Saturday, 14 April 2018

Western Media push for 3rd world war


Is the BBC pushing us into a War with Russia?



Just a few questions every Prayer Crusader should ask and pray about:
  • Why does the fanatically anti-Russian BBC take every opportunity to attack Russia and her allies?
  • The BBC hates the Syrian Government but why are they favouring militant Islamic groups that are simply terrorists. It's simply not proven that Syria is using chemical weapons - why should Syria, they are winning?
  • The Government are doing the BBC's bidding and so are the other ridiculous main stream media newspapers such as the hideous Sun and Daily Mail which  support the illegal action by Britain the US and France!
The answer is quite simple, Russia is one of the few Christian countries that still regards homosexual acts are sinful and are not afraid to say so. And the homosexual led western media will do anything to get at Russia - anything! Even to the point of bringing us to a world war!

By Prayer Crusader St Philomena


Friday, 13 April 2018

The Communion of Saints verses the Cult of Celebrity - St Bernadette Vs Madonna

St Bernadette a true Role Model

In her complete and unquestioning acceptance of God’s will Saint Bernadette Soubirous can be a guiding example to us all.
              Born in 1844 to a miller and his wife, François and Louise Soubirous, who were already on a downward path caused by their own fecklessness. At nine months she was sent to a wet-nurse at Bartrès, a few miles from Lourdes. She was nineteen months old when she returned home.
              When she was ten her parents were evicted from their mill because of failure to pay the rent. At eleven Bernadette was sent to live with her godmother, her Aunt Bernarde, to help with the housework. When she returned home two years later her parents and brothers and sisters were living in the damp, disused town jail.  Soon she was sent away again – back to Bartrès – to help her foster mother Marie Langrès with her children. In return she was to be taught her Catechism.  As it turned out, she was not taught her Catechism but was sent to work minding sheep. In all this Bernadette never complained. It was God’s Will. It must be right. However, she deeply missed the family she loved so much. She was almost fourteen when she was allowed to return home.
              Soon after her return she saw, several times, a joy-bringing Apparition of a young and pure Heavenly Girl. She was forbidden to return to the cave behind the rubbish-tip at Massabielle. She wept, but did not complain. She managed to wring the longed-for permission from her father in the end. She was invited to stay in the comfortable home of a pious lady, but soon chose to return home, to be with her family. Eventually, at fifteen, she was sent regularly to school, and afterwards lived with the Sisters who ran it, the lowest of the low among them. Yet there was never a complaint from her lips. All around her the Lourdes we know today was germinating, despite bitter opposition from the authorities. They even threatened Bernadette with prison if she did not admit she was mistaken about the apparitions.
              In 1864, at the age of 22, Bernadette entered the Noviciate of the Sisters, miles away in Nevers. We are told she was always afraid of being sent away. Finally the day of her Profession made this impossible. She who had so often been “sent away” was now safe. Bernadette was happy in the convent in spite of constant ill health through her asthma, and persecution by the Novice Mistress, who of course was out of her depth before such simplicity and unquestioning acceptance. Bernadette said she liked to make a little chapel by drawing her veil close around her face. Inside that private space she could be alone with her beloved Lord.
              Her health deteriorated. To her asthma were added tubercular abscesses.  Yet she was always cheerful. She was obedient and respectful, but sometimes ready with a shrewd or pithy comment too. She said the work God had given her was to be ill and that the healing power of Lourdes was for others, not for her. She died in 1880, aged 36. Her final agony lasted four months. She never complained. It was God’s will. Bernadette’s life was given, from beginning to end. Given – for us. What a role model!

By Prayer Crusader St Bernadette



Madonna a false role model

Madonna and the fires of hell on stage.
To close for comfort, or am I being judgemental?
Many celebrities seem to live their lives in a way that are the diametrically opposite to those of the saints. This cult of celebrity has great influence because their lives are communicated by the mass media to the rest of the world. This can be very corrosive particularly as role models for vulnerable and young. Below we discuss the influence and career of the pop singer Madonna, who has had enormous influence on young girls and women.

Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritche was born is Bay City, Michigan, United States in 1958. In the late 1970s she moved to New York to work as a dancer. By the early 1980s after working with two pop groups she released her first solo album Madonna. It was her second album Like a Virgin that propelled to international success and notoriety. By the time this album was released she had honed her own very stylised and subversive blend of Catholic imagery with sexual themes. These themes and images became ever more outrageous as the decade wore on, with subsequent albums called True Blue and Like a Prayer.  Her styles of dress became very popular with young girls and women.
By the time she embarked on the Who's That Girl Tour in 1988 the Vatican became so concerned by her antics, that Pope John Paul II urged Italian fans not to attend her concerts. It is sad fact regarding the media and celebrity culture that they thrive on controversy gleefully amplifying any scandal which make protecting the young and innocent extremely difficult. However, the intervention of the Pope was very timely for in early 1989, Pepsi, the soft drink manufacturer withdrew from endorsement deal with Madonna. She had produced a commercial for Pepsi in which she debuted her new song Like a Prayer.  The commercial and subsequent music video exploited many Catholic images such as the stigmata, and also showed burning crosses. Pepsi tried to convince the public that the commercial was not inappropriate but failed.
In 1990 Madonna drew even more criticism with her Blond Ambition World Tour. Especially her very controversial performance of "Like a Virgin" during which two male dancers caressed her body before she simulated masturbation. When the tour reached Italy a lay association of Catholics, called Famiglia Domani, campaigned for a boycotted. Also in 1990 Madonna released her first greatest hits compilation album, The Immaculate Collection, which included two new songs: One was released as a single and like most of her songs reached number one. Its music video featured scenes of sadomasochism, bondage, same-sex kissing and brief nudity.
              In October 1992 she produced a glossy coffee table book called Sex the content of which is so pornographic and spiritually deadening that I have decided not to list the perversions depicted in it. Sufficed to say that it featured many other celebrities who entered into the books spirit of depravity, one of which was Naomi Campbell Madonna’s record company Warner brothers who were to release the book through their Warner Books brand made her sign a contract that it would not include any photographs depicting religious imagery or bestiality etc. Madonna of course ignored the contract for she then formed her own multi-media company Maverick, over which she negotiated a contract with Warner Books that gave her full artistic control. She then ignored the earlier contract and demonstrated her nefarious power by including two photos that the first contract would have excluded and Warner executives could do nothing. Warner restricted books release to the English, French, Italian and Japanese languages. While the Japanese authorities quickly moved to ban the book, in the West the book sold out without even lifting an establishment eyebrow. Here we see Christendom gagged and bound by the Media. Even if any Western country had banned this book the dictatorial liberal exponents in media conglomerates like the BBC would have led the howls for free speech etc.
              Madonna’s personal life is just as dissolute (and public) as her show business one. After divorcing her husband actor Sean Penn in 1989 she had a string of affairs and also speculation about Naomi Campbell and Sandra Bernhard. Madonna met fitness trainer Carlos Leon, in Central Park in September 1994. In 1996, she gave birth to their daughter Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon. Madonna met director Guy Ritchie, in 1999 through mutual friend, Sting. In August 2000 she gave birth to their son Rocco who was baptized by Church of Scotland Minister Susan Brown, who also presided over the marriage ceremony of Madonna and Richie at Skibo Castle the next day. Madonna is a divorced Catholic and Ritchie is a Protestant, Ms Brown is well known for her ‘progressive’ views. In October 2008 a spokeswoman announced the Madonna and Richie are to divorce.
              Madonna has been a devotee of the Kabbalah Centre in London since the late 1990s. The Kabbalah is a form of Jewish mysticism with overtones of the Occult. Madonna has donated $21 million towards a Kabbalah school for children.
              Madonna has had enormous influence over many impressionable young women, she is very rich and powerful. Together with many other celebrities they continue to lead society away from Jesus. We must pray for Madonna and the poor souls she may have influenced that they may repent and return to Jesus.

