The BBC debate - round 4

This article was typed a few weeks ago, and then lost due to a computer problem. My apologies to Peter. Although written as an article, I feel it covers our debate points reasonably well.)

At this stage of my debate with Peter and his friends at saveourbbc.net , I want to go on record with a genuine expression of admiration. Firstly as Peter has been nothing but friendly and courteous to me during our communication and secondly as he and his group have stayed true to their beliefs at a difficult time.

Anyone can be amicable with someone who shares the same political vision. It's easy to rally to any cause which is the fashion of the day. To do either under adversarial circumstances, however, requires integrity and commitment.

It doesn't help when the cause you rally to seems intent on making life difficult, either. I know this from experience and I'm willing to bet that over the last fortnight or so, saveourbbc members have suffered those palm-against-forehead slapping moments of utter bafflement at the way the BBC has executed its political campaign to save itself.

It started - as so many moments of heartbreak do - with a letter. A group of BBC affiliates (actors, scriptwriters, etc.) allegedly took it upon themselves to pen a collective communique to the government, warning that "a diminished BBC is a diminished Britain”.

Does that seem like a remarkable spontaneous statement of admiration and value? It would, except that it was later revealed that several signatories had actually been approached by BBC Director Danny Cohen and asked to write. Not only does that put the “a diminished BBC is a diminished Britain" statement into its truly delusional, stunningly arrogant place, it also makes for a blatant breach of the BBC trust's code of conduct. The independent, impartial news body attempting to lobby government policy.

That may have been the biggest blow and certainly the greatest faux pas of Auntie's campaign, but it wasn't the most telling. That trophy was saved for an article in the Guardian (a very left wing paper with low circulation, the most subscribed to at licence-payer expense at the Beeb) by former comedian Lenny Henry. Henry - who has seen very low coverage for at least ten years and found little exposure outside BBC circles - actually pens his headline with a blasphemous comment before offered the warning: "No BBC, No me" without a hint of irony or comedy. In his missive, he reminisced on his BBC days before going on to argue: "No BBC, no Young Ones, No Blackadder" etc.

The article was telling not only for exposing yet another example of staggering self-importance but also for its logical flaws. Henry supposes that the late Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmonson (of classic comedy 'The Young Ones') would be unheard of but for Auntie, ditto for Blackadder, Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry and so on. In fact, all of said actors and shows have found fame through other channels, because their talent shines through. Henry on the other hand, has fared less well outside licence-fee funded exposure. His other argument in the article - that the BBC should encourage selection based on ethnic minority backgrounds - may be well intended, but I and perhaps others believe that talent and attitude should be a stronger basis of anyone's selection and licence-funding, rather than ethnicity.

What these two incidents really expose is a political body in its death throes. As a resident of South East Asia, I've followed the downfall of many a corrupt political body and I've noticed stages of the cycle. First comes flat denial of any wrongdoing, then self-promotion, then threats then self-pity.

Now whether the BBC is politically active or morally corrupt is something Peter and I may disagree on, but the similarity in Auntie's response is striking. With the news that the government will no longer subsidise free licence fees for pensioners now confirmed, Auntie is on the ropes with a 600 million hit, the responding jabs have at best failed to connect and at worst done further harm. It's not a good time to be in the BBC's corner but Peter and his friends clearly believe there is reason to fight on. For that, they deserve admiration and respect.

Hulk Hogan - pinned by PC

"Well let me tell you something racist, brother"

While many of us can relate the belief in Santa Claus as a benchmark of mental growth: from the unquestioning belief through to the doubt, to the epiphanic moment when it suddenly becomes clear, those of us who grew up in the eighties can relate to the showbusiness world of wrestling as a similar roadmap for coming of age. From admiration and wonder of the cartoon characters on stage (aka the ring), to the realisation of the script, to the knowledge of their real life personas and - in so many tragic cases - their early deaths brought around by the demands and temptations of their career.

