Friday, 12 January 2018

Future of British Broadcasting 2

  • Following on from last weeks introduction we continue with our proposals to abolish the TV licence.

The Mid-term Funding Review

HM Government has provided that the current Charter period should include a mid-term funding review to take place between 2022 and 2024. We may safely conjecture that the BBC would wish the review to be limited to the simple matter of its requesting an increase in the licence fee and providing a variety of specious claims as to the likely results of a failure to accede to that request. There is, however, no reason why the review should not take the form of a thoroughgoing examination of the current funding model, although no change can be made to that model until after the expiry of the Charter now in force (Charter 57 (5) (c)).

It is CUT's contention that the licence fee should be phased out irrespective of whether or not our other proposals are adopted, and that non-payment of the fee should be decriminalised at the earliest opportunity. The judicial process is brought into disrepute, and public understanding of the gravity of genuine frauds upon the revenue is undermined, when the courts are used to prosecute trivial matters that are not generally regarded as criminal. It should also be noted that H.M. Government has committed itself to consider any differential impact policies might have on men and women. Failure to pay the BBC licence fee now accounts for 10% of prosecutions with 133,000 out of 189,000 of those prosecutions having been of women in 2015.  Needless to say, many of those prosecuted are unemployed people whose employability is then reduced by having to declare a conviction. It must be noted that many families regard television as indispensable irrespective of their level of household income. Those who fail to pay the fine imposed on conviction are imprisoned for a short period; if they have children this is likely to result in extensive intervention in the family on the part of their local authority's social services department. Every week about 3,000 people are prosecuted and fined up to £1,000; and one person on average is sent to prison for non-payment of the fine.

Proposals for reform

The public sector status of the BBC provides the rationale for criminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee as an instance of defrauding the Treasury. The fee is, however, paid to the BBC in its entirety (with payments being made by it to S4C), and it takes responsibility for collection of the fee and prosecution of defaulters.   

The BBC service charge should be formally designated as such; and defined in terms of a contractual relationship between it and its customers rather than, as at present, as a licence fee payable to the Treasury. Default should therefore be decriminalised with the removal of the notional element of defrauding the revenue. The large lump licence fee was devised because radio, later television, was consumed in an unquantifiable manner using equipment that allowed use of the BBC's services without indicating whether people were actually listening to the Home Service or Hilversum. The radio licence was abolished due to the proliferation of small (i.e. readily concealable) transistor radios the use of which could not be detected. The situation today has changed and is in a process of transition to a very different model of media consumption. As a matter of principle the BBC's domestic audience should be obliged to pay for its services and those who do not use the BBC should not be charged for its upkeep. There is a general move away from unquantifiable use of BBC services to measurable use accessed via internet-enabled devices. The BBC should charge directly for services received in this way; whether it does so on a pro rata basis or devises offers and packages like those given by utilities companies should be a matter for its own commercial judgement. The service charge should be phased out as the transition proceeds, being made proportionate to the amount of television accessed via television sets with abolition coming when under 20% of content is received that way. Any claim that the service charge should be payable for use of non-BBC services accessed via the internet would be completely unjustifiable.

The BBC should use sponsorship and advertising to the extent it finds commercially desirable in both domestic and international broadcasts as funding from the service charge is reduced. Responsibility for the funding of S4C should be devolved immediately to the Welsh administration which should eventually take responsibility for all subsidised broadcasting in the Welsh language. The issue of payments from H.M. Government and the devolved administrations to the BBC should be addressed in the context of radical restructuring, as discussed below, rather than at the mid-term funding review, although the review does provide a suitable opportunity to transfer funding for the BBC World Service from the FCO to the DfID.

If these proposals are adopted at the mid-term review they will leave the BBC as a functionally independent entity with its internal structures, scope and relation to H.M. Government largely unchanged. They may be adopted without reference to our further proposals for radical reforms to public sector broadcasting, or else they might initiate the transitionary process we describe below. To be continued. by Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard.

Sunday, 7 January 2018

Future of British Broadcasting No 1

  • We serialise a proposal for the future of British Broadcasting.
  • Please send links to your MPs and media outlets or printout and send.

Part 1 - Introduction

A Clear Vision for the Future of British Broadcasting

Catholics Unplug your Televisions is an organisation that promotes religious, family and social activities within the Catholic community in preference to passive use of the broadcast media. Our membership includes clergy and laity, academics, writers and media professionals. Through our Clear Vision blog and other outreach projects we engage with society at large, commenting on the social effects of these media and the culture of the broadcasting industry. Whether acting in a religious or secular context we uphold the rights of individuals and families to maintain the standards of traditional morality in their own homes and private lives.


All interested parties are aware of the outcome of the debate over renewal of the BBC Charter. That outcome appeared to have been largely predetermined by the terms of debate set out in the preceding Green Paper. In effect, the public was denied a debate because the questions given in the Green Paper were predicated on the assumption that the BBC Charter would be renewed and that, while some slight modifications might be made, the Corporation would continue to operate under the same terms of reference as beforehand and would conduct 'business as usual' for the foreseeable future. In this report CUT sets out a framework for transition, challenging the assumptions underlying the Green Paper, and indicating the ways in which a future replacement for the BBC might operate.

Proposal composed by Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard  

Saturday, 30 December 2017

Hugh Hefner a destroyer of the West

Good-bye Hugh Hefner
Goodbye, Mr. Hefner.  Our world is the world you made; the media landscape we know today was really your creation.  You opened a world of porn to everyone; now pornography has been completely normalised and is 'free at the point of use' or available on subscription or ready to buy – all options open.  Not just explicit porn, in pornographic publications like your own, but titillating images across the media – the entire landscape has been pornified and bunnified.  TV presenters, newsreaders and weathergirls go on screen in what would be bunny costumes if they only had their ears on – sleeveless, low-cut or skin-tight and short in the skirt.  Newspapers too, even the supposedly serious ones, like to lead with a pretty girl in as little as possible; who cares who she is – politician, actress, spy, criminal, murder victim, estate agent of the year – what are her vital statistics?  Your influence, of course, goes beyond the media.  Wherever there were settled social norms and mores, you fought to bring them down, hence your support for 'civil rights' against everything anyone had ever known as normal.  Then there was the womens' movement, you made it what it is today.  How did you do it? 

They have been convinced that abortion, contraception, and being 'a slut' are good for women and things to celebrate on scantily-clad slut walks, while marriage and motherhood represent patriarchal oppression.  I would say 'You couldn't make it up', but you could and did.  In popular culture, morality and decency are nothing more than the butt of jokes, your work too.  How could conservatism withstand the assault?  The libertarianism you preferred supplanted it in so many places.  If you were not quite the Lord of this world, you were its Prince of the permissive, the Jefe of hedonism who handed it over to the rule of vice and sin.  Farewell, Heff Old Sport, your legacy is so strong who knows how long it will be before we feel you have really gone? 

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard.

Wednesday, 13 December 2017

Gun Control

The Enemies of Freedom

The shooting in Las Vegas was an incomprehensible tragedy the reason for which was known only to the dead gunman.  Little or nothing more can be said on the subject, but that has not stopped the media from commenting.  They all had much the same thing to say, at least in this country, and almost all of them elsewhere too, certainly the mainstream media, notably the supposedly impartial BBC.  What they had to say was, as we have so often heard from them before, that America should introduce the same kind of gun control that we have suffered here. They present a situation in which the population at large has been disarmed by the State as if it were a norm from which America has deviated when the precise opposite is the case.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, did not arise by chance and were not written as the result of some strange whim on somebody's part.  They, rather, represent the Constitutional Convention's considered opinion as to what are the most basic rights necessary if a nation is to constitute itself as a free country.  That the right to bear arms was among those rights is testament to its importance as a cornerstone of freedom.  In a very real sense the right to bear arms is the necessary guarantee of any other rights anybody might have. It is, in any case, not so much a right granted by the US Constitution, but simply the normal state of affairs, which is to say that it is a right grounded in natural law as an inseparable corollary of such other rights as the right to establish a family, to hold property, to practise the one true Faith without hindrance and, above all, the right and duty to establish and maintain a system of law and government consonant with divine law.  