By Prayer Crusader St Philomena 

Saturday, 31 March 2018

Save the 8th amendment


The Irish Referendum


                      What is the referendum in Ireland about? Well, it is about light v darkness. How did it come to this? What course did it take? I will try to answer.
                     In 1983 Ireland had a very divisive - I mean very, very divisive - referendum and referendum campaign leading up to the referendum. I remember it well as I campaigned on the pro- life side, with a truck load of pro-aborts hurling abuse at us when they came across us. The two main pro-life groups at the time were the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (S.P.U.C.) (which I campaigned with) and the Pro Life Amendment Campaign(P.L.A.C.). There were many liberals who wanted to introduce abortion to feel ‘with it’ among the nations that had introduced abortion. Thankfully Ireland was a more Catholic country then than it is now, and there was a sizeable amount of politicians who were against abortion. There was at that time scant protection for the unborn in the law, only an English law dating back to 1861 which was somewhat vague. So it was decided to put it to the people and to hold a referendum.  As I said, it was a very acrimonious debate. And no surprise, with the media constantly against us slinging mud at every turn.
              Despite this the people through the grace of God decided that they did not want abortion and said a big NO with two thirds of the people voting against abortion. Thank God. The people had spoken. The constitution was amended and article 40.3.3 was inserted into the constitution, that ‘the state acknowledges the equal right to life of the unborn with due regard to the right to life of the mother’. I’m quoting this from memory. To put it basically the unborn child was seen as a person with equal rights. The only time when a pregnancy could be terminated was if the mother ‘s life was in danger, as this was not the direct intentional killing of the unborn but giving the mother the necessary life saving treatment that she needed where the unfortunate side effect of this is the death of the baby. So this became law and it could not be removed by politicians (praise God) as the constitution can only be changed by the people in a referendum. So basically the whole thing backfired on the pseudo liberals. They could not change it now. From the pro-life point of view Ireland was the jewel in the crown with its prominent protection of unborn children. And a lot of people didn’t like this.
 This  was the 8th amendment to the constitution. And is known as the 8th amendment or in current debates is commonly referred to as the 8th.                  
                           It was going to be hard for the pro-aborts to change this law. They didn’t go away. They constantly criticised and challenged this law (via the media) and sought for every opportunity to undermine it. Many pseudo liberal politicians, media and medical practitioners and others sought for loopholes.  Some opportunities came in 1999 and in 2003 when the people were again asked to vote on certain issues, such as: should women have the right to information about abortion abroad and have the right to travel to the UK to have an abortion, to which the people voted yes. (Sadly the commitment to life was beginning to wane somewhat as Ireland was being de-Catholicised most notably through sex abuse scandals and being constantly exploited by the media). Though the people still voted no to abortion in Ireland, thank God. Then there arose cases known as the x case and the c case where there was rape of minors. Here is a particular point of case which the media exploited non stop.
              Here entered  the European courts. They did their dirty work and told Ireland they had to change their pro-life laws, though they had no right to do so, to interfere in the laws of an individual nation. The politicians only too readily wanted to respond willingly to their bloodthirsty desires; only one small problem: article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution stood between them and cruelly executing young Irish children. From this point onwards steam was building, with Ireland being now a member of the EU and them giving us our money (I say 'our' money as it’s not their money. Where do they get their money? Only from the people of the individual nations). Their viceroys, Irish politicians, are getting somewhat hot under the collar, when they’re getting rapped across the knuckles and being asked why they are not introducing abortion. This was to become more pronounced when Ireland needed a bail-out and Ireland had to receive bail-outs from ECB and IMF. From this point onward the EU pressure was really on and Ireland was at their bidding. Hence Irish politicians introduced in 2013 the so called ‘protection of life during pregnancy act’, a point in case of evil being called good (I won’t go in to the ins and outs of all these different scenarios and legislations) where abortion was introduced if the woman claimed she was suicidal. From here there was the referendum on ‘gay marriage’; sadly this was passed by the people in a referendum with unrelenting support by the media.
              From here it was a free for all. They were emboldened. They were going to go all out to get their debauched way. Next on their list was the constant thorn in their flesh: the jewel in the pro-life crown. That which is standing between their bloodthirsty desires and the cruel slaughter of the most vulnerable innocents. That which rouses their greatest ire. That which is preventing them from fully rejoicing in depravity (no matter how they dress it up otherwise, like compassion), article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution. They have set their sights on it for a long time from within Ireland and around the world. Billionaires such as George Soros and Chuck Feeney and many others have been funding its destruction for a long time. It is the holy grail (or unholy grail). With subterfuge, spurious arguments, downright lies and arrogance they have got around to putting it to the people once again. Even that which has happened i.e. the political process, in the last sixteen months is surreal. All the events that led to the setting up of what is known as the citizens assembly (C.A.). The politicians, afraid to make the decision to have the referendum, off loaded it to the C.A. which was loaded. Loaded in many ways. Loaded with pro-aborts . Overseen by pro-aborts. Pro-aborts brought in to address it. The outcome, surprise surprise; they advocated abortion on demand up to 22 weeks. The government rubber-stamped this decision save only that they would reduce it to 12 weeks (knowing that 22 weeks was too radical. For now). It saved them the messy business of these controversial decisions. I’m just dealing with this whole process very fleetingly. It would cover a book in itself. The whole thing was a travesty. A farce from beginning to end.
                   The plot thickened about three weeks ago The supreme court heard a case in exceptional circumstances. The case was rushed through. It was a case appealed by the state. A case heard by the high court which stated that the unborn child had other rights apart from the right to life. It was taken by a Nigerian man who was to be deported. He claimed that he should not be deported because he was the father of an unborn child and the child had a right to a father. The government disagreed (most likely because it would have scuppered the chances of the government to have a referendum to have their way to introduce abortion. The government and all political parties are campaigning for abortion, except one very small party) and challenged the high court decision. Seven judges of the supreme court ‘reflected’ on the issue and said no, the unborn child does not have any rights except the right to life as stated in article 40.3.3.  This contradicted many judgements handed down by the courts over the decades. This appeal was rushed through in a matter of months where it normally takes years for an appeal to come before the high court. The head judge of the supreme court who was one of the seven is a known public advocate of abortion.
                    So the government is doing everything it can to have the referendum on May 25th, before all the students go off for the summer break and before the Pope comes to Ireland (there is the danger that he could influence people towards being pro-life). The Church has been very quiet. It is being pushed through the Dail stages at break neck speed. Now the campaigning is on. (The latest Irish times opinion poll puts the repeal, to give them a polite title, side at 56% while the retain the 8th gets 26% if you believe the Irish Times).  It is up to the people of Ireland to decide, to see through all the lies. It is an uphill battle. The last comparable poll put the repeal side at 60% and retain at 20%. So the gap is closing due to much hard work by pro-life people and the grace of God.
These are just some bullet points on the situation regarding the referendum at the moment. If anyone reading this has a vote in Ireland, please strongly consider coming home and casting your vote for life. Or if you know anyone who has a vote please encourage them to come home and vote for life. Pray that Ireland once more witnesses to the dignity of life in all its stages from conception, that Ireland could be a beacon of light to all the pro-life people and unborn around the world. The stakes are so high it cannot be overestimated.
              I remain optimistic. Most of all I trust in God from whom all help comes. If God is for us, who can be against us? The battle is mine, says the Lord.

