The local authority, Hammersmith & Fulham Council, has told the corporation that either the Metropolitan Police or the BBC should pick up the bill for security. Corporation sources were adamant that it would not spend the licence fee on policing, saying that it was a matter for the Met.

Football clubs have to pay for their policing, parades have to pay for theirs. Why shouldn\’t the BBC have to pay for theirs?

9 thoughts on “Really?”

  1. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    I have to pay for mine. The difference is, as I pay with my council tax, I don’t actually get any policing.

  2. Its not really the same. The thugs that plan to attack the BBC headquarters are trying to stop them doing something. The BBC didn’t invite them, sell them tickets or in any other way solicit their presence. Rather they are being threatened.

    It would be like asking a black family to pay for police protection from racist thugs who were threatening them.

    God I am going to have to lie down in a dark room, I defended the BBC.

  3. Effing and Blinding

    Matthew, there is a new formula regarding who pays what for matches as between the clubs and the police. The policing extends to areas slightly outside the grounds, within a clearly-agreed area. Any trouble occurring outside that area, the local police pick up the bill.

    The question here is whether the local council needs to give a safety certificate to allow the BBC to conduct its event.

    If none is required (I don’t know but I think it would be unlikely given the nature of the event), then policing is the responsibility of the Met. If a safety cetificate is required, then the BBC can be forced to have X number of police controlling a particular area, for a given time, with the BBC picking up the tab for the reasonable costs of policing.

  4. But what’s the point of the BBC supporting every terrorist (sorry, activist) group around if it still needs the police?

  5. The bad actors in this scenario are clearly the ‘anti-fascists’. The quotes are merited. They’re not anti-fascist, they’re just a different kind of totalitarian filth. I loathe the BNP and all they stand for, from both an intellectual and an aesthetic standpoint, but I (a libertarian minarchocapitalist) have been called a fascist far too often by the crusty scum that makes up the vanguard of these so-called bastions of liberty to wish anything other than a pox on them.

    Oh, and why is it that I have to disclaim the BNP every time I decry their soi-disant enemies. It smacks of special pleading: “some of my best friends are…” Can’t it just be taken as read?

  6. imho the whole business of the police billing anyone for policing is completely wrong and should be stopped.

    We all (in theory, I know, yeah yeah) pay our taxes.

    The police exist solely to keep order and uphold the law.

    Let them get on with it. They are all already paid to do it, why should we have to pay over again?

    I believe this is part of Nu-Lab’s war on free association and voluntary civil society: by imposing more costs on activities such as demonstrations (or village fetes, or cheese-rolling competitions, or firework display, or …) they hope to make it impossible for such things to be held, so that in the end only State-sanctioned and State-initiated activities are possible.

    The police are a public service, they should not be sending out bills to anyone.

  7. Can someone explain to me the usage of the word “crusty” exemplified by David G’s comment? What does it mean, why, and since when?

    Tim adds: Roughly speaking, unwashed hippy type. People who live in trees to stop the motorway being driven through the forest sort of thing. Since, umm, late 80s? Early 90s? They why? They tend not to wash thus have a crust on them.

    Very much the opposite of the earlier “crusty old man” whihc, I assume comes from hard, as in the hard part of the bread is the crust.

  8. The council could easily solve the problem by refusing the permission to hold a protest to the UAF, or by requiring the UAF to pay for the policing.

    The UAF only turns up to stir up trouble anyway and when their charges are so heated up that they are ready to tear the place up and attack people, the UAF sneaks off homewards, claiming the ensuing riot has nothing to do with them.

    Not sure why you’re taking sides for them and want them to have yet another riot for free on taxpayers tab, Tim.

    It’s not only that, but the UAF does great a promotional service for the BNP and turns them into victims of political thuggery that people then end up having to defend the BNP on a point of principle… (yuck)

    Eh, and all so that Griffin can comprehensively wipe the floor with the black immigrant American feminist playwright who is supposed to intellectually crush him in the debate and show him up to the British nation.

    I actually cannot think of a worse way of setting up the entire thing from start to finish, no detail has been overlooked by the fuck up fairy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *