196 Responses to OPEN THREAD

←Older Comments
  1. Guest Who says:
    May 10, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    My first ‘Trust us, we’re the BBC’.
    Bit disappointing as, like their red-eyed* boy, they seem to have rather phoned it in…
    —
    Dear Sirs,

    Noting this:

    For these reasons, the Head of Editorial Standards does not believe that your appeal has a reasonable prospect of success in front of the Trustees.
    If you wish the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision

    … if without surprise, I am compelled to respond within the short deadline you set licence fee payers, vs. the open-ended, endless ones accorded your own staff.

    Our Ref: xx
    10 May 2012
    “Credit rating warning: George Osborne v Ed Balls”, BBC News Website
    I am responding to your appeal of 3 April 2012 to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) regarding the above article by Nick Robinson. This follows the decision by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) of 26 March not to uphold your complaint. Your appeal concerns Mr Robinson’s alleged failure to meet the requirements for due accuracy and due impartiality in the above blog.
    Firstly, I should explain that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of the role of the BBC Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. You can find full details of the Complaints Framework and Trust appeals procedure’s here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/protocols_policy/compliance_oversight.shtml
    I am therefore writing this response on behalf of Francesca O’Brien, the Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards, who has given me her decision.

    Having waded through all that, I shall look forward to hearing, if not from her, your version of her justifications.

    The relevant correspondence has been reviewed by the Trust Unit and the Head of Editorial Standards has read the article in question. Having considered the matter carefully, the Head of Editorial Standards does not consider that your appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and therefore does not propose to proceed in putting your appeal to the ESC. I would like to explain why.

    So… having been told it was a decision by another, you are going to provide the explanation? OK.

    The Trust’s Editorial Appeals procedure states that:
    Your appeal must raise a matter of substance – in particular, that, in the opinion of the Trust, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to answer. Consideration will also be given to whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost effective for the Trust to address an appeal.

    At this juncture, let me point out a rather glaring issue here. This is the BBC Trust, adjudicating on the BBC ECU, adjudicating on BBC complaints, adjudicating on a BBC programme/employee’s words and/or(mis)deeds.

    And the BBC Trust is now telling me, a compelled licence fee-paying stakeholder, what I must do in satisfying your internal beliefs on what constitutes matters of substance?

    Good start.

    May I point out two recent, topical things that transpired on your broadcast systems.

    One was the Trust head of BBC complaints saying, on Newswatch, that ‘just because [you] think you are right does not make you right’ I think he thought he was referring only to those who complain to the BBC, but it does apply to the BBC in all its incarnations too. Or do you disagree?

    Second was a Newsnight piece where they call into question the validity of a regulatory body investigating one of its own members as conflict of interest would clearly lead to lack of objectivity.

    Again, are you saying the BBC is somehow, some might say uniquely, different? If so, in what way?

    Before giving the reasons for the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, I have summarised your complaint and the BBC Executive’s response.

    Stage 1
    You wrote initially in February 2012 complaining that Mr Robinson had written his initial blog without having the full facts because he was away on holiday. You suggested that the BBC should employ professionals who took their jobs seriously and were concerned about their credibility in being impartial.
    xx, Editor, BBC Political News, replied on 20 February 2012 arguing that it was a reflection of Mr Robinson’s dedication that he kept across political developments even while on holiday.

    Clearly ‘keeping across’ not very well as it was poorly informed. So, no opinion of him anyway opining when not in possession of full facts then? And Mr. xx’s obfuscation in defence?. Explains much already.

    He said that Mr Robinson’s initial article had been a reasonable political assessment and his update had clarified and added to this rather than contradicted it. He did not believe there was any question of Mr Robinson resorting to guesswork or showing bias.
    You wrote again on 21 February 2012 reiterating your concerns and asking for the complaint to be escalated to the next level.

    Yes. because ‘belief’ in reasonableness contrary to fact and evidence was and is still insufficient.