By Prayer Crusader St Rita, Dublin 

Friday, 16 March 2018

A Letter to TV Licensing


  • A warning to TV Licensing that I will video and post their visit.


Dear TV Licensing,

Please understand that I do not watch TV nor do I have one. In fact I would not watch TV if you paid me! As a Catholic I am disgusted by the TV particularly the BBC with its amassed history of bigotry, indecency, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, and all your neo-Nazi, pagan tactics, that you thinly dress up as an being even handed when you are the most biased organisation on earth.

If your inspector does call let me warn you that I will video the event and post it on line on the blog and on You Tube, I will attempt to convert the poor brain wasted inspector to give up his heathen job. 

I have informed my MP of your annoying letter and I hope this form of harassment will stop.

Friday, 2 March 2018

St Michael the Archangel fighting against abortion


One finds St. Michael in the most unlikely places



… such as on the wall of an abortion clinic.

I was alerted to this fact by a prayer leaflet from the GoodCounselNetwork, left in the church I attend. The full story, plus a photograph of the plaque showing St. Michael, below the Marie Stopes signboard, can be read here:


Briefly, it appears that the building, in Mattock Lane, Ealing, was originally a house with a private chapel. Both chapel and house were bought in the 1930s by Dorothy Kerin, a devout Anglo-Catholic who had herself experienced healing, judged miraculous, from complications of tuberculosis.  Having previously rented a house in Ealing called St. Raphael's as a House of Spiritual Healing, Dorothy Kerin needed a bigger venue as St. Raphael's was proving inadequate for the number of people coming to it.  She bought both the chapel (St. Michael's) and the house, and they were used for healing until 1948, when she and her ministry moved to Kent.  The buildings came into the possession of Middlesex County Council, and it seems that St. Michael's was run as a maternity home (though this is not entirely clear from the story on the website), until in 1993 it was bought by Marie Stopes International since when it has been run as an abortion clinic.

