Tag: BBC

BBC to face funding squeeze

(Reuters) – The fee levied from taxpayers to fund the BBC will be frozen for six years in an effort to restrain spending by the state broadcaster at a time when other parts of the public sector face swingeing cuts.

Government sources confirmed on Tuesday reports aired by the BBC that the licence fee would be frozen at 145.50 pounds a year for every household with a television set.

The measure will be announced on Wednesday as part of a broad public spending review which will see some departments lose a quarter of their budgets as the government strives to slash its budget deficit from a record 11 percent of GDP.

The sources also confirmed that the BBC World Service, which until now had been funded separately from the rest of the corporation out of the foreign ministry’s budget, would now be funded from the licence fee.

The World Service broadcasts around the planet to an audience of millions in English and 31 other languages. It is one of the best known arms of the BBC around the world, particularly in developing countries.

Taking on the cost of the World Service and other BBC units that were previously funded separately, such as Welsh language TV station S4C, will mean the BBC will have to absorb additional costs of about 300 million pounds per year, the sources said.

The BBC reported on its website that the measures amounted to a 16 percent cut in its funding over the next six years.

The squeeze on BBC funding could prove popular after a series of revelations about the high pay of some BBC executives and presenters. Opinion polls show that a vast majority of Britons like the BBC in general, but many disapprove of some of the top pay packages.

(Reporting by Estelle Shirbon; editing by Michael Roddy)

Reuters

BBC sacks £475,000-a-year deputy director general Mark Byford

The BBC’s deputy director general, Mark Byford, is to be made redundant as part of a move to reduce its 10-strong executive board, members of which have long been accused of earning excessive salaries.

Mark Thompson, director general, will announce today that Mr Byford, a BBC employee for 32 years and occasional interim director general, will lose his job and will not be replaced.

As well as being paid his salary of £475,000 a year until he leaves in 2011, Mr Byford is expected to receive a redundancy payment of between £800,000 and £900,000.

The 52-year-old has a £3.7m pension pot, from which he can expect £215,000 a year when he reaches retirement age.

In August, Mr Thompson brought forward by a year a pledge to cut senior managerial costs by 25 per cent.

Sharon Baylay, head of marketing and communications, and Lucy Adams, human resources director, will also leave the board. They will retain their roles but report to Caroline Thomson, chief operating officer.

Yorkshire-born Mr Byford is popular among BBC staff. In 2004, he served as interim director general, after Greg Dyke resigned in the wake of the Hutton report, which claimed the BBC had misreported the official justification for the invasion of Iraq.

He has also managed the BBC’s responses to several scandals, including the “Crowngate” affair of 2007, in which a trailer for a documentary was edited in such a way as to suggest that the Queen had stormed out of a photography session. She was in fact on her way in.

In an announcement to staff today, Mr Thompson is expected to praise Mr Byford, saying that he had “never had a closer or more supportive relationship with any colleague”. Within the corporation, speculation concerning Mr Byford’s departure has been rife for some time, where his name has become linked with the issues of pay, expenses and pensions.

The Independent

BBC paid director general Mark Thompson £788,000

BBC director general Mark Thompson was paid £788,000 last year, although like other executives he waived his right to an annual bonus.

Mr Thompson’s remuneration, which was made up of a £624,000 salary, £9,000 in expenses and a £155,000 pension contribution, was up just £18,000 on the previous year.

He was easily the highest paid BBC executive, earning more than 70% than his nearest rival in the 12 months to March 31.

Mr Thompson’s salary has gone up 11% since his first year in the job, 2004/05, when it was set at £560,000.

It is also 70% higher than the salary received by the previous director general, Greg Dyke, in his final full year, 2002-2003, when his basic pay was £368,000 – though he also took home a bonus of £88,000.

The BBC director general’s overall remuneration has more than doubled since 1997-1998, when John Birt received a total of £387,000, including bonus but not pension contributions.

John Smith, the chief executive of commercial division BBC Worldwide, was the next best paid corporation manager last year, collecting £460,000, up from the year before by £16,000.

Mr Smith’s pay included a salary of £354,000, an £80,000 bonus and £26,000 in expenses.

The BBC deputy director general, Mark Byford, earned £437,000, made up of £425,000 in salary and £12,000 in expenses.

Jana Bennett, the director of BBC Vision, was paid £433,000, with a £343,000 salary, £20,000 in expenses and £70,000 in pensions-related remuneration.

