The Brexit Broadcasting Corporation

There is no easy way to say this, but the BBC has let the country down. And is continuing to do so,

Back in 2002, Andrew Gilligan made a one time report on the BBC before seven in the morning, hinting that the Government knew it's claims of the existence of weapons of mass destruction were, how shall I put this, not credible?

In the aftermath of that, the BBC has been stripped of its editorial integrity, getting worse with each passing administration. That the Government of the day, once evey ten years gets to renew it's charter, meant that the BBC bent over backwards to please it political masters to ensure the corporations ongoing life.

Now we come to Brexit, which has got to to the point where the Corporation will not enter into any discussions on air or online whether the referendum was fought on falsehoods, though we know that to be true. It repeats the Government statements without question, and where there are two points of view, it will give equal billing to both, even if one side is in a massive minority. Just to ensure that it is impartial.

When the Government disowns its own nightmarish figures on the effects of the various flavours of Brexit, should not the BBC be asking questions, to those that made claims two years ago about how easy Brexit would be?

It has come to the point where, yesterday, when the Election Commission came to the conclusion that the two main Leave campaigns colluded to overspend by some £600k, and had broken the law of the land, has so far failed to mention the breaking the law a bit, and given more space to the rebuttals of those in the campaigns.

Further, that many who ran and oversaw both campaigns are now senior members of the Government or advisors, isn't it fair that the BBC asks difficult questions of them, rather than state without question, that the overspend had no effect on the referendum result If that were the case, then why have the rules to ensure a level playing field?

Is the BBC so scared that it won't use the phrase "broke the electoral law"?

Yes.

Once upon a time we all relied on the BBC for news and facts. I several years ago gave up on it. I get my opinions from those who know about the subject they write, blog or tweet upon. What is the point of the BBC is their reporters have no real understanding of the issues they report on? How can we, the electorate make informed decisions if we don't know the effect of those decisions will be? Many might say, when asked by pollsters, that a no deal would be better than a "bad" deal, but do they really understand what this means?

I know what frictionsless trade entails, not because I am some expert in the field, but I have looked into it, and blogged, so you don't have to. Without a CU, member of the SM and tax equivillence then frictionless trade is impossible, and anyone who says otherwise either is lying or does not understand the subject.