Ex-BBC boss Dyke plotted against Blair

The American Thinker ^ | April 15th 2004 | Michael Morris

[coldcall]

So, now we know the truth about Greg Dyke, ex-Director General of the BBC, who resigned in disgrace following the Hutton inquiry’s findings which severely criticized the BBC’s editorial management.

Today, as reported by Tom Mangold in the London Evening Standard, it has emerged that in July of last year, while Greg Dyke was still head of the BBC, he had an outburst in which he told friends that he was contemplating spending three million pounds of his own money, to start a new political party in order to unseat Tony Blair as British PM.

One of Greg Dyke’s closest friends, Melvin Bragg said:

"It’s true; he did say that he could form a new political party to challenge Tony Blair on the simple basis that it would bring about a change of leadership"

The most astonishing aspect of this, of course, is that the DG of the BBC is meant to be totally independent. We are always being told that the BBC is supremely balanced and impartial in its coverage of the news, but these revelations concerning Greg Dyke’s comments about supporting a political campaign against Tony Blair, prove once and for all that the BBC is indeed a politicized broadcaster, and is anything but independent. It also confirms the feeling many have had for a long time that the BBC is in fact, institutionally biased.

The idea that an acting head of the BBC had openly discussed a political movement against the British Prime Minister is incredible and will cause even more permanent damage to the BBC, than has already been achieved by the findings of the Hutton inquiry.

It could also explain why Tony Blair, and his Director of Communications, Alistair Campbell, had such difficulties obtaining the detraction from the BBC, in regards to the erroneous report by Andrew Gilligan on Radio Four’s Today Program, which led to the suicide of Dr Kelly, the British WMD expert.

[Grampa Dave]

BBC=ABCNNBCBS

[sarasota]

So Britian has its own George Soros.

[MineralMan]

Yeah, everyone hates bossy dykes. [grin]

[WOSG]

Actually when I saw the headline I was thinking the BBC had their own Rosie O'Donnell.

[maica]

Privatization is overdue.

[Travis McGee]

Is this getting any play in Britain?

[MinuteGal]

Well, this BBC guy could be one of two things.....a well-motivated Tory who'd like to unseat a socialist prime minister.....or

He could be a hard-core, anti-war, peacenik, anti-American, Bush-hater, Islam-lover from the outer left fringes of the Labour Party.

Which do you think he is, teehee.

Leni

[Eurotwit]

I don't follow British politics that closely, but it doesn't seem to have gotten much play yet.

I must admit that I watch BBC World and Sky News a bit, and tend to peruse the online version of the Telegraph.

The state channels around the world has tended to be disgraceful though.

The Danish state broadcaster in under investigation for having had a strong anti-american slant in the coverage of the Iraq war. They actually put down a commission to look into it. Same thing with the Australian State broadcaster the ABC.

I am not even going to mention the Norwegian state channel, which is close to Hezbollah TV. The Iraq correspondent yesterday defended the rights of the terrorists in Iraq to kidnap security guards, because they were just "mercenaries". I think he has spent to much time on DU.

Cheers.

[Travis McGee]

What a grim picture. The West is not even trying to defend itself, but actively working for our enemies.

[cyncooper]

The idea that an acting head of the BBC had openly discussed a political movement against the British Prime Minister is incredible

Only incredible that the moron was talking out loud about his plan. Any sane viewer of BBC war coverage and their anti-coalition propaganda and lies that made it to air will not be the least bit surprised.

And that he made these comments last July during the month David Kelly testified then killed himself is also very telling.

[Southack]

"Well, this BBC guy could be one of two things.....a well-motivated Tory who'd like to unseat a socialist prime minister.....or He could be a hard-core, anti-war, peacenik, anti-American, Bush-hater, Islam-lover from the outer left fringes of the Labour Party."

Dyke backed Blair to the hilt, and would have taken a bullet for him back when Blair sided with Clinton and Chirac to bomb the Christian Serbs in order to aid the terrorist KLA radical Islamists in 1999.

But once it became clear that Blair was going to side with the U.S. against the Franco-German push for worldwide Islamic appeasement vis-a-vis Iraq, the old Dyke broke and went the other way...attempting to wash Blair out.

[JasonC]

The head of a state run broadcasting service lies for political ends. What a surprise. What else is a ministry of truth for? Of course those who want there to be nothing else gravitate there. In a communist society, that would be the most important position for the most accomplished manager of lies. So those ambitious accomplished liars seeking a communist society go there. It is their honey. Why is anybody surprised? And why does anyone think state run broadcasting will ever be on the side of truth or decent and limited government?

[mewzilla]

Dyke also made sure the Beeb covered George Galloway's behind.

[Travis McGee]

Sounds like NPR and PBS, only more so.

[Winniesboy]

In the light of this, it may surprise you to know that the British business press has been hotly tipping Dyke as the next Chief Executive of ITV. (ITV is the main British commercial broadcaster on terrestrial TV, and is in direct competition with the BBC). Incidentally, and sorry to be pedantic about this, but the BBC is not 'state-run' (despite a widespread misconception to the contrary in the U.S.)

[coldcall]

No it doesnt surpris me, the UK media industry is an incestuous pond overflowing with leftwing scum.

Your second point about the BBC not being "state run", is incorrect. Its a public sector organization funded by a tax. It's a state broadcaster, end of story.

[pau1f0rd]

Is this getting any play in Britain?

No, it's an old story

[Winniesboy]

The only direct control the state (ie the government) has over the BBC is through the periodic renewal, every decade or so, of the legislation which establishes the BBC's Royal Charter, and which enables it to raise revenue through the licence fee. There is no day-to-day management or editorial control. If there were the latter, it's difficult to see how the BBC could so vigorously promote views contrary to the policies of the state (as, for instance, over the Iraq war). Even with the loosest interpretation of the term, this sort of structure can't really be described as 'state-run', in the sense that the monopolistic broadcasters of authoritarian one-party states are state-run.

A second route of control used to be the government's influence in the appointment of the Chairman of the BBC Governors. However, the concensus seems to be that last month's appointment of Michael Grade as the new Chairman was largely free of that influence.

[piasa]

Does the BBC sell commercial/advertisement time to private industry?