Nowhere is the hazy mixture of show business, sleaze and star power more evident than the fate of wrestling's most famous figure: the world of "sports entertainment" (the new name for wrestling in some circles) reacted in shock last week when one of its most legendary figures, Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea, was banished from WWE  - wrestling's biggest business - for the shocking and disgusting attitude and slurs regarding black people he made on a leaked tape he tried hard to prevent being released to the public.

The shock in question however, was not due to the incredibly ignorant, arrogant and downright nasty attitude the 'Hulkster' displayed towards a certain skin colour, but due to the severity of his expulsion from WWE.

Let me explain why, and don’t worry, no enjoyment, respect or knowledge of wrestling is necessary here. WWE owner Vince McMahon and his family are legendary in their forgiveness for any wrestler that crosses them, provided their return boosts ticket sales for live shows. Performers who have crossed a McMahon and returned to the business include Bret Hart, who knocked Vince out in hotel room and declared he'd return "when Hell freezes over" , Matt Hardy, who wrote a blog criticising WWE's wellness (i.e. drug-checking) programme and Eric Bishoff, who was once creative director of rival wrestling firm WCW, and ordered to put WWE out of business.

Those are just three examples taken from numerous personnel who have been employed or re-employed by WWE after giving the ownership serious cause to despise them. Yet even before last month, Hulk Hogan may have given the greatest cause for banishment of all.

All the sourced, biographical evidence suggests that Hogan is not a philanthropist. In his early days as a in-ring character depicting a patriotic, honest and Christian American, the man behind the persona was - so numerous sources claimed any times - known for a very opposite approach to life. Colleagues have claimed Terry enjoyed "jerry juice" and a puff of a joint each day. His behavior became more erratic and monomaniacal over over the years. While the wrestling industry is known for politics and power plays, Hulkster's attitude approached egomanica at times. When he jumped ship to rival WCW, he became part of a clique known on and off stage as manipulative and cunning, designed to avoid giving younger, hungry performers a chance to shine. Eventually their actions helped put WCW - the business that awarded them multi-million dollar contracts - out of business. The contract payments were still honored.

It was then that - from an outsider's point of view - Hogan really began to change. Perhaps realising his best days were gone, Hulk began surviving on past glories and the immense nostalgia of wrestling fans. Sadly he choose to do that by putting himself over and above everyone else in the industry. Upstart federation TNA Impact awarded him a huge contract that Terry utilised to place himself at the centre of every storyline in the show, to the expense of all others. One storyline involved a biker gang "invading" the show every week, brutally injuring (in the scripted sense) all members of the roster, striking fear across the show. After several weeks of careful build up, the excitement ended with Hogan - a year shy of sixty at the time - walking the aisle and flooring each of the bikers - carefully depicted over the last months to appear vicious, dangerous and ruthless - one by one, with a single punch each.

If you're not a wrestling fan - I know many educated people hate the whole thing - I can only offer the analogy of a soap opera with a single, pointless, repeatedly ad-libbing character - appearing in every single story arc, denying other characters the chance to develop.

But again, if you're not keen on wrestling you could see this as part of the nonsense. Outside the business however, Terry's apparent outlook on life appeared little better. He appeared in a dull, pathetic sex tape with his friend’s wife in a clip so sad that one journalist described it as: "A reminder that celebrities can have boring, bad sex, too.". When not repeatedly taking rather strange pictures of his own daughter, Hogan may have been rushing to the defence of his son, who caused death by dangerous driving.

His pathological need to be the star, his frequent memory lapses and blasé attitude on stage, his private life and family misfortunes may never have completely caught up with him were it not for the final revelation: Hogan was disgustingly bigoted towards other races. That - and only that - caused the unthinkable. Arguably the most famous wrestler of all time was utterly outcast by the very federation where his legacy was crafted. Every mention of him was removed from the WWE web including his Hall of Fame refrence, his merchandise and his roster listing - a treatment last handed out to Chris Benoit, who murdered his own family.

While the offense police and the PC masses have joined forces to bring down good people in this world such as cancer-fighting doctors, benevolent programmers and bakers, they have finally managed to take down someone who - on the face of it all - probably deserved it.