I have touched on a subject which is regarded as important by many local residents, especially those living in and around Thamesmead. An issue related to antisocial behaviour and the use of a dangerous weapon has been causing particular problems to wildlife in the town and surrounding areas. Youths have been using powerful catapults to injure and kill animals, including ducks and swans, and on at least one occasion, a domestic cat. At present, catapults are not counted as a legally banned weapon. Young people have been misusing catapults, often bought online from retailers in the UK or more regularly from China. In the absence of a countrywide regulation of these devices, some local councils are passing bylaws to effectively outlaw catapults and the ammunition they use. One of the pioneering councils taking legal action is council Kent-based Tonbridge and West Malling. It has recently passed a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to effectively ban the weapons, it is now illegal to have in their possession in a public space. A catapult, slingshot or similar item that could cause harm or damage to a person, animal or property. Additionally, no one is allowed to have in their possession stones, ball bearings, pellets or similar items capable of being launched as projectiles from a catapult or slingshot. If a person carrying a catapult or slingshot fails to hand them over to an authorised Council officer or policeman when they are requested to do so, they will be committing an offence which is punishable by an immediate £100 fixed penalty fine, which will rise to up to £1,000 if the matter goes to court and they are found guilty. I think it is admirable that this Kent-based Council is taking active steps to try and counter the growing threat from individuals using such weapons, but I find it curious that this whole issue has not been addressed by the government so far. In my opinion, this is a national issue and needs to be addressed at a national level with proper laws and also checks and balances, not by what is basically a bylaw designed to counter antisocial behaviour in a local and somewhat restricted area. There is also a potential loophole in this new PSPO regulation but so far does not appear to have been recognised or addressed. Many of the local incidents of wildlife being attacked by youths using catapults have occurred near inland waterways, such as Southmere Lake in Thamesmead - photos above - click on either to see a larger view. Coarse anglers use low-powered catapults to project ground bait to attract fish into the area of water into which the angler is fishing, prior to potentially catching them with their rod and line. This is a non-destructive and non-violent use for a catapult, and I can potentially see issues ending in a legal challenge if a an angler was issued with a PSPO and decided to argue the matter in court. I am not legally trained, but it does strike me that an angler in such a situation would have a clear defence, and it could prove a legal loophole that a criminal youth could attempt if also stopped in an area covered by a PSPO, and tried to use the possession of a catapult as a fishing aid as a claim in their defence. As previously mentioned, whilst a local Council is taking positive measures to try and limit antisocial behaviour and the abuse of animals, I personally feel that the issue should be addressed at a national level. I would be interested in hearing the opinions and experiences of readers regarding this matter. Comments to me as usual to hugh.neal@gmail.com.
I got some very positive feedback regarding my article on the history of the offshore radio station Laser 558 last week. This week I am a little closer to home with two stories involving the BBC. Unfortunately, neither of these stories is in my opinion in any way positive, but they nevertheless need to be more widely reported. Firstly, the BBC are currently discussing various ways to increase their funding in the future, as they have lost well over 500,000 licence payers to BBC television and iPlayer. An increasing number of UK residents are rejecting the BBC licence fee, and instead just using paid streaming services such as Disney+, Netflix and Amazon Prime video. As a result, the BBC is having to make extensive cutbacks, as its income has been substantially reduced, and as a result it is predicted that the BBC will cut over 2,000 staff in the next year and also reduce the number of new programmes it produces. Personally, I think this will end up just in a vicious cycle with less new original content on BBC channels, and thus less incentive for viewers to watch. A lot of people are of the opinion that the current licence fee is an outdated concept that has no place in 21st century media broadcasting, and at the BBC either take advertising, or it should introduce a subscription model in a similar manner to the streaming services. Over the last 100 years the BBC has had a very cosy relationship with whichever government is in power and has had a pretty much guaranteed income. It is my opinion that this business model is now both outdated and broken, and by the number of people who are no longer paying for a BBC licence, it would appear that I am not alone and that this number is growing monthly. One proposal that the BBC have put forward is that the licence fee should be extended to cover people who just watch the likes of Netflix and Amazon Prime, even if they don't ever watch the BBC. This sounds like a bit of a digital mugging and extortion. I think this would be hugely controversial, and would also be amazingly unpopular. I think it would actually cause even more people to migrate away from the BBC. I do also know that digital channels on Freeview will be phased out over the next few years as the technology is being replaced. It is my opinion that one option for the BBC would be to cut most of their terrestrial broadcasts, and to put many more channels onto BBC iPlayer. They could then put this behind a paywall and charge people a subscription, as is already the case with the established streaming services. Personally, I cannot see why viewers should have to pay for something that they do not watch, and the BBC now has such such a huge number of repeats and programmes that get a very small viewing audience. It seems to me that they are sliding into irrelevance. As previously written, I have personal experience of working with BBC senior management in a role I undertook some years ago, I found with a few notable exceptions, their attitude was that of extreme entitlement and arrogance. Personally, I doubt that many of these senior staff at the BBC would last more than a year or so if the organisation had to become commercially responsible, rather than living on a guaranteed income. They seem to me like they worked for a 1970's government department with guaranteed employment and an index linked pension. Not like a modern media organisation at all. I have heard concerns and worries that long-running TV shows could disappear if this happened, but in reality these programmes are actually made by an independent production company called BBC Worldwide, not the BBC themselves. They just sell the end results to the BBC for broadcast. There would nothing to stop BBC Worldwide selling their TV productions to another broadcaster. They already sell a large number of shows around the world, and this actually generates a huge amount of income which ends up going into BBC coffers. Conveniently during debates about BBC funding, this is overlooked and not mentioned. A classic case of having your cake and eating it. As I have previously written, I historically had a direct business involvement with BBC senior management, I used to be a great fan of the organisation. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. More on this subject in the end video below.
Thanks the the regular reader and occasional contributor, who chooses to remain anonymous for the photograph above. Click on it to see a larger view. It shows the footpath which leads from Bexley Road, opposite Christ Church Erith down towards Erith Railway Station. This footpath was closed for several months due to remedial works to the drains and water pipes underneath the pavement. I have been informed by several readers who use the station on a regular basis that the work was taking far longer than they expected, and that for much of the time nothing appeared to be going on. Fortunately, the hoardings that surrounded the footpath and prevented pedestrians from using it have now been removed, and the paving blocks have been restored. This will save several minutes of walking time for people approaching the station by foot. It will also make access far easier for people in wheelchairs or parents with small children in buggies. All improvements to local stations are welcomed, but one thing that many locals have been aware of and complaining about for over a decade is the lack of step free access at Erith Station. At present, if you wish to use the London-bound platform and you are in a wheelchair or have a child's buggy and you are unable to use the stairs on the footbridge over the railway track, then you have to stay on the Kent bound side and take a train to Dartford, and use one off the lifts there and then come back on yourself through Slade Green and Erith, and then on towards London. Previous local MP Teresa Pearce spent years championing the cause of having a lift installed at Erith station, but to no avail. She is now enjoying a well-deserved retirement, and no longer lives locally. It does appear that the whole issue appears to have been quietly kicked into the long grass, and nothing seems to be happening to progress this long wished for enhancement.
And now for the second BBC related story; a subject which I have covered before, but since then more details have come to light. The BBC Radio 4 service on 198 kHz long wave is being shut down on the 27th of June this year. The official reason given by the BBC is that the transmitter equipment is at the end of its life and many of the components are no longer manufactured. They also say that the number of people listening to the long wave service does not justify the expense of running it. The first of these statements is incorrect. The transmitter valves, modulation transformers and other technical components of the long wave transmitters can all be re-manufactured. In fact, although they are very large and employ very high power, they are actually technology that is around a century old. Old there are many engineering companies capable of reproducing new components to match the old technical specifications. Secondly, whilst it is true that the absolute number of people listening to the 198 kilohertz long wave service is much reduced from the past, but the demographic is important. As many people who have listened to BBC Radio 4 on long wave will be aware, the shipping forecast is broadcast on this frequency. FM and DAB broadcasts lack the range to contact ships at sea, or aircraft in flight that are more than a few miles off the coast of Britain, whereas the long wave service is both extremely reliable and has a vastly longer range. It may be relatively old technology, but it fulfills its function better than many of the newer broadcasting methods available. Long wave is also very robust, and in the event of a national emergency such as an armed conflict or major disaster, it is more likely to still be available to communicate news and information to members of the public than other technologies. The BBC suggest that long wave listeners switch to DAB and online streaming, which is great until malicious hackers deliberately target those services, which are far more vulnerable to potential actions by bad actors. In my opinion, the real reason for terminating the 198 kHz long wave service for BBC Radio 4 is the cost of electricity. As previously mentioned in this blog update, the BBC is hemorrhaging its audience, and the amount of money being generated by the licence fee is plummeting. The cost of medium wave and long wave broadcasting is mainly down to the consumption of large amounts of electricity. In the BBC's favour, it has to be said that such transmissions are rather inefficient and do consume huge amounts of electricity. I just feel that the BBC should be more open and transparent about the real reasons for the termination of the service on the 27th of June. I also wonder if a third party will occupy the frequency once the BBC vacate it. This has been suggested to me by a number of former radio pirates. This is not unrealistic, as a similar behaviour has been noticed already on medium wave. As broadcasters vacate the medium wave band, a number of unlicensed stations have moved to occupy the frequencies. Their thinking being that listeners to the stations that used to occupy those positions on the dial quite possibly have the frequency stored on a radio preset whether it be at home, or in their car. If the pirates move onto the frequency they hope they can pick up new listeners, who may be unaware that the station they used to listen to is no longer on that channel. This quite possibly could be an act which leads the BBC into an area that I have dealt with on some occasions in the past - the law of unintended consequences.
As mentioned earlier in this week's blog update, the end video is primarily about the potential move of the BBC to extend the licence fee to those people who do not watch the BBC, record its programmes or use BBC iPlayer. A growing number of people are shunning the corporation, and exclusively watching streamed content from the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Apple TV, among others. The BBC proposal is that those people who do not watch BBC programmes should have to compulsorily pay a BBC licence fee anyway, and this would also be potentially extended to those who exclusively watch content on YouTube. The video below is by a very popular YouTuber, Daniel ShenSmith, who uses the YouTube handle of the Black Belt Barrister. He is a highly qualified, practising expert in the law of England and Wales. He is a barrister who has successfully taken part in a number of very high profile and influential trials. He describes himself thus:- "I am Daniel ShenSmith, a Master 7th Degree Black Belt and Barrister of England and Wales. I am also a qualified finance professional (mortgage advisor). The #BlackBeltBarrister channel provides legal, business, and financial guidance - Not a replacement for formal advice - on #law, #money, and legal matters. Formal advice can be very expensive". In the video, Daniel ShenSmith gives a an interesting insight into what would be required from any government that wanted to permit the BBC compulsorily charge the licence fee to individuals who do not use any of its services. He gives a legal opinion that to do this would require a change in the law, which in itself might prove to be illegal. He is of the opinion that if a government were to bring in legislation of this type, it would be as big a mistake as was made back when the community charge legislation, better known as the poll tax was brought in, which caused massive riots and huge levels of civil disobedience. Please give it a watch and see what you think, and please feel free to leave a comment at the usual address - hugh.neal@gmail.com.