The head of radio, Jenny Abramsky, pocketed £329,000, including £316,000 in salary and £13,000 in expenses.

The finance director, Zarin Patel, was paid £386,000, while the chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, collected £361,000.

The new media boss, Ashley Highfield, was paid £359,000, while the marketing chief, Tim Davie, took home £406,000.

The new human resources boss, Stephen Kelly, was given a £75,000 payment when he joined the corporation last October as compensation for loss of income from leaving his previous job, contributing to overall remuneration of £268,000.

Overall executive pay at the BBC increased by just £75,000 in the 12 months to March 31.

Executive pay rose from a combined £4,177,000 last year to £4,252,000 this year.

Figures 2007

The Guardian

October 20, 2010
BP was told of oil safety fault ‘weeks before blast’

A Deepwater Horizon rig worker has told the BBC that he identified a leak in the oil rig’s safety equipment weeks before the explosion.

Tyrone Benton said the leak was not fixed at the time, but that instead the faulty device was shut down and a second one relied on.

BP said rig owners Transocean were responsible for the operation and maintenance of that piece of equipment.

Transocean said it tested the device successfully before the accident.

Meanwhile, BP has said that its costs in tackling the disaster have now risen to $2bn (£1.34bn).

‘

‘Unacceptable

On 20 April, when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded killing 11 people, the blowout preventer, as the device is known, failed.

The most critical piece of safety equipment on the rig, they are designed to avert disasters just like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The blowout preventer (BOP) has giant shears which are designed to cut and seal off the well’s main pipe. The control pods are effectively the brains of the blowout preventer and contain both electronics and hydraulics. This is where Mr Benton said the problem was found.

“We saw a leak on the pod, so by seeing the leak we informed the company men,” Mr Benton said of the earlier problem he had identified. “They have a control room where they could turn off that pod and turn on the other one, so that they don’t have to stop production.”

Professor Tad Patzek, petroleum expert at the University of Texas, was blunt in his assessment: “That is unacceptable. If you see any evidence of the blowout preventer not functioning properly, you should fix it by whatever means possible.”

Mr Benton said his supervisor e-mailed both BP and Transocean about the leaks when they were discovered.

Daily costs

He said he did not know whether the leaking pod was turned back on before the disaster or not.

He said to repair the control pod would have meant temporarily stopping drilling work on the rig at at time when it was costing BP $500,000 (£337,000) a day to operate the Deepwater Horizon.

Henry Waxman, a House of Representatives Democrat who is overseeing congressional investigations into the rig disaster, has accused BP of taking safety shortcuts to save money.

“BP appears to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure,” Mr Waxman said.

BP chief executive Tony Hayward, giving evidence to Congress, said: “There is nothing I have seen in the evidence so far that suggests that anyone put cost ahead of safety, if there are then we will take action.”

Congress has identified numerous other problems with the blowout preventer, including design problems, unexpected modifications and a flat battery.

Cement job

The other major problems on the rig, Congress has said, centred around the cement job. Cement in an oil well blocks explosive gases from escaping, and it appears the cement may not have set properly on the Deepwater Horizon.

BP said it had indications of a successful cementing operation and the company that was in charge of the cement job, Halliburton, has said it was consistent with that used in similar applications.

Several rig workers the BBC spoke to who were on the Deepwater Horizon said there was pressure in April to work fast.

Work to prepare and then seal the well was behind schedule and had to be completed before a production rig could move in and start turning profits.

“Too many jobs were being done at one time. It should have just really slowed down and just took one job at a time, to make sure everything was done the way it should have been,” said Mr Benton, who is now suing BP and Transocean for negligence.

BP has responded to Mr Benton’s account saying Transocean was responsible for both the maintenance and operation of the blowout preventer.

BBC

June 21, 2010
CBS – BY DR. ROBERT B. MCKAY (TURK BOB)
From: ALI CINAR
Subject: BOB MCKAYDEN CBS YORUMU

To Les Moonves, President & CEO, CBS Corp. [email protected]

From: Robert McKay, PhD., P. O. Box 126, Eastford, CT 06242 860-974-0392

Regarding: Reply to the Bob Simon/Peter Balakian Story titled “Battle over History”

Date: February 28, 2010

Bob Simon’s story being aired Sunday, February 28, 2010, on 60 Minutes with Peter Balakian is causing concerns about CBS by the Turkish community…concerns that I, too, share.

50 Years ago my wife and I traveled to Turkey. We lived there for 5 years as teachers at the Tarsus American College, Tarsus, Turkey. Finding artifacts going back to 2500 B.C. opened our eyes to aspects of history that never seemed real in a sterile classroom on the rolling hills of eastern Connecticut, University of Connecticut.

One of the many issues that interested me were the events of 1915 and the actions that surrounded them.

However if we take 1915 out of context we do not see the relentless, persistent and predictable deaths that the Armenians have inflicted on their neighbors: Jews, Kurds, Turks, Azeries, and all others who might disagree with them.

A flow of history which shows a uniform and consistent pattern of atrocities by the Armenians would be the 3 periods listed:

1.      1915 through WWI Armenian Russian conspiracy

2.      1980’s Armenians begin worldwide assassinations: Ambassadors and politicians

they didn’t like. The FBI credited Armenia with 25% of international terrorism in the USA.

3.      1992—In the Nagorno=Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Armenian and Russian

forces kill 400,000 Azaries leaving 1,000,000 (IDP’s) International Displaced

Persons in Azerbaijan.

Period I

Let’s talk about 1915 through WWI. It is well documented that Russia wished the demise of Ottoman Turkey and wanted access to oceans. During this period Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire flocked to join Russian forces attacking the Ottomans from their eastern flank. The Armenian Russian forces and guerilla forces with the Ottoman Empire blow up post offices, cut lines of communication and caused the Ottomans to move up to 400,000 troops from the southern flank to protect the Armenian Russian threat. There were massacres and atrocities of equal magnitude on both sides. Bones found in Turkish soil are both ethnically Turkic and Armenian. However, today after all these years people like Peter Balakian, who never had first hand knowledge of the situation, claim that the Ottoman’s committed a genocide: as a side note the term genocide was never used until it had political importance long after WWII.

In brief your concern with the topic is appreciated, but telling only the pro-western/Christian side of the story is not appreciated. In the minds of many scholars, writers and politicians, the Armenian perspective is wrong! There are, in fact, two sides.

Please note that a preponderance of scholars and politicians do not accept the genocide concept. Interestingly the highest ranking Armenian, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first Prime Minister of the new independent Armenian Republic in 1923 did not accept the concept of genocide.

a)      Dr. Katchaznouni in his report to the Dashnaq Party’s 1923 Congress clearly accepts Armenian responsibility for the tragedy that befell his country. “We (Armenians) caused this tragedy. Turks knew what they were doing (and) the (Ottoman Turkish) deportation (of Armenians) was right and necessary”

This report has been hidden from researchers for years, however since being uncovered it has been published in a brief 125 page book titled “Dashnagtzoutiun Has Nothing to Do Anymore”, Kaynak Yayinlari (Kaynak Press) pps. 125.

b) The Malta Tribunal, held by England, immediately after WWI and initiated by the Armenian interest could not convict a single Ottoman military officer or politician of

genocide and/or war crimes.

c) U.S. Admiral Bristol, commander of the Sixth Fleet and later first Ambassador to the new Republic of Turkey (post WWI) traveled the country extensively and reported no genocide.

d) Ambassador Elekdar went to England to intensively study a document produced by the English called the “Blue Book”. The Ambassador has shown that most of the the documents were either fraudulently written or slanted so as to draw England into WWI.

Ambassador Elekdar subjected himself to scholars from around the world on his findings. He has not been refuted.

For brevity it is fair to say that the key scholars and leaders of the early 1900’s did not attribute a genocide to the Ottoman Turks.

Period II

During the 1980’s Armenians, who never at any time in the history of the Ottoman Empire had never had sovereignty over even a single square inch of the Anatolian peninsula were beginning to push for land claims and reparation based upon a made up genocide claim.

During this time the Turkish archives were open to scholars. No one has ever found a single note or sentence regarding a government policy of eliminating or getting rid of Armenians.

Armenia would never open its archives. In order to prevent conflicting view the Armenians began a worldwide campaign of assassinating ambassadors and others who disagreed with them. In fact at one point during this period the FBI identified Armenia as being responsible for 25% of international terror casualties in the U.S.A.

Period III

In 1992 interest in oil drive an Armenian Russian genocide of Azeris. As in Period I (1915) Armenians are pawns of Russia.

