TV Row Lands UKIP Candidate in Court

Independent UKIP · 30-11-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

TV ROW LANDS UKIP CANDIDATE IN COURT

09:00 - 30 November 2007

Former Cheltenham UKIP candidate Niall Warry has admitted watching TV without a licence - because he reckons the BBC isn't up to scratch.The 56-year-old, from Fairview Street, told Cheltenham Magistrates' Court he refused to pay the £135.50 fee because he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased.

Pleading guilty to not holding a valid TV licence, he said the organisation fails to offer a balanced view of public debate.

Joined by five fellow protesters, Warry read from a pre-prepared statement,which he passed to the bench.

"It now seems unarguable that the consumer is not getting a fair deal from the BBC in that much of their output is biased and in some cases even dishonest," he said.

"I've been monitoring the BBC for 20 years and finally decided to withhold my TV licence fee until the BBC honours its Royal Charter to report in a balanced way.

"Please be clear I have repeatedly told the BBC and TV licensing authority that I am happy to pay my TV licence when the BBC delivers on its side of commitment to the public."

Warry, who stood as a UKIP representative for All Saints in 2005, initially refused to pay the fee in 2006.

His complaints included the BBC's coverage of the European Union and what he calls "unfair debates on climate change".

Chairman of the bench Peter Langman gave Warry a six-month conditional discharge.

"I've read the comments you have provided to the court and listened to what you have to say and accept your guilty plea," he said.

After the hearing, Warry and his supporters stood outside the magistrates' court and held up a banner, which read 'Oppose BBC pro EU bias'.

Warry said: "A conditional discharge represents a victory of sorts. The fact I was given this shows they have sympathy with the fact the BBC are biased in their broadcasting, especially on issues like the EU.

"They are in favour of joining the EU, whereas public opinion is of scepticism."

Warry said he was pleased to take a stand, but admitted he won't be running the risk of further court action.

He said: "I will pay my TV licence but will reconsider my stance after the six months of my conditional discharge has expired."

I don't know if he is still in the party. If he is then it is fair enough that the story emphasizes that. If not I hope it was not him who told the newspaper about his UKIP connection. Either way I'm sure many on this forum will congratulate him on his stance and/or criticise him for unnecessarily putting himself in a position where he could be taken to court.

Britannist · 30-11-2007, 11:41 PM

As I have written before (along with many others on the forum) - the sooner the biased pro-EU Brown Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) stops scrounging off the people of this country (through the compulsory television licence fee) the better.

Scrap the compulsory television licence fee and if the BBC is to continue tighten up the law so it has to start honouring its Charter commitment to fair and impartial reporting with much better coverage of the eurosceptic and anti-EU majority in our country.

chikrodah · 01-12-2007, 01:38 AM

Irrespective of personal views on the validity (or otherwise) of the continuing pro-BBC tax that is the TV Licence, unfortunately paying the TV licence is a legal requirement with which we have to comply.

IMHO, there is no requirement for a BBC funded by the TV licence if the BBC is capable of creating TV channels which can be funded by advertising (BBC3 and BBC4, anyone?). However, as we have to pay the current TV licence, then surely UKIP candidates, councillors, etc., should be adhering to current legislation?

mkpdavies · 01-12-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless or, which is the same thing, corrupt.

Ghandi

I fully support Niall in his demonstration against a clearly biased propaganda arm of the the establishment.

Westcountryman · 01-12-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

Irrespective of personal views on the validity (or otherwise) of the continuing pro-BBC tax that is the TV Licence, unfortunately paying the TV licence is a legal requirement with which we have to comply.

IMHO, there is no requirement for a BBC funded by the TV licence if the BBC is capable of creating TV channels which can be funded by advertising (BBC3 and BBC4, anyone?). However, as we have to pay the current TV licence, then surely UKIP candidates, councillors, etc., should be adhering to current legislation?

So you're getting an ID card then?

Fully support the protest and think overall it was a good result - it could have been a lot worse.

30-11-2007, 11:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 22,896	BBC, Brown, television licence fee, Charter, anti-EU, eurosceptic, coverage As I have written before (along with many others on the forum) - the sooner the biased pro-EU Brown Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) stops scrounging off the people of this country (through the compulsory television licence fee) the better. Scrap the compulsory television licence fee and if the BBC is to continue tighten up the law so it has to start honouring its Charter commitment to fair and impartial reporting with much better coverage of the eurosceptic and anti-EU majority in our country.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-12-2007, 01:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,525	Irrespective of personal views on the validity (or otherwise) of the continuing pro-BBC tax that is the TV Licence, unfortunately paying the TV licence is a legal requirement with which we have to comply. IMHO, there is no requirement for a BBC funded by the TV licence if the BBC is capable of creating TV channels which can be funded by advertising (BBC3 and BBC4, anyone?). However, as we have to pay the current TV licence, then surely UKIP candidates, councillors, etc., should be adhering to current legislation?