In the absence of an acknowledged right to bear arms the State has a monopoly of force.  It may do as it pleases to whomsoever it pleases without fear of effective resistance.  Gun control is, therefore, the hallmark of tyranny.  It is what governments do to those whom it neither likes nor trusts, so what can universal gun control mean if not that those in power dislike and mistrust those they govern, and what kind of government treats the entire populace as its at least potential enemies if not a tyranny?  The history of gun control in the British Isles is that Catholics were its first victims after the overthrow of King James II & VII, then Scotsmen after the rising of 1715, after that universal gun control was introduced for a six year period in one of the universally hated Six Acts passed after the Peterloo massacre by an administration that thought it might well have provoked a revolution. It was then reimposed in 1968, some twenty years into 'the post-War settlement', by which time people had become accustomed to dependence upon the State, and servility in dealing with its various branches.  It is not in any sense natural or normal that the State should confiscate weaponry, it was a parliamentary abuse of power half a century ago that would have been unthinkable twenty or thirty years earlier, much like legalised sodomy and abortion.

If gun control means that the relationship between State and citizenry has gone radically wrong and turned toxic why do the media love it so much?  The mainstream media are not a disparate group of intellectually independent, freethinking news outlets; rather, they exhibit a lemming-like herd mentality on all possible occasions.  Yes, in Britain there are tribal differences in the political allegiances of newspapers; but the opinions advanced by them all are similar on both sides, and where they disagree they do agree on the terms of permissible debate.  The people in the media have a certain view of themselves, both collectively and as individuals; they regard themselves as having a right to run the country, and see the State as being theirs for the taking.  For that to be a reasonable prospect, they need a State that is not simply, as it should be, the political expression of the nation or the people organised for action, but a governmental superstructure run by a political caste to which the media types belong, or see themselves as belonging.  The more powerful the State, the better for those who control or hope to control it.  The greater the separation between the political class and the people, them and us, again the better for these media types who either hope to pull the levers, exercising 'power without responsibility', or else plan a move into the front line of Party politics.  Look how many media people there are in Parliament – and see what low-grade politicians so many of them make, especially the ones “off the telly”!  There are exceptions to that amongst those from the more internationally-minded media groups; but BBC people all, by definition, believe in large, publicly-funded organisations and support them instinctively as well as from self-interest.

Statism is the result of a megalomaniacal hatred of popular freedoms.  The right to bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of freedom, hence the statist media types who aspire to capturing the State and holding it as their private plaything with the entire populace helpless as marionettes forced to dance to their tune hate the right to bear arms with a passion.  They want to make its restoration unthinkable just as they have made abolishing socialised medicine, State-controlled education and planning control or the recriminalisation of abortion and sodomy unthinkable.  They are the enemies of freedom.  They are the enemies of us all.  Reject them and reject the politics of us and them, the politics of exclusion, dividing the political rulers from those they govern.  Demand the restoration of our ancient liberties and, above all, demand a renewal of political life that eliminates the baleful influence of the media so that all the options and opportunities can be explored properly, free from the trivia, gossip, propaganda and outright untruths in which they obscure what should be the terms of our national debate.

Films and TV are the problem not
gun control or the lack of it is the problem.
That debate needs to include cutting the media, as well as the State, down to size.  Without saying anything specific about Las Vegas, there can be no doubt that the reason very many spree killers, especially young people, 'go postal' (if that phrase is still current) is that killing sprees, and shooting in general, are a staple of popular entertainment, in the cinema, on TV and in video games.  A similar link might be made between the growth in sexual assaults, again especially amongst the young, and the prevalence of casual coupling on screen.  Shooting people is everywhere.  That is the problem the media do not address because the news and entertainment media are closely intertwined, more closely even than politics and the media are.  I am not, at this stage, advocating censorship, but I am advocating a voluntary self-restraint on the part of broadcasters and games-writers, and I would strongly suggest that that restraint would be promoted if the news media were to create a climate in which broadcasting such material was regarded as irresponsible and antisocial.  I would certainly support a move into politics by journalists favouring a responsible and wholesome media environment.  Advertisers should be pushed to avoid having their products promoted alongside sex and violence; that would send broadcasters a powerful message.  Use the power in your pockets to boycott the products of companies that support socially damaging television.  Now who in the media fancies repeating that message instead of demanding that people be denied the ability to reap the harvest of nature, and to defend themselves and their property?        

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard. 

Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Rainbow flag rules

LGBT totalitarianism

With rainbow adorned livery a Merseyside police car is parked outside Liverpool football club, Liverpool manager wears rainbow coloured laces in his boots, young mascots carry rainbow flags onto the pitch at Bournemouth; their parents and club must be unaware that these poor children could be victims of predatory homosexuals or could even be fooled into believing that they need a sex change very soon. We are now facing a form of totalitarianism not far removed from models of the past where you dare not speak for fear you are shut up or forfeit your livelihood.

Poor children forced to carry the Satanic rainbow flag
They didn't stand a chance!
Under the guise of anti-hate anti-(so called) homophobia, Stonewall have successfully infiltrated football and most sports; their perversion is now fully accepted everywhere. Dare anyone speak out against this perversion anymore? We are now fast approaching the situation where if you dare speak the truth about the LGBT crowd and these perversions you could be in trouble with the law. I use perversion out of love for the sinner and not out of hate; hate the sin, yes, but not the sinner. Therefore we use the word perversion as simply telling it as it is; we must not be cowed into submission, or go with the flow. We must suffer as a sacrifice for sinners, as Our Lady of Fatima asks us. When we are challenged and called haters or worse still "homophobic", we must offer as a sacrifice any abuse we get thrown our way by the LGBT "community" and by those brainwashed by the media. Remember, the real homophobes are those in the media who in their hearts know that all this LGBT promotion is wrong and yet go along with it.

Chelsea's Men Team's captain and their lady's team captain.
Are they about to change places?
Remember what Our Lady of Fatima said to Jacinta: "More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason”. And Sr Lucia said to Cardinal Caffara that "the last battle between Satan and Our Lord will be over the family." Perhaps this battle for the family has already begun and includes the Church herself.

Here is a link to an interesting with Dr Silvana de Mari WHAT IS NATURAL

Thursday, 9 November 2017

BBC's transgender agenda

Who cares? Why care?

The character Dr. Who is to be played by a woman. Does this matter? As the programme is the BBC's flagship show for children, young adults and science fiction fans of all ages, and is sold for broadcast across the world, it must be recognised as a significant transmitter of values; but what values does it transmit? The programme has already introduced its predominantly young audience to homosexual themes in its storylines – one teacher commented that, when they were playing, the children in her school all wanted to be a particular gay or bisexual character – in keeping with the Corporation's long-term project of normalising the queer. This new development is another step in that old project. The concept of Dr. Who is, metaphysically speaking, one of essential or substantial continuity coupled with accidental or incidental change. To have the title character played by a woman, therefore, amounts to an assertion that gender is not an integral element of personal identity; it is merely a surface detail. This goes even further than the transgender agenda which asserts that gender is integral to identity, but is not constrained by biological sex. It may be understood to mean the abolition of gender, but what that really means, or how it will be taken, is more difficult to determine.

It may be understood to mean the abolition of (or, at least, an aspiration to abolish) the social meaning of sexual difference, which would entail an acceptance of the externalities of the male or female body but a rejection of any notion that any social rôle is determined by sex. This has clear implications for clerical and religious life in the long term as the rationale for the male priesthood and the spousal character of the nun's vocation (already undermined by liturgical change) would cease to be comprehensible within a disgendered frame of reference. The concept of marriage, even in a natural let alone a sacramental sense, would also be under threat.

Then again, it might be understood to mean that there are no objective reference points or criteria for the externalities of the person, they may simply be moulded into an expression of a subjective perception of identity. This is an extension of current practice; it amounts to a rejection of the Christian understanding of the person as a totality in whom the soul gives the body its form as its own actualisation in corporeal matter, and of the biblical teaching that our first parents were created as gendered beings with Eve created from the side of Adam. If our bodies are not intrinsic to ourselves how real is the reality we experience through them? That way lies the madness of solipsism and fantasy.

The programme's young viewers will similarly absorb these ideas without articulating them intellectually. They will go on to form their own opinions and take philosophical, theological and political positions on the basis of the things they see and hear now; this will form the substance of their subconscious minds.   