From maternity home to abortion clinic, how ironic is that? The leaflet asks that we pray for the closure of the clinic, saying one Our Father, three Hail Marys, and the prayer to St. Michael, daily if possible. St. Michael is still powerful, and he is still there. Indeed, his plaque seems to be incorporated into the wall, whereas the Marie Stopes board is an add-on and could easily be removed if and when the clinic ceases to function.

By Prayer Crusader St Teresa of Avila

Friday, 23 February 2018

Future of British Broadcasting part 6


The final part of Our Proposals for the

Future of British Broadcasting 




An Alternative to the Alternative


If CUT's recommendations for new services are not adopted and a decision is made to retain a broadcasting platform on approximately the current basis with regard to broadcasting content, there is no reason why it should produce any of its content 'in house'. The dissolution of the drama, factual and light entertainment sections of the BBC, allowing for the formation of more independent companies than exist at present and the sale of movables to them, may be accomplished within a framework preserving current broadcasting structures if it is thought desirable to maintain those structures, although the purpose of doing so becomes ever less clear. If commissioning and production remain within one organisation, it will always be inclined to produce 'in house' in order to reduce costs (or apparent costs), making the quota process necessary if it is to be obliged to buy in programmes, but what is the purpose of that obligation if there is no intention to make a transition? Separation between content and delivery systems is standard across the utilities sector; why should television be different from gas or electricity in this respect? The delivery platforms may be privatised at some convenient point when H.M. Government thinks fit.

Conclusion


In summary, whilst abolition of the BBC would mean a substantial reconfiguration of our media landscape, nothing of any value whatever would be lost. We would instead see greater impartiality, more plurality, and increased opportunities for public engagement with the work of local and national government. Arguably, the current system might once have been useful, but it is now thoroughly outmoded, doing unnecessary work and leaving undone much that is either necessary or desirable. The sooner the process of transition begins, the sooner we will have a system fit for the twenty-first century.  If H.M. Government makes no commitment to initiate transition the Secretary of State should indicate whether she imagines that the BBC is sustainable on an indefinite basis, or whether H.M. Government accepts that it is simply delaying the inevitable. No decision should be made on this subject without taking into account the popular discontent that will result if failure to plan a transition leaves H.M. Government having to bail out the BBC when the system collapses because people refuse to carry on paying for services they do not want just to get the ones they do.

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

Saturday, 10 February 2018

Future of British Broadcasting 5



Independence and impartiality


The BBC exploits the ambiguity of its position, claiming independence or public status as it pleases to its own benefit; its attitude toward the licence fee is an example of this.  Whether or not any other aspects of our reform proposals are accepted, what is necessary is a clear statement that the public sector broadcaster is an executive agency of H.M. Government whose employees should observe the standards usual across the Civil Service with particular reference to the relationship with H.M. Government and any particular administration. At present 'impartiality' is interpreted in terms of independence from H.M. Government, manifested in displays of antagonism towards the administration of the day whichever Party might be in office, but impartiality is readily understood across the Civil Service. This redefinition is necessary if the work of the public sector broadcaster is to be integrated with that of other agencies and Government Departments.

The status of the public sector broadcaster should be reflected in its governance structures. There should be a management board answerable to a board of governors who should be civil servants drawn from relevant Departments. The public sector broadcaster should be accountable to both H.M. Government and Parliament in precisely the same manner as any other public office or agency.

Terms of the next Royal Charter

The media landscape has been transformed by technological advances over the course of the last decade so there could be no possible justification for the grant of a Royal Charter that would be almost certain to leave the BBC several years behind the times when it expires.

If, at the Mid-term Review, the Secretary of State indicates an intention to replace the current service with one more appropriate to modern conditions, the present Royal Charter might be succeeded by another for a two year term, followed by others for one or two year terms as necessary. If no indication is given at the Mid-Term Review, the next Royal Charter should be for a term of no more than four years again followed by successive shorter terms. This will allow the necessary reforms to be implemented without undue delay as and when they become pressing.



An Alternative in Clear Vision

The BBC achieved incorporation by making essentially fraudulent claims, and retained its status by deceit, scaremongering and self-serving propaganda campaigns. It has now become so much an established part of national life that abolition is considered unthinkable, yet a phased abolition is clearly desirable to attain the balanced media landscape necessary in the 21st century.