However since the early 1800’s those people of the Transcaucuses: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been under the control of Russia. The Armenians more that the others, have been willing to be the pawns of Russian geo-political interests.

In the 1990’s Russia had decided that the oil rich region of Nagorno-Karabakh would be an autonomous section of Azerbaijan even though it had a high % of Armenians living there.

The Armenians living in this Nagorno Karabkh region of Azerbaijan began killing any Azari that lived there. In the village of Khojaly (about 7000 people) the Armenians killed every man, woman and child. The Russian 366^th Regiment participated.

The result was that by 1992 Armenians were responsible for killing 400,000 people and leaving over 1,000,000 International Displaced Persons (IDP’s) in Azerbaijan. Where is the popular media outrage? Where is the political outrage? These events are contemporary.

As background information let’s remember that Armenia today is about the same population as Connecticut, slightly over 3 million. Ten years ago the Armenian population was almost double that of today. For economic reasons, Armenians are relocating around the world, a large percentage to Turkey.

In Conclusion
1. The long term actions of Armenia as an aggressor pawn of Russia lends credibility to the Turkish claims that there was no genocide.
1. There is no doubt that more ethnic Turks died than ethnic Armenians,
(International Red Cross figures state that more than 25% of all ethnic Turks died

as a result of war, massacres, diseases and starvation.)
1. There never was an Ottoman policy to exterminate Armenians.
1. Ottoman Turks failed in World War I in large part because Armenian/Russian
forces diverted their capabilities to the eastern part of the empire.
1. At the beginning of the century Armenians were pawns of Russian attempts to
gain seaports. Armenia thought part of the Ottoman Empire would be given to

them.
1. Later in the century (1992) Armenia was a pawn of Russian oil interests.
Again Russia gets oil, Armenia expands its borders into Azerbaijan.
1. Armenian Russian killings in Azerbaijan are 400,000 dead and 1,000,000 IDP’s.
Where is the outrage by the media and U.S. politicians.

Personally I was very unhappy to see any program with Peter Balakian associated with it. He is an Armenian nationalist who, as a “historian” has never attempted to see the truth of both sides.

I could bring a wide range of resources to CBS that would acknowledge the suffering of Armenians and Turks and would like to do so if CBS has any interest in a broader look at history.

Your 60 Minute piece either by plan or coincidence came at a very bad time: the U.S. Congress is considering H. Res. 252 which agrees with the “non historical based claims of Armenia.”

This resolution will harm U. S. Turkish relations and the Armenian-Turkish normalization process for years to come. It will also harm Islam Christian trust for centuries around the world. Alliances between Muslim and Christian countries will be less likely. Certainly Turkish treaties with American backed Israel will be much

less enthusiastically viewed.

Cordially,

Robert McKay
March 3, 2010
‘Christians should reject BNP’

Published Date: 24 October 2009

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has called on Christians to “stand shoulder to shoulder” in rejecting the British National Party and its leader Nick Griffin, who he branded a “squalid racist”.Lord Carey said it was “chilling” to hear Mr Griffin claim to represent “Christian Britain” in his appearance on BBC1’s Question Time on Thursday, and accused the BNP leader of trying to “hijack one of the world’s great religions”.

His comments came as a poll suggested that a number of controversial BNP policies on immigration, sex education and Islam have resonance with significant numbers of voters.

The survey in the News of the World found that almost two-thirds of voters feel the mainstream parties have no credible policies on immigration. But only 6% said the BNP had the best policies on the issue and just 10% agreed with the far-right party that there should be a halt to all future immigration.

The ICM research follows a YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph which suggested that 22% of voters would consider backing the BNP in a local, European or general election in the wake of Mr Griffin’s controversial TV appearance.

Numbers saying they intend to vote BNP had increased from 2% to 3% since September.

The poll provoked a furious response from Labour’s long-time anti-racism campaigner Peter Hain, who fought to keep Mr Griffin off the airwaves. “The BBC has handed the BNP the gift of the century on a plate and now we see the consequences. I’m very angry about this,” said Mr Hain.

Lord Carey said the decision to invite Mr Griffin on to the BBC’s flagship political discussion programme was “a mistake”.

The former archbishop told the News of the World: “The BBC’s director-general errs in arguing that in a democracy all views should be heard. The views of the BNP are not simply false, they are dangerous, indeed irredeemably evil.”

During his appearance on Thursday, Mr Griffin said if Muslims wanted to remain in Britain they had to accept that it was “a fundamentally British and Christian country”. But Lord Carey responded: “This squalid racist must not be allowed to hijack one of the world’s great religions.”

Yorkshire Post

October 24, 2009
Controversy and chaos but BBC is delighted by BNP leader’s ‘humiliation’

The BBC said that it was delighted with the outcome of Question Time last night, insisting that the decision to change the format of the show to focus almost entirely upon Nick Griffin had humiliated the British National Party leader.

But the reaction from viewers suggested that the gamble had not been a complete success, with many of the audience writing on internet messageboards that they felt the programme was one-sided and allowed Mr Griffin to claim that he had been victimised.

Four out of the five questions the panel were asked directly related to the BNP, with the fifth focusing on Jan Moir, the Daily Mail columnist, who attracted more than 20,000 complaints for a piece about Stephen Gately, the deceased Boyzone singer.

BBC sources said that the show had been skewed to ensure that the corporation would not be accused of giving Mr Griffin an easy ride.
Writing on the BBC website, one viewer said: “A political debate programme or a chance to bully a man? Give him a chance to answer the questions put to him. I have never been so angry about a programme in my life.”

Both the BBC and Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, are expecting a barrage of complaints from viewers who were offended by Mr Griffin’s presence on the show.

Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, who campaigned to block the broadcast, said after the show: “This decision could end up blighting the lives of many decent people just because they are not white. The BBC should be ashamed of single-handedly doing a racist, fascist party the biggest favour in its grubby history. Our black, Muslim and Jewish citizens will sleep much less easily now the BBC has legitimised the BNP by treating its racist poison as the views of another mainstream party when it is so uniquely evil and dangerous.”

Mr Griffin had to be smuggled in and out of the BBC via a back entrance last night after about 25 anti-fascist protesters broke into Television Centre, cheered on by hundreds more who were blocking the road outside.

About 600 demonstrators expressed their disgust as the BNP leader was ushered towards BBC Studio Six surrounded by bodyguards for the recording of Question Time.

His chaotic arrival at the entrance on Frithville Gardens was delayed because his car had to struggle through the crowd. “It seems the police do not have this mob under control,” Mr Griffin said.

An initially peaceful demonstration soured late in the afternoon when police responded to a breach of security by physically restraining protesters. Wooden poles were torn from placards and hurled into the four-deep line of officers.

Scotland Yard said that six arrests were made at the protest, two for violent disorder, one for a public order offence, one for actual bodily harm and one for assault on a police officer. The sixth was for a person wanted on a warrant. One of those held was Martin Smith, 43, a national officer with the Unite Against Fascism pressure group.

As the demonstration became more heated, Heathcote Rughven, 19, a drama student, said that he had been struck on the head with a police baton. He said: “The police were being the more aggressive of the two parties. A few people got hit. I feel it was undeserved because we were just chanting and being peaceful and the police charged.”

Between 25 and 30 protesters broke off from the main demonstration and charged the BBC’s main entrance gate as a vehicle was allowed through.

Backed by chants of “BBC, shame on you” and “Nazi scum off the streets” the small gang, believed to be predominantly from Unite Against Fascism, slipped through security and ran on to BBC property.

Rachel Parish, 20, a philosophy student, made it through the security barrier but was stopped in the car park. “The BBC should be ashamed. How can you give a platform to Nazis?” she asked. Dozens more demonstrators got as far as the stage door in the reception area. Paramedics treated three police and three protesters for minor injuries.
The Times

October 23, 2009
BNP on Question Time: Nick Griffin uses BBC to attack Islam and defend the Ku Klux Klan

The BBC was under siege last night after the leader of the BNP used his appearance on Question Time to attack Muslims and homosexuals while defending the Ku Klux Klan.

By Robert Winnett and Rosa Prince

Nick Griffin said Islam was not compatible with life in Britain, while describing homosexuals as “creepy”.

However, he admitted sharing a platform with the Ku Klux Klan, which has carried out racist attacks across America’s Deep South, and defended leaders in the organisation as “non-violent”.

The remarks provoked indignation from other members of the BBC panel and hostile parts of the audience, some of whom booed, calling him “a disgrace”.

