Murdochs…humbling recipients of taxpayer cash

…..to Rupert Murdoch – plus another £12M for giving him its data.

Why is Jeremy Hunt on the verge of renewing this blatant crony capitalism?

The campaigning organisation Avaaz  has been active over the last few weeks….this time with good cause. They’re trying to stop British taxpayers having to cough up £100m to help Rupert Murdoch talk up his satellite audience.

That’s the amount that – each year – the BBC has to pay Newscorp for the privilege of having its Channels available on Murdoch’s satellite packages. It is the only such commercial relationship the Beeb has where no fee is charged….because in the upside down world of Rupert the Friend of all Governments, the Multinational DiggerYank insisted on this years ago as the price of his political support.

The BBC’s Channels are watched regularly by 41% of Sky subscribers….suggesting that they add enormous attraction value to the package. Yet we are paying him. Why? In the US, it is 100% the other way round: Murdoch has to pay $250million to the Cable channels for them to show his channels.

I think we probably know why, don’t we? Under an amendment to the Broadcasting Act (effected under Blair, well I never) Newscorp gets these fees annually.

But the arrangement is under review by our old friend, Murdoch admirer and all-round grinning Camerlot fixer Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. This week.

Here’s a link where you can follow the 60,000+ other souls who have already signed the petition politely telling Mr Rhyminge-Slang where to stick his brown-paper payment….back in the Treasury….or better still, the BBC.

The BBC is cash-strapped, Newscorp has disgraced itself in the UK at every level, and many BBC viewers deliberately opt not to watch Murdoch’s footie-sitcom-Jeff Randall drivel.

There’s three cast-iron reasons not to renew the deal, Jeremy dear. And let’s from now on charge the cop-bribing, phone-hacking, justice-perverting old bugger for the privilege of showing BBC television stations.

What Avaaz may not realise, however, is that Murdoch also extorts another 12 million quid from the Corporation for the right to give him its audience data. Odd but true.

There’s a ‘Platform Contribution Charge’  which seems to be set on viewership. For the BBC:

  • BBC News Channel £994,310
  • BBC1 £4,771,505
  • BBC2 £1,261,600
  • BBC3 £994,310
  • BBC4 £310,055
  • CBBC £342,130
  • Cbeebies £737,715

All up, the BBC is estimated to be paying Sky around £12m on top of the £100m fee for helping his own audience remain perhaps 41% higher than it might be.

On Planet Earth, it is the data recipient that has to pay for the numbers it uses. But not, apparently, in the wild, wacky toot-toot world of Camerlot.

Related: James Murdoch pushed out at Glaxo-Smith-Kline


  1. Surely Rebekah’s holiday and maternity pay has to be financed somehow?
    Ironic that the BBC are requested to help finance the state of Omerta at NewsCorp.


  2. What else do you expect?The BBC is a bloated organisation,chaired by a failed politician,and financed by a modern day window tax.BSkyB is a successful shareholder owned company that will reward rather a lot of people with 9.2p per share on 24 April!


  3. I am a BBC hater, but on the £100m and playing devils advocate…both the BBC & Sky (and their political flunkies) would probably argue that the figure was arrived at after taking into account the various benefits to each party of the arrangement. You and I may disagree with that, but…


  4. Mine went years ago.
    You will then be subject to monthly threat-o-grams from Crapita about how you have not renewed your license, how your street will be visited, how inspectors will turn up at your house, how a visit to you house has been authorised by a senior manager, how much you can be fined, . . .
    In my case, I am out in the sticks so too much of a problem I guess to visit – or they finally found my declaration at notv – and the threat-o-grams stopped after 8 months.
    Remember, they cannot enter your property without a magistrates warrant (and you can find youtubes of some of the confrontations).
    Remember also that no licence is required for iPlayer and other catch-up tools/sites once a program has been transmitted, or for the radio.
    Now, what are you going to spend the £145 you will save on this year?


  5. Stopped paying for BBC licence last year and have not turned on the tv since. They have now authorised an “Enforcement Visit”, bless them. The BBC accepts money from the EU which is contradictory to its charter. Also that Patten individual is a product of the insidious “Common Purpose”.
    Vindication from “The Slog” once more.


  6. @maxter
    Also that Patten individual is a product of the insidious “Common Purpose”.
    Vindication from “The Slog” once more.

    Ah… now there’s a slimy organisation that needs to be exposed for what it is. It’s slimy undermining tentacles are everywhere.


  7. Is this why the BBC could not afford to send anyone to report on the Jersey senatorial elections recently – they told me that they had not got enough money to cover the election – although I did question why, if that was the case, they could afford to send so many BBC employees on a jolly to Glastonbury pop festival. For goodness sake, these people are committing fraud, they force us all to pay money to them, or else they will take us tio court, fine us and even send us to prison and begger us, and then with the loot they have squeezed out of us not only do they hardly put any decent programs on, they fill the news channels with brainwashing propaganda instead of the real news. And now this! Disgust is not a strong enough word for how I am feeling.

    There is so much news that the BBC just will not show, its run like some sort of protection mafia for some of the most desperate villians who ever walked the planet.


  8. Julian, years ago I bought a flat that needed doing up before I could move in, it took about six months during which time the place was empty. They were having some kind of licence fee blitz on the area and BBC Gestapo were harassing any address that had no licence. They came around four times, each time I explained and they as good as called me a liar and wanted to come in and check. I could not believe the front on these guys, on the fourth attempt the guy actually did the old foot in the door thing. As he limped off he was threatening all sorts but I never heard any more about it.


  9. According to the Daily Mail he did.

    But talking of loose BBC money, what happened to the article that was on the same page as the Patten / Thompson story in Saturday’s early edition? Gone without trace from later editions and the internet.
    Makes me wonder if I would be breaking an injunction (that I do not have any knowledge of) If I told you the whole story.


  10. a second thought
    perhaps it’s all related to that proposal to redefine the internet so as to make “blogs” liable for anyones posting


  11. Too many couch jellies criticise the TV output, Murdoch, Camerlot BSkyB insider traders and the rest, and still pay for the TV license every year.
    Where’s the backbone in that..??
    Today’s kids are force fed the stuff to keep them quiet.
    It’s a vice. A JUNK VICE.


  12. Where does the £100m figure per year come from John? The actual figure for the BBC is about £10m p/a – or about £50m from Oct. 2011 to 2017.

    Hang on – what’s this? I see the figure of £100m comes from the Avaaz website where it says that all public broadcasters – that includes ITV, Four and C5 – pay up to £100m p/a. But no actual numbers are given that substantiate the claim. Frankly I’d no more trust a lefty camapigning group with an axe to grind than I would trust James Murdoch answering questions to the Media Select Committee.

    Your blog claims to be about EVIDENCE Based Bollocks Deconstruction. On the evidence of this post there’s no deconstruction. Only bollocks.


  13. Have to agree, I’m afraid. The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation pays the money to Murdoch so that each satellite subscriber gets the appropriate local programmes on his/her skybox. ‘Look Leeds’ if you live in Sheffield, ‘Look Norwich’ if you live in Northampton and other appropriate “news”. Much as I hate Murdoch, at least his organisation is a counterweight to the leftish tripe peddled by the common-purpose Quislings at Al-JaBeeba.

    On the subject of Hackgate I see that the BBC’s provisional wing (a.k.a. the Guardian’s David Leigh) apparently justifies phone hacking on the grounds of the public interest, in other words breaking the law to achieve a desired moral outcome – or “the end justifies the means”. It is interesting to compare the reaction of Guardianistas & Beeboids when the police do such things, like fit up known scumbags and put them away. Ever since the Gramscian left succeeded into turning Plod from an unscrupulous thug working for a ‘Force’ into a PC social worker in a ‘service’ via PACE, we have been losing control of the streets.


  14. I really must take exception to your ‘cash strapped’ comment. At nigh on £5 billion a year (£3.51 billion from the licence fee) the organisation is in no way cash strapped, profligate and wasteful is more like it.

    Figures are from the BBC Annual Report for 2011 in case it is not believed.


  15. It appears the Daily Mail and David Icke websites are down, so those who are naturally at home there are out visiting. Lucky Slog! Here’s some spare apostrophes to restock those who must be running short after behaving like profligate greengrocers: ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘! Please take more care of those.
    And there’s no need to about the ‘C’ on your keyboard wearing out, it won’t. So it’s safe to hit it twice when typing ‘licence’.
    Anyway, to the point (yes, there was one). I once wanted to promote a niche sport and talked to Sky Sports who said they wouldn’t pay to film the tournament but if I produced a film they would broadcast it free. How very different from their attitude to the Beeb.


  16. St least I have a choice to pay for Sky while the BBC extorts a fee under threat of imprisonment. It is long past time that was scrapped, there is no need for it now. They have a strong brand and are well able to compete as a commercial platform. As it stands they have all the perks of the publice sector and the salaries of the private sector.


  17. You’re getting it @rse about face. Its of supreme indifference to Sky whether they have the BBC terrestrial channels or not. No-one pays £40 odd per month to watch channels they can watch for free. So having the Beeb adds no customers, and none would leave (or very few anyway) if they got rid of them on their platform.

    That gives Sky a good negotiating position They have a system, and the BBC want their channels on it more than Sky does. Ergo the BBC has to pay.

    Under the logic of your argument, Murdoch should have free access to the US Cable network. I’m sure he’d be very happy, a saving of $250m a year.


  18. The Beeb is providing much needed content to Murdoch (and his lodger Dave et al) and paying for the privilege! The problem has long been Auntie’s discomfort at making the most of its back catalogue. When I was involved in BBC Video World (videos for ex-pats which featured commercials), the BBC gave away 50% of the business to a partner when it could have owned it all and got it going years earlier. The BBC is still important as an independent broadcaster of quality and integrity; the fact it annoys left and right shows it’s still doing something right. But as well as stop trying to please (and join in me-to competition) it should use its assets to fund progress. And charge Old Pie Face realistic fees.


  19. Previous three comments about ‘bollocks’.
    The best answer I can give is to point you back at the post – and ask you why this ludicrous arrangement exists, when in the US the norm (as it would be in any such commercial agreement) is the diametric opposite.
    I am at a loss to understand how much evidence you need: ring the Newscorp press office like I did. They do not deny it.


  20. John,
    I really can’t abide the BBC agenda broadcasting and hardly watch it. I have Sky and would keep it without any hesitation if the BBC channels were taken off.
    My wife could watch the BBC soaps on Freeview.


  21. You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone: I have lived in both Italy & the US and their standard of TV is the same as SKY – cheap crap designed to extract the maximum out of both viewers and advertisers (Think Daily Mail on – line). One of the few things I missed about the UK was the BBC – Quality TV and just as importantly the radio content. We are giving a tax cheat our money. Fred Goodwin is less guilty! JTF96


  22. Well I won’t pay for Sky because I hate Murdoch, but hypothetically, yes I would, because like most people who get Sky, I already have terrestrial TV, its the extra stuff like sport and movies that I want from Sky. If I want the Beeb I’ve already got it. You do realise its perfectly possible to have a Freeview box AND a Sky box plugged into the same TV don’t you?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s