Letter: Jeremy Seabrook obituary
One of the more disappointing episodes in my career in the BBC Community Programme Unit involved Jeremy Seabrook, whom I greatly admired.
In 1987, in the wake of Margaret Thatcher's comment that she had 'a big job' to do in the inner cities, we had invited Jeremy to explore the CPU archive of 'public access' programmes relating to urban life, based on the personal view documentaries Open Door and Open Space for BBC Two.
We would select clips and film Jeremy talking to the people who had made the original films, to create an Open Space 'special' called Inner City Blues.
Jeremy was enthusiastic. All was going well until I got a phone call from the editor of CPU when setting up filming with Jeremy in Glasgow. At that time the BBC all too often ran in fear of upsetting Thatcher, so I was shocked but not surprised to hear the instruction to drop him from the programme, because he was 'too left wing'.
I protested, but it was no good, senior management was not for turning. We were at least able to complete the Open Space special with some clips. There was no presenter but one or two explanatory captions were based on Jeremy's ideas, but no one knew that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
4 days ago
- Spectator
Jeremy Clarkson should love the congestion charge
I confess that I suffer from CBS: Clarkson Bipolar Syndrome. I really like Jeremy: I bought my Land Rover Discovery 3 after he drove one up a mountain in Scotland, and I would happily have a pint with him at his new pub. He knows a lot about cars – but not so much about the economics of motoring. He, of all people, should love the congestion charge. I worked on transport policy in the late 1990s, and the fact that this charge was detested by liberals and conservatives alike suggests that we got the policy about right. Let me explain why you should love congestion charges too – at least in principle. (Sadiq Khan's 20 per cent increase of the London charge to £18 is a different question.) But first, let Jeremy set the scene with what he's said about it on Top Gear. 'I don't understand bus lanes. Why do poor people have to get to places quicker than I do?' And: 'There's something I just realised. I have to pay the congestion charge in this part of London. But the camera crew in the Lexus 4×4 don't because it's a hybrid. How fair is that?! I mean, it's not like I'm creating any pollution at all!' And there are lots of other quotes about unfair taxation and rights… The conservative critique can be categorised as: this is the state infringing on our liberties (freedom of movement); it is an attempt to raise revenue from motorists yet again; it doesn't affect the drivers of electric vehicles, who are exempt from the charge. First, the charge is not a tax – though Jeremy thinks it is – since you choose to pay a charge by choosing to drive into a congestion zone. You can also choose not to do that. Taxes are not optional – and the rationale for the congestion charge is, as the name suggests, to reduce congestion. In 2019, the average London motorist lost 149 hours a year to congestion. That's over six days spent in a car thanks to traffic. However, after the charge was introduced in 2003, the amount of traffic within the congestion zone was reduced by around 30 per cent. So, we can see there is a persistent problem, but we can also see that the charge goes some way to fixing it. This is exactly what the charge was designed to do: stop you stealing my time. When you sit in traffic, you are in my way – and I'm in yours – and that costs us all time. In economic terms, without a congestion charge, you pay the private marginal costs of driving but not the social marginal costs. Once it's introduced, the monetary cost of driving better reflects these overall costs. As an aside, the congestion charge is not – or should not – be used to reduce pollution, which ought to be captured in a different charge. (By exempting electric cars, as Jeremy rightly pointed out, it is being used in that way in London.) The price we've assigned to the cost of clogging up central London's roads is £15. Don't want to pay it? Don't use up space and leave the roads emptier for people like Jeremy. Think a little about the broader economics: the median wage in central London is somewhere between £25 and £40 per hour, depending on how you calculate it. So, if I can save you 30 minutes, there's a good chance you have broken even (time is money). For someone like Jeremy – reportedly worth £55 million and making around £10 million a series for The Grand Tour – he can cover the cost of the congestion charge in no time at all. The faster he gets to the studio or production company offices, the more economic value he can bring. And think about those delivery drivers, the florists with the dinky vans, the cab drivers – if you're on the road all day, getting the rest of us out of your way is a bargain at 15 quid. Jeremy, you have a right to drive where you want – but not a right to get in my way for free. Jeremy, you have a right to drive where you want – but not a right to get in my way for free Then we come to the progressive case against the congestion charge – those who argue on behalf of people who are not as rich as Jeremy. First, I should note that most journeys in London were not made by car even before the charge was introduced by Ken Livingstone. But that is not the point: the rationale for the charge is to stop you stealing my time – or at least make you pay for the theft. It is not about fairness. If poorer people get in the way, they steal the same amount of time as rich people do – and the charge applies to all. Change your behaviour (don't drive at congested times) or choose to pay for the consequences of your choices. Why should my flowers cost more because you got in the way of the van delivering them? Excess traffic costs London £4.9 billion a year. Instead of wasting that time, we should give time back to people and allow them to spend it making money. Then that can be taxed and redistributed fairly – if that is the policy choice you want to make. But trying to exempt poor people from the charge is economically inefficient. Even committees of the House of Commons, in numerous reports, have complained about the distributional effects of the congestion charge – as well as including it in discussions about pollution. Again, parliamentarians have missed the point. Richer and poorer alike should stop the steal. London is arguably the most congested city in Europe. It costs each of us huge amounts of time – and the economy huge amounts of money. Those who add to that cost should be expected to pay for that.
Evening Standard
5 days ago
- Evening Standard
‘Ridiculous' for Channel 4 to start making in-house TV shows, says Sony
Mr Kosminsky told the BBC Two current affairs programme Newsnight that Adolescence, which explores themes such as incel culture and bullying and has been a global hit for Netflix, is a 'fantastic programme', but the streaming giant would not make the show if it was not successful outside the UK.
Daily Mail
30-04-2025
- Daily Mail
Ex-chancellor Jeremy Hunt backs social media ban for under-16s saying Brits will 'wonder why we didn't do it sooner'
Ex-chancellor Sir Jeremy Hunt has thrown his support behind a ban on social media for under-16s. The senior Tory MP said it was a 'no-brainer' to stop children accessing sites such as Instagram and TikTok as he voiced fears about the impact on society. At the end of this year, Australia is set to ban children under 16 from using social media with hefty potential fines for tech companies if they don't comply. Sir Jeremy told Sky News he would vote in favour of similar laws in the UK if they were proposed in the House of Commons. 'In a few years time, we'll look back and say why didn't we do that earlier?,' the ex-Cabinet minister said. The father-of-three admitted he was 'worried' about the impact that social media was having on youngsters, including the 'addictiveness' of sites. Sir Jeremy also voiced concerns about the effect of social media on 'people's ability to form relationships with other human beings'. He said 'progress' had been made on limiting the threat of online harms for children - such as restricting access to pornography - but suggested there was more to do. 'I think it's important to say that we have made progress and it is harder, for example, for kids to access porn than it used to be,' Sir Jeremy said. 'I recognise we're in a better place than we were. But the thing that worries me most -my kids are 10, 13, and 14 - and what worries me is the addictiveness. 'They're not on social media, we don't let them have social media accounts. But they go on to TikTok or YouTube Shorts and we can lose them for two hours. 'They're just tuned out. That worries me.' He added: 'To anyone young I'm going to sound like a real fuddy-duddy, but I worry about people's ability to form relationships with other human beings. 'Because I think, actually, to form a friendship it needs to be face-to-face. You need to spend time with people. You need to have the patience to hear people out. 'And I do worry that social media is making that much harder. So, to cut to the chase, I would support moves to ban social media for the under-16s. 'I know it's been talked about in other countries, personally I would support that as a dad.'