The BNP leader said he could not explain for legal reasons why he had previously sought to play down the Holocaust and had now changed his mind. He was challenged by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary and a fellow panellist, who said there was no such law.

Mr Griffin defended his use of Sir Winston Churchill on BNP literature on the basis that his father had fought in the Second World War. He claimed that Churchill would have been a member of the BNP and was “Islamophobic” by “today’s standard”.

Asked whether he denied that millions of Jews and other minorities had been killed by the Nazis, Mr Griffin would only reply: “I do not have a conviction for Holocaust denial.”

He was then chastised by David Dimbleby, the host of the programme, for smiling.

The controversial statements were made in response to intense questioning by members of the audience from ethnic minorities.

BBC Television Centre in west London came under siege as filming took place, with MPs joining hundreds of protesters behind lines of police. There were six arrests as dozens of protesters attempted to storm the studio.

BBC studios in Hull, Scotland and Wales were also targeted by demonstrators. The cost of the police operation was estimated to have been more than £100,000.

The BBC was certain to be questioned over why it allowed Mr Griffin to air such controversial views but executives were hoping that the intensive questioning that he faced would justify their decision to invite him on the Question Time panel for the first time.

The BBC, which Mr Griffin denounced on the programme as “ultra-Leftist”, had claimed that impartiality rules meant that it had little choice but to invite him on to the programme after the BNP won seats in the European Parliament in elections this year.

He was joined on the panel by Mr Straw, Baroness Warsi, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, and Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright.

Mr Griffin was seated next to Miss Greer.

One of the most controversial moments came when Mr Dimbleby asked the BNP leader why he had been pictured with David Duke, the former leader of the Klan. Mr Griffin claimed that parts of the racist group, officially classed as a “hate organisation” in America, were “non-violent”.

However, he insisted: “I’m not a Nazi and never have been.” He claimed that he was “the most loathed man in Britain” among British fascists.

He was questioned over his views on Islam and said it had “good points” but “does not fit in with the fundamental values of British society”.

He described white Britons as “aboriginals here”. “The indigenous people of these islands, the English, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the people who have been here for the last 17,000 years, are the aboriginals. The majority of British people are descended from people who have been here since time immemorial.

“You people wouldn’t allow us to have our name on the census form — that’s racism.”

Amid angry scenes, one Asian member of the audience asked Mr Griffin where he would like him to be sent, and added: “You’d be surprised how many people would have a whip round to buy you and your supporters a ticket to go to the South Pole — that’s a colourless landscape, it’ll suit you fine.”

Questioned over whether he believed that British people had suffered genocide at the hands of successive governments, Mr Griffin said: “That is the case. It’s about destroying a culture.”

On the subject of homosexuality he said “a lot of people find the sight of two men kissing in public really creepy”. “That is how a lot of us feel, a lot of Christians, a lot of Muslims,” he said. “I don’t know why, that’s just the way it is.”

Speaking after filming had finished, Mr Griffin claimed that he had been able to “land some punches” and acknowledged that his appearance would “polarise normal opinion” but expressed confidence that it would have an impact.

“A huge swath of British people will remember some of the things I said and say to themselves they’ve never heard anyone on Question Time say that before,” he said. “Millions of people will think, ‘That man speaks what I feel.’ ”

About one million people voted for the BNP at the European elections, leading to Mr Griffin taking up one of its two seats in the European Parliament. As a result, the BBC said impartiality rules effectively forced it to include the party in Question Time.

Mark Thompson, the director-general, said the Government should ban the BNP if it felt that Mr Griffin should not have been allowed to take part in the broadcast.

“If there is a case for censorship, it should be decided in Parliament,” he said. “Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else.”

He said the BNP had “demonstrated a level of support that would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time”.

Politicians from minor parties, including George Galloway, the Respect MP, and Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, regularly appeared on Question Time.

Mr Thompson insisted that Mr Griffin had been invited so that the public could challenge his views, rather than any “misguided desire to be controversial”.

Speaking before the programme, Gordon Brown said the BNP’s appearance was a matter for the BBC and that he was confident that Mr Griffin would be exposed for his “unacceptable” views.

“I hope that the exposure of the BNP will make people see what they are really like,” the Prime Minister said.

However, there were fears that Mr Griffin’s appearance would lead to an increase in support. He had said he was hopeful his party would be propelled into “the big time” as a result of the broadcast.

The Telegraph

October 23, 2009