    Stage 2
    The Complaints Director, ECU, wrote on 29 February 2012 confirming that the ECU would investigate the complaint taking into account the requirements for accuracy and impartiality, and provided you with his finding on 26 March.
    He said that Mr Robinson’s comments had been informed by media interviews with Mr Osborne and Mr Balls. While Mr Robinson may not have read the statement issued by Moody’s when he wrote his initial blog, it was reasonable for him to comment on the basis of the Chancellor’s and Shadow Chancellor’s public utterances. He was therefore satisfied that Mr Robinson had met the requirements of the accuracy guidelines which said that content “must be well sourced [and] based on sound evidence”.

    Again, BBC employee ‘satisfaction’ contrary to fact and evidence was and is still insufficient.

    Writing about what you have not taken it upon yourself to be fully briefed upon, and then adding opinion, going to the crux of the complaint. It does, sadly, happen a lot.

    The Complaints Director also did not believe that the omission of any specific reference to the Moody’s statement led to a lack of due accuracy, particularly bearing in mind that the subject of the article was clearly labelled as “Credit rating warning: George Osborne v Ed Balls”.

    A ‘belief’ I did and do not happen to share, still, backed by actual facts.

    Turning to the question of due impartiality, the Complaints Director said that Mr Robinson had offered a summary of Mr Osborne’s and Mr Balls’ positions which met the requirement to reflect the main strands of the argument.

    The ‘requirement to reflect the main strands of the argument’ being an internal BBC definition, and one so vague as to be meaningless. Especially in the context of the complaint. I know it is deployed to offer a convenient means to close out a complaint, but I do not accept it, especially here.

    Mr Robinson had concluded by offering a professional judgement based on the interviews he had heard.

    I am calling his professionalism here into question. You cannot comprehend it is anything other than absolute, no matter what. Stalemate. Moving on.

    The Complaints Director could not agree that this was evidence of bias,

    Did you miss that? Considering the substance of what has been offered by way of explanation, and considering what has gone before, still insufficient, and unacceptable.

    pointing out that journalists were entitled to use their knowledge and expertise to offer considered and informed judgements.

    The notion of subjectivity, and who gets to assess it has been already discussed. This is a charter to do anything based on the ‘BBC is right because the BBC says it is right’ principle, which I challenge. And given nothing has been offered to counter my facts up through all the levels and hurdles the BBC puts up to get to this point, again unsurprising, but disappointing.

    You wrote to the Complaints Director on 28 March 2012 expressing dissatisfaction with his finding.

    In as much as it answered nothing and merely reiterated the same things over and over in trying to close out the complaint, as is again happening here, yes.

    Your appeal
    You then wrote to the BBC Trust on 3 April 2012 asking the Trust to investigate your complaint.
    The Head of Editorial Standards’ decision
    The role of the Head of Editorial Standards is, first, to determine whether your appeal has engaged any of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. I should emphasise that it is not the Head of Editorial Standards’ function to decide whether there has been a breach of the guidelines, as that is a matter for the ESC.

    Trying to get my head around that one.

    Already with other complaints I am finding that they get divided and distributed around the place in hope of divide and rule.

    I complained, once, and now this is being split to gnaw at, or not, depending, with out reference to the whole, or context, based on narrow definitions that can be called upon to apply, or not, depending on how it suits a person in one place at one time.

    Do you really thing that stands up? Simply as a coherent system if nothing else?

    If the Head of Editorial Standards determines that any of the guidelines have been engaged, she must then consider whether your appeal raises a matter of substance, and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to answer. In reaching her decision, the Head of Editorial Standards must give consideration to whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective for the Trust to address your appeal.

    That ‘cost-effective’ bit adds a new, and whole new can of worms, doesn’t it?

    It rather seems to be saying, ‘if all else fails, we can hide behind it costing too much to defend the indefensible’, which is a great last resort. For the BBC.

    Please explain how it could be taken any other way?

    Might I remind you, all I have seen to this point is a succession of ‘beliefs’.

    The Head of Editorial Standards is satisfied that the guidelines on accuracy and impartiality have been engaged by your complaint.

    Or, lest I forget, ‘satisfaction’. Noted, but not persuasive. Speaking of which..

    However, the Head of Editorial Standards believes that the Complaints Director, ECU has addressed your concerns persuasively.

    Back to ‘belief’ again. I do not question the BBC’s levels of self-satisfaction and belief in itself and the words and deeds of all it employees.

    I do question whether this, and the system being deployed, time and again, by mantra, without thought, is serving its reputation and credibility for professionalism and impartiality well any more.

    On the question of accuracy, the focus of Mr Robinson’s initial comments was the reactions of Mr Osborne and Mr Balls to Moody’s statement, each arguing that the statement had endorsed their positions. The Head of Editorial Standards realises that you believe Mr Robinson should have waited until he had seen the full detail of the statement before writing his initial blog entry.

    Do you not believe, for accuracy, waiting for detail is both wise and indeed necessary?

    The issue for the ESC, however, is whether Mr Robinson’s comments breached the rules on accuracy and, for the reasons set out in the response from the ECU, the Head of Editorial Standards does not believe that the Committee would view them as having done so.

    Again, there appears to be something being spun between two different things and two different folk, pointing at each other saying the other can’t be commented upon. Yet with more ‘belief’ being arrived at in dismissal at the end.

    Turning to impartiality, the Complaints Director, ECU has highlighted the provision in the editorial guidelines for journalists to offer considered and informed judgements, as well as to report the facts.

    And I have highlighted my faith in guidelines designed more as means to provide semantic internal termination excuses than guide proper professional behaviours externally.

    We note that you believe Mr Robinson demonstrated left-wing bias.

    Please show where that is stated in terms as above, in the initial complaint. I just ask, but the BBC has a habit of introducing and/or projecting what it wishes onto what actually happened to suit the later narrative. If I did write that, please show me where in case there was context I missed.

    However, the Head of Editorial Standards does not believe this is supported by the blog entry in question, which summarised the two viewpoints and offered a brief professional assessment based first on the reactions to the statement and later on a reading of the statement itself.

    Yet more belief. And a naked attempt to lose the headline substance of the complaint in conflated waffle based on ‘professional assessment’ already called into question.

    For these reasons, the Head of Editorial Standards does not believe that your appeal has a reasonable prospect of success in front of the Trustees.
    If you wish the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, please reply with your reasons by 5pm on Thursday 24 May 2012 to XX, Complaints Advisor, at the above address or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. If exceptionally you need more time please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.

    You now have it. Within good time. I await yours reply, in your own good version of it, in due course.

    If you do ask the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision I will then place your letter and this letter before the ESC. Your previous correspondence will also be made available to them.

    I hope so, as it is rather clear that, to date, little of what went between me, Mr. xx or Mr. xx has been read, or if it was paid attention to.

    And trying to close this by wasting my time with such discourtesies will not help your case from the low point it is already.

    I anticipate that they will consider your request at their June meeting. Their decision is likely to be ratified at their July meeting and you will be given their decision shortly afterwards.
    If the Trustees consider that your case has no reasonable prospect of success/other reason then your case will close.

    As far as the BBC is concerned, no doubt. As far as common sense, logic, and any hope of credibility in the face of rampant double standards, let us hope not.

    If the Trustees disagree with the Head of Editorial Standards’ view then your case will be given to an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we will contact you with an updated time line.

    I look forward to that.
    —
    *I did refer to bias, but they are going to struggle in support of finding the words they are trying to put in my mouth. Which is, basically, misrepresentation.
    If proven, I’d say I might take that quite seriously.

       7 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      May 10, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      My second, fresh from the oven..
      Much shorter as they repeated 80% of the last, so I did straight back:)
      —
      Dear xx

      I will also being copying and pasting large chunks from a previous reply, in homage to that served up by you, to me.

      Our Ref: xx
      10 May 2012
      BBC News Headline: “David Cameron attach on Welsh NHS”, BBC News Website
      I am responding to your appeal of 3 April 2012 to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) regarding a news headline published on the BBC website, Twitter and other platforms. This follows the decision by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) of 26 March 2012 not to uphold your complaint. Your appeal concerns the alleged inaccuracy of the headline quoted above.