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

Monday, 30 October 2017

500 years of Heresy

Martin Luther's legacy -
Nazism, Same-Sex 'Marriage'
and Halloween

Nazi  propaganda poster from 1933
reads, “Hitler’s fight and Luther’s
teaching are the  best defence
for the German people.”
It's hard to keep Martin Luther out of the news these days especially this week as Thursday 31 October 2017 is the 500th anniversary of his in-famous nailing of his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. Perhaps it's no surprise that the day he did so also coincides with the ancient pagan festival of Samhain when the spirits of the dead were supposed to visit their homes. As Catholics of course we believe that demons exist as does the Devil and on this day the Devil is often invoked by pagans. Is it more than a coincidence that Luther chose this day to nail his theses to a church?

In doing so he ended up by splitting Christendom and many of those who rallied to his cause had other motives; they wanted to have a divorce, or marry their mistress as in the case of one of his great supporters of "Reform" Philip of Hess who had a concubine, or grab church property and turn it to their own personal secular use.

The sayings of Martin Luther surely condemn him as an anti-Christ.

Here are a few of his "great" theological sayings:
“I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963). - CUT - For a start is this man even a Christian? Perhaps this is why he chose one of Satan's feasts to nail his theses to a church door?

“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (ref. Table Talk, 2397b) - CUT - well no wonder anything goes in Protestant Churches!

"Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. – CUT - Just another one of the blasphemous sayings of a man who is regarded as “great reformer”!

“St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” (ref. Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422) CUT - Modest too.

Martin Luther's love for his fellow man
“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs” (ref. Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294). CUT - well not much Social Justice here either.

Where did the Nazis' hatred of the Jews really come from - Martin Luther?
“The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502). CUT - No wonder that Nazism hated the Jews

Martin Luther by Cranach
Look like a bully
“My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire… Second, that all their books– their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible– be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it… He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away”. (ref. Martin Luther; On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press, 1955). CUT - I think that's enough of Luther's views on the Jews but there are lots more where these come from.

What about Luther on the Sanctity of Marriage?
“If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (ref. Of Married Life). CUT - Where is the teaching of Jesus on marriage in this godforsaken man and his church?

“The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.” (ref. On Married Life). CUT - So much for equal rights of women here then, no wonder that God has abandoned Lutheran women "clergy" to Lesbianism.

So what has the father of Protestantism bequeathed the Church?
Well within 10 years of the first Protestant baptism the church in which it took place was closed. The areas that are Protestant in Europe close to where the Reformation started have the lowest Church attendance in the Christian world, the lowest baptisms and are the most secular. The Baltic states are now only 20% Christian the rest are mainly atheist except for Poland which is Catholic and has one of the highest church attendances in the world.

So what about his legacy?
Many say it is because of Luther's almost pathological hatred of the Jews that Protestant northern Germany was so ready to accept the Nazi party and Hitler in opposition to the Catholic German bishops who throughout the ages came to the rescue of the Jews often when ordinary Catholics expressed anger at their disproportionate power and wealth as they believed this was at the expense of ordinary Christians.

Pro-abortion Protestant clergy "bless" abortion clinic 
Today we can see Luther's "fruits" in the constant distancing of Protestant moral theology from the teaching of Christ and His apostles, for example the many Protestant Churches' failure to support the Culture of Life and support Catholics in the prayer vigils outside abortion clinics, which of course Jeremy Corbyn wants to ban by law.

Eva Brunne - Lutheran
"Bishop" of Stockholm
But perhaps the clearest manifestation of Protestant disbelief and rebellion against Christ is the performing of same-sex "marriages" in their churches. Too quick are they to worry about the Zeitgeist and the church coffers. Branches of the Anglican Communion form a case in point, even now ready to acquiesce in the main stream media's brainwashing and marry those who diabolically believe that they were born to be attracted in a sexual way to their own self's sex, this is nothing but Satanic. Despite the Government exemption of Angliancism from performing same-marriages, the Scottish Episcopal Church (part of the Anglican Communion) has already done it. Of course the Lutheran "Church" has been doing this for years. And the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm Eva Brunne is openly Lesbian, and been in some sort of "union" with another "priestess" of the Lutheran "Church"; this "Church" has blessed this union. However, this is so far from the teaching of Christ and his apostles that it beggars belief. Brunne also proposed the removal of crosses from Stockholm's Harbour church and a direction indicator to Mecca installed so that Muslim visitors will know in which direction they should pray.

However, before we laugh too loud at our fallen Protestant brethren many believe that Pope Francis hopes to take the Catholic Church down the same heretical path!