using a calculation tool pioneered during the production of Eastenders by BBC Studios.

So, if you’re an independent programme maker for the BBC, you have to square things with Albert.

One independent producer in the report complains about “yet more paperwork”, which will eat into the budget of companies that pay their staff peanuts.

However, she should rest assured that there will always be loopholes and exemptions. In contrast to the runners, the management of production companies are always obscenely well rewarded. The broadcasting industry, which has a polarised class system that’s the envy of the Third World, will continue to be full of rich white people who claim to be socialists.

Sustainability is an equally moveable moral feast. As with many directives some of the variables, listed here, are open to interpretation. ‘Source locally’, for example, could be interpreted to mean ‘only recruit your friends’.

Examine the explanation given by BBC sustainability manager Richard Smith, the father of Albert. Just as sustainability has three pillars, so is there a divine trinity of objectives in this exercise he says. That is, to understand the carbon impact of TV, raise awareness and engage people.

The key one is ‘engaging people’.

We all know the BBC is a people business. Which is another way of saying the right people. Only a select few good left-wing people are hired by our national broadcaster. It’s a closed society - the Poser Nostra - where recruits are only inducted if they are the type of person you’d like to go on a pussy hat march with or have at your dinner party.

However, since you cannot openly discriminate these days - good grief, has the weapon of political correctness fallen into the wrong hands? A subtler system is needed.

How? There’s a clue in the name. Albert. As in Albert Square, the fictional home of EastEnders. What did real Cockneys do to exclude outsiders? They devised their own language, rhyming slang. Just as diversity officers are really about division, so is there a hidden language agenda behind sustainability. It’s not about saving the planet. Much of the advice given is contradictory. One minute we’re all being instructed not to burn fossil fuels - and who could argue with that one? - but then we are told there are exceptions. Wood burning is good, for special secret reasons. So is diesel, despite the fact that it damages more children than a packet of Gary Lineker’s favourite crispy carcinogens.

These rulings don’t make any sense.

Common sense, surely, would tell you not to waste public money. An example given on the Albert website tells how the makers of Casualty saved £30,000 off the electricity bill. Which begs the question: what on earth were they doing before? It turns out they saved that money simply by not using needlessly powerful lights to burn public money. Imagine that! Whatever will they think of next? Not splurging on taxis? Not decamping to Brazil for a five second soundbite when that ‘expert’ could be interviews on Skype? If producers need to be told that, there’s something seriously wrong.

Still, will this new discipline lead to greater creativity and quality of output?

Could we expect an original storyline, perhaps, which dares to stray from politically correct orthodoxy and holds up a mirror to society as it really is? No, that would be too exhausting and energy intensive. It probably goes against other social engineering and activist policies. Better to recycle old prejudices from the usual ‘locally sourced’ members of the Condescentii.

I suspect we all love the BBC and want it preserved. We all remember what it was like and the Reithian values it once represented. These days, it’s about common purpose cliques who use their power to speak over the truth. I can see why people don’t think it’s sustainable and would gladly burn it down. But surely, we don’t want a bonfire of the insanities. Sorry, I slipped into sustainability slang there.

Nick Booth

  • Uusikaupunki

    Think of all the money Joe Public can save by switching off Al-Bibisi’s life-supprt, aka licence tax…..

  • Andrew Tettenborn

    If you want to see how the mighty are fallen, see the 1980’s Wilfred Greatorex BBC series “1990” about a dystopian Britain permanently under 1970s socialist / trade union control — a quirky take on 1984. You can still watch it online at

    • Nick Booth

      I’m watching it now.

      Should be working, mind you

  • choccycobnobs

    I clicked on the Albert calculation tool link a found that I need to login. I did actually expect to find a picture of a sheet of carbon paper with instructions for the user to put their plates of meat on it. A quick draw around and voila a carbon footprint.

    “I suspect we all love the BBC and want it preserved”. That is a big fat NO!!!! from me then.