      The actual word, for clarity, was ‘attack’.

      [waffle]

      Before giving the reasons for the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, I have summarised your complaint and the BBC Executive’s response.

      Stage 1
      You wrote to the BBC in February 2012 saying that the headline “David Cameron attack on Welsh NHS”, which had appeared on your Twitter feed, was a “blatant misrepresentation” of the actual story which was about David Cameron attacking Labour’s handling of the NHS in Wales. You asked how this had transpired.
      BBC News Online Complaints replied on 14 February 2012 saying that the Twitter headline had been automatically generated from the headline of the story so there was no discrepancy.

      I asked how it had transpired. The BBC’s first reaction, in face of fact, was, is and seems to be embedded to say there was ‘no discrepancy’. I am unsure citing the tools makes the workmen any less culpable.

      They also pointed out that the NHS in Wales was devolved and therefore the responsibility of the Labour administration in the Welsh Assembly.
      You wrote again on 14 February 2012 pointing out that there clearly was a discrepancy between the Twitter headline and the headline of the story.
      BBC News website replied on 24 February 2012 saying that the headlines on the story and on Twitter were one and the same, so in that sense there was no discrepancy between them.

      Other than the fact they were shown to be different. I am not sure the BBC saying black is white over and over up to and including Trust level is going to get us very much further, do you?

      They also disagreed that the headline failed to match the story.

      Which one?

      There was limited space to encapsulate the thrust of a report but the headline was fair in their view.

      So.. back to ‘accuracy wouldn’t fit’ now?

      You wrote again on 29 February 2012 pointing out that the headlines were not the same. The headline on Twitter read “David Cameron attack on Welsh NHS” while that on the story read “David Cameron attacks Labour’s handling of NHS Wales”. The Twitter headline had a very different meaning and was inaccurate in your view, since the object of David Cameron’s attack was not the Welsh NHS but Labour’s handling of it.

      Are you, the BBC, stating that “David Cameron attack on Welsh NHS” is no different to “David Cameron attacks Labour’s handling of NHS Wales”?

      Yes, or no?

      Please answer.

      Stage 2

      —
      You wrote to the ECU on 1 March 2012 reiterating your concerns.

      I rather needed to by the demands of your system, did I not?

      The Complaints Director, ECU, replied on 2 March 2012 confirming that he would investigate your complaint taking into account the requirements for accuracy.
      The Complaints Director issued his finding on 26 March. He accepted that the report linked to the Twitter headline was about Mr Cameron criticising Labour’s running of the NHS in Wales rather than the NHS itself.

      Hence, the headlines were IN FACT…

      a) Not the same
      b) The first was misleading

      However, he believed that readers of the headline would have correctly understood that Mr Cameron was criticising an aspect (or aspects) of the Welsh NHS, even if they did not know what it was he was criticising without clicking on the link.

      Please reread what you have quoted. Out loud.

      Especially the bit about not knowing, but somehow ‘coming to understand’ what they might not have clicked to find out.

      He did not accept that those who only read the headline would have been left with a materially misleading impression.

      Even if they had not clicked on to clarify, as only by doing so would they have found out.

      It was generally understood that headlines provided a brief summary and readers who wanted more detail could reasonably be expected to click on the link to the full report.

      Please, explain… ‘it was generally understood’…. by whom?

      You wrote again on 28 March 2012 disagreeing with the ECU’s finding.

      I did.

      The Twitter headline was misleading and it was no justification to say, as the Complaints Director had done, that details could be found in the full report.

      I am presuming you are seeking to attribute this to me, and this is not a shock agreement with what I have been saying throughout.

      Your appeal

      [more repeated waffle]

      However, she believes that the Complaints Director, ECU has addressed your concern persuasively.

      Back to ‘belief’ again. I do not question the BBC’s levels of self-satisfaction and belief in itