Open letter to Stephen Nolan: can I have your job?

Dealing with different opinions - Nolan style

Hi Steve,


I was quite disappointed that you blocked me on Twitter, this week. Yes I was rather harsh in my criticisms but then I wasn’t abusive, and I surely can’t have said anything you haven’t heard before. After all, you are a talk show host on the BBC, no less. Truth be told, I envy you so much that I want your job.

You have it so much better than most of the world. Take the amount of people-juggling the rest of us have to do, for example. I’m a teacher in a private school, I have to walk a tightrope between expectant parents, management, students and the way that I actually think I should do my job. I swing too far in any direction, I have to answer to someone.  But you? You are not constrained by such petty, plebeian worries. You only have to answer to one party, and answer in the simplest terms possible. Nowhere was this more evident than those controversial couple of days on your radio show last week. Your behavior, your incessant pious judgments of your callers - you know, those people that actually pay the BBC licence fee - was utterly staggering. The was self-evident from the deluge of complainants that called you in response.

In almost any other industry or media company, you’d be hauled before management with a demand to explain how you managed to insult and anger so many customers in one arrogant swoop. Instead, you swatted away the indignant callers requesting you apologise to the elderly man you so righteously questioned on his moral right to have a view on migrants and flippantly told them to complain to the BBC instead of calling you, the person responsible. When you told one caller: “Complain to the BBC rather than calling me.”, the translation was clear to the world: “Go ***** yourself instead of calling me”.

Why take that approach? Simple, you know that as long as you are talking the right political line for the BBC, you will never, ever be punished or forced to apologise for your treatment of dissent. You’re as safe as Fort Knox in your job, and you know it. You degrade callers because you can.

Secondly, you don’t really need to do that much in your job. I know, people say teaching is not a real job either, but at the very least I need to have some idea of what I’m teaching and how I’m going to teach it each day, so there’s basic standards to follow. You on the other hand, apparently don’t actually need to explain your view or even to quiz the callers on theirs. All you need to do is talk about the headline of the day, let people call and then simply perform your own moral inquisition of their right to disagree with you.

On that “migrants” show, you asked one man: was he Christian? Did he consider himself a good Christian? Was he charitable in any way? Did he practise any form of charity? All that in response to the concerns  he voiced about the migrants inundating Europe, the topic he was actually invited to call in and share his feelings about. At one point you even claimed he said all migrants were paedophiles and terrorists when he actually said nothing of the sort. You didn’t actually address his or anyone’s concerns but then, why would you? You get paid anyhow. You’re Stephen Nolan, dammit! You’re big in Northern Ireland, I’m told.

Thirdly - and yeh, this is the no-brainer-  you’re on much more money than me. According to Jon Gaunt - who is in a position to have a good idea - you’re on the best part of three hundred grand a year, courtesy of the licence payers who call your show to be morally interrogated.  That’s the thought that crossed my mind when you asked another of those pesky: “I’m not sure we should let everyone in” type-callers the rather bizarre question: Are you sitting comfortably in your chair tonight?.

Well Stephen, I guess the same question isn’t necessary for you. Your chair is probably leather (or fake leather, I bet most BBC staff are PETA members) and replaced every year. But your odd line of debate was when I had my brainwave. Stephen, I have a halfway decent voice and face for radio myself, why don’t I take your job? No, seriously! Think about it: you could finally live that dream you put out on the airwaves last week. You could show the world how charitable you are by giving away your public-funded salary to anyone who shows up at our borders (no checks need, right?). You could show the fella from Swansea how Christian you are by letting the first lucky migrant into your home - I bet you have a bigger telly than me - at your own expense. And as for comfy chairs? I bet one of those fighting-age Syrians arriving on European shores is in need of a luxurious recliner right now.

Don’t worry Steve, I’ve got you covered. I’ll bring my own wooden stool and scrutinise the moral fibre of any cheeky Joe Public who “takes up the airwaves” while you’re out practising what you preach, and you know what? I’ll do it for half price. I’ll fleece licence-payers for the bargain sum of 150,000 per year.

Let me know what you think. You’ve gone a bit quiet lately. You blocked and ignored the Breitbart editor’s request for a debate with a neutral moderator and venue, and Gaunty says you went AWOL from your own show this week. Hey, maybe you beat me to that brainwave! But then you would, wouldn’t you? You always know best. That’s why you work for the BBC, where morality is checked at the door, and salaries on the way out.  Might there be room for one more in there?

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.

BBC debate

"The BBC have become so arrogant and self-assured in their political bias that, like FIFA, it could become the black hole that eventually secured their downfall."

This was round one of my debate with the "Save our BBC" campaign team over at the debate forum today. To be fair to the opposition, I completed my piece quicker than I would have liked and it hasn't come out brilliantly, but I think the major points have come across, which is what counts.

The voting will be interesting.

Ban the BBC or Save it?

Lots of important news broke during and right after the election. UKIP got the 3rd highest number of votes, but won just one seat. Labor lost and went into a self-pitying meltdown, cheered on by the Guardianista, who supported Labor and themselves with articles basically saying voters were too dumb to know what's best. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems stared into oblivion before jumping in.

However, it was the Tories that won, and David Cameron has appointed his new cabinet. One intriguing choice was John Whittingdale as Culture Secretary. John will be responsible for reviewing the BBC's charter when it next year. He has already described the licence fee as "worse than the poll tax". The shockwave of the appointment clearly rattled the arrogant BBC heads who immediately put out this tweet before deleting it again moments later.

By coincidence a Twitter campaign to "Save the BBC" and "encourage it to flourish" appeared shortly after the news. The Twitter account is strong in urging supporters to join up and send out positive message about the BBC service.

I have challenged Peter (the person behind the account) to a formal, public debate. Perhaps on debate.org, perhaps on radio or some other platform. Peter at #saveourbbc has very kindly accepted. More details to come.

Archive 10 - My article on Biased BBC website

Thanks to biasedbbc.org for sharing my article on Clarkson yesterday. The post has already received 35 comments and one comment linked to a very important website on licence resistance.