    • Nick Booth

      Don’t you think it would be a shame to lose it, Choccycobnobs?

      Although, in a way we’ve already lost it.

      But, no, hang on, it’s part of the fabric of the nation isn’t it?

      Wouldn’t it be nice if it was more balanced? Less blinkered. Do you think that’s achievable?

      • Groan

        Stop funding it from tax. If its workers want it to be “unbalanced” let them sell their wares and see. It has always been run by a “common purpose clique” its just that the old “noblesse oblige” purpose has been replaced by the “nowhere’s” we’re just “so virtuous” purpose.

        • James Chilton

          I think most people would agree with the abolition of the licence fee and a pay by subscription service. But it’s not going to happen. The BBC is the voice of the Establishment and it need not fear the likes of us who want to see it “reformed”.

      • choccycobnobs

        I see no virtue in saving it. ‘Groan’, below sums it up very succinctly.

    • Labour_is_bunk

      Preserved? In formalin? As a warning to future generations, perhaps.

  • Cassandra

    The BBC is over mighty and over large. It had tentacles all over the place. It badly needs to be radically downsized.

    For example, it publishes aids to school examinations. What has that to do with a Broadcasting organisation? Answer: precious little. No more than the cookery and other ‘lifestyle’ magazines and so forth it goes in for. Other than one interested in spreading itself like some kind of malignant, many- tentacled octopus. Personally, I think this particular organisation publishing educational aids is sinister.

    The BBC may be loved by some, but not by me. Political Correctness oozes from its every pore. So much so that I have come to loathe its very existence. There are bits of it I like, or used to, but I simply cannot bring myself to turn on many if its offerings these date for fear of being confronted by some gratuitous piece of Cultural Marxism masquerading as a norm when it is nothing if the kind.

    The spectacle of all those smug, liberal, middle class lefty faces, secure in their bubble of unearned assumptions of moral and intellectual superiority, is guaranteed to set my teeth on edge in resentment and hostility and reaching for the control button.

    I think the BBC should be dispossessed of everything except perhaps two channels. The idea that there can be balance and impartiality should be abandoned, because it has shown this to be a mirage.

    Broadcasting space should be allocated to Political centre, centre right, centre left, radical right and radical left.

    The BBC should be alocated space somewhere on the left. Centre it most definitely is not

  • ninoinoz

    Anyone been to the East End recently?

    The people there don’t exactly look like the cast of EastEnders.

    It seems realism and appropriate representation only applies to the hoi polloi, not Beeboids.

    • Cassandra

      Real East Enders have been squeezed out of the East End by housing policies which have favoured immigrants against long standing communities.

      Either that or they have left to get away from areas where it is they who are now seen as aliens.

      These East Ender people are now living in places like Romford, Basildon , South End Enfield and Waltham Cross.

      As Enfield and Waltham Cross and other places themselves become increasingly immigrant, the ethically cleansed British are moving even further out from London.

      If they can manage it, that is. Those who can’t, or who stubbornly refuse to surrender the areas where their families have lived perhaps for generations are chiefly the elderly and other unfortunates.

      All this wickedness has been wished in them by their so- called representatives in Parliament. Chiefly, but by no means exclusively the Party they thought was their own, Labour.

    • Cassandra

      That show, like the other soaps, is pure Cultural Marxist propaganda, The destructuion of the old, tight knit communities of the East End is documented in Dench and Gavron’s study, ‘The New East End, Kinship Race and Conflict.’

  • Colkitto03

    What was the carbon footprint of that Helicopter they used to film the Police raiding Cliff Richards House?
    Whats the carbon footprint of the 420 people they sent to the Brazil Olympics? (more than we sent athletes).
    What is the carbon footprint of the 80-100 people that have been sending to Glastonbury for the last decade?

  • David

    “I suspect that we all love the BBC and want it preserved”
    No ! One would have to be blind not to see it a supremely traitorous organisation that deserves to be destroyed.