We set out below a set of alternative proposals for public sector broadcasting with public purposes of broadcasting in support of public policy, and acting as an organ of accountability by making the work of Parliament and H.M. Government visible to the general public.
 

Our proposals are as follows: 

     A Royal Charter of no more than four years, extended by one or two years at a time should be granted to achieve a smooth transition within twelve years. Because it is dependent upon the Royal Charter, the BBC is legally incompetent to contract for goods, staff or services beyond the Charter term; but it might well have done so, and a short Charter will enable possible litigation to be avoided as any such contracts would come to light and most would be able to run their course within the transition period, redundancy payments may also be avoided.
     BBC News and Sport, with which news reporting has close connections, should be privatised as a single company. Retention of the news service within the public sector makes it difficult for audiences overseas to regard the BBC News as anything other than the opinion of H.M. Government; it also contributes to the confusion between independence and impartiality that has sometimes led the BBC to see its rôle as being to oppose whichever administration happens to be in office. The DDCMS might find it desirable to have a certain amount of sport broadcast in the public sector when the nature of the sport in question, or the level at which it is played, make the competitions at issue unattractive to commercial broadcasters.
     Responsibility for and management of the BBC Monitoring unit should pass to the FCO.
     All properties held by the BBC should be transferred to a new agency operating under the auspices of the DCLG's Local Government and Public Services Group. We would envisage most leases being allowed to lapse, or being passed to successor organisations in the private sector. It is likely that a privatised BBC News would wish to continue to occupy a large part of New Broadcasting House as a permanent tenant. Other properties owned by the BBC should be sold, leased to successor companies, or handed over for community or academic use. Movables should be sold unless desirable for display in museums. At some point, the new agency might have its work conducted by a private sector contractor, or else be privatised outright.
     There can be no justification for providing drama, light entertainment or the majority of factual and documentary programming within the public sector. It must be noted that there is no category of television programme in which the BBC has not been bested in the relevant industry awards, and even in radio where there is little competition, there is no qualitative difference between independent productions and those made in house; there would, therefore, be no loss of breadth or quality by closing these BBC departments. There might be some justification for the public sector broadcaster's commissioning programmes about the public sector; but they would have to be produced independently, and even then there would still be a significant danger of their degeneration into propaganda in support of maintaining the status quo.
     Intellectual property and income from archives should be used to provide an income stream for the Arts Council. It is likely that popular series, serials and formats would continue to be produced under licence agreements, and that existing recordings would continue to be broadcast both in the UK and abroad.
     The impartiality required of the public sector broadcaster should be that of other public bodies and of the Civil Service; it should support the broad objectives of HM Government e.g. to promote British exports and invisibles. The extent to which it should support specific policies is more contentious; we recommend that it should not promote Government policy, but should act in support of it – a distinction readily understood across the Civil Service.      
     The principal purpose of the public sector broadcaster should be to serve as an organ of accountability enabling the general public to see and hear what is done on their behalf with their taxes. If this option is taken, the service should be paid for from general taxation without additional charge. We would envisage two services: one to broadcast (over several television and radio networks) on the work subsidised by the Arts Council; the other to broadcast parliamentary proceedings, public information films and, perhaps, documentaries about public services or other publicly funded activities (as noted above, any such programmes should be commissioned from independent companies) as required by H.M. Government.
     The Arts Council should be expanded by the addition of a new section to handle the work currently performed by the BBC in identifying, developing and promoting talent in popular genres of music; it should also take on the BBC orchestras and the whole or partial sponsorship of music or literary festivals where that is desirable. On the other hand, broadcasting readily available and well publicised recordings produced by large companies amounts to free advertising and is not a suitable activity for a public sector broadcaster but should be left to commercial broadcasters. We would envisage an arts and culture broadcasting service administered by the Arts Council, with content – plays, concerts, readings etc. - from those in receipt of subsidies, but also broadcasting on items and properties 'given to the nation' in lieu of taxes, and on museum or gallery collections, archives, libraries and any other aspect of our national heritage or the creative industries in which public money is invested.
