It starts off well enough, promising to 'discuss' the problems of the BBC, of which there are clearly many, from excessive expenses, through unbalanced programming, Strictly Come Dancing, to paedophile cover-ups. However, after a montage of familiar public intellectuals, including Terry Christian, Noel Edmunds and George Galloway, the talking heads degenerate into what appears to be a couple of taxi-drivers driven to the edge of a nervous breakdown by requests to pay a license fee.
This isn't a cheap jibe at taxi-drivers. One bloke is filmed sitting in his car, shouting. Banning the BBC is variously an attempt to silence the corporation because 'it is sucking the cock of the establishment', has 'nasty adverts... about the man coming round' to collect the license fee, 'they are all champagne charlies' and is a 'war propaganda outlet'. In the final moments, one anguished man warns that they are 'noncing the children'.
None of these issues necessitate banning the BBC: they do demand reform. But while I respect the right of the individuals to complain against the BBC, I question their strategy. In fact, I'm wondering whether this is actually a pro-BBC video. None of the people who give it laldy are named, or seem to have any particular authority on the subject. It reminds me of Chris Morris.
When I say authority, I don't mean social status. I mean either a reasoned argument or evidence of their knowledge.
The one question that it fails to ask, however, is that old classic: cui bono? Who gains by the BBC's banning? Could it be Rupert Murdoch, who has an interest in commercial television? Could it be politicians who are hiding their coke'n'breasts activities?
So, go Freedom of Speech... just back it up with something that isn't bellowing.
I don't have a television, though.