     We would envisage a World Service administered by the British Council with the advice of the Commonwealth Institute. The content would be drawn principally from the arts and culture service described above. In addition, the World Service would maintain the language services, which would continue to produce educational and edifying drama; however, as all journalists would be transferred to the privatised news service, they would translate news for broadcast rather than originating news content. The World Service would contract for the provision of an impartial news service from a British provider i.e. BBC News, ITN or Sky News, all of which are generally regarded as equivalent in quality and impartiality. Funding should come from a combination of Government grants (mainly from DfID with smaller amounts from the FCO and DBEIS) and advertising.
     There is a crisis in plurality in the radio market with particular respect to news and other non-music broadcasting. The abolition of the BBC should ensure that content providers are available for documentaries, light entertainment and drama made for broadcast if broadcasters find sufficient audiences to make these economically viable. Restrictions as to the nature of broadcasting licences should be reduced to a significant extent with particular reference to cross-media ownership and religious broadcasters. Other efforts should also be made to draw new entrants into the market. Consideration might be given to allowing news broadcasting to be accurate but not impartial with explicitly editorial material interleaved amongst journalistic reports if that would persuade newspaper publishers to be amongst those new entrants.
     A schools/homeschooling and universities service broadcasting via the internet is clearly desirable, but it is uncertain whether any public sector involvement would be necessary. It is likely that the World Service would wish to broadcast material supplied by such a service.
     It is likely that broadcasting in the indigenous minority languages will have to continue to be funded publicly, although it might well be commissioned from independent companies. We would recommend that responsibility for funding these services should be remitted to the devolved administrations with the exception of Cornish language broadcasting, decisions regarding which should be taken by the DDCMS in consultation with the DCHLG and local authorities in the Duchy. In all cases, news content should not be provided by the public sector.  We recommend that where a decision to subsidise is made, the subsidy should be payable to any broadcaster capable of providing audited listening or viewing figures, and should generally be paid on a basis proportionate to the size of that audience. We would envisage Cornish, Irish, Ulster Scots and Scots programmes appearing alongside English programmes, with separate Welsh and Gaelic services as at present. All such services should strive to attract advertising (as S4C already does) both as a source of revenue and to normalise use of these languages. Abolition of the BBC would increase opportunities at the local, regional and national levels as well as on a UK-wide basis, and that should favour a growth in the availability of IML programming when required.  
     In commissioning programmes for broadcast at home or abroad the Arts Council and British Council should have a duty not simply to 'support' indigenous minority languages, as the BBC has (BBC Charter 14(5)), but to promote their use. In fulfilling this obligation they will be advised by the relevant ministers in the devolved legislatures or their nominees and those nominated by the DCLG in consultation with local authorities in the Duchy of Cornwall to ensure that adequate provision is made. The British Council-administered international service should ensure that diaspora communities are assisted in learning their ancestral languages, and receive regular, varied and interesting broadcasts in those languages to strengthen their cultural identity and forge links with their forebears' historic homes. Examples might include Welsh broadcasts to Argentina, Cornish broadcasts to Australia, and Scots, Ulster Scots and Irish broadcasts to North America. IML broadcasting on the Arts Council-administered service would be in addition to any programmes directly commissioned for broadcast elsewhere and would consist of theatre pieces, popular and classical music and readings from the publications of subsidised presses.  Cornwall clearly requires a regional Arts Council separate from that covering the South West of England if administrative matters relating to its language and culture are to be handled efficiently, knowledgeably and sensitively. 
     Under the Belfast Agreement H.M. Government is obliged to guarantee subsidised broadcasting in the Irish language, but there is no obligation to do so via a public sector broadcaster rather than through an open offer to any broadcaster for general interest programming or a tendering process for specific commissions.  Irish language broadcasting subsidised by United Kingdom taxpayers should concentrate largely on matters concerning the United Kingdom.  
Authority for media regulation should be a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, and treated as a devolved matter in Northern Ireland although treaty obligations noted above preclude complete devolution.  When H.M. Government or one of the devolved administrations decides to sponsor or subsidise programming of a particular type or on specific subjects any broadcaster should be eligible to receive the payment. Examples might include programmes featuring the application of new legislation; or, as detailed above, programming in one of the indigenous minority languages. In each case the administration responsible should specify whether the payment is to be made irrespective of audience figures, or whether it should be related to independently audited viewing/listening figures. In the former case there must always be at least some minimum audience figure, even if it is very small indeed, rather than having a payment made absolutely irrespective of viewer or listener numbers. Where there is to be a single contract it should be subject to competitive tendering with considerations of quality as well as cost and social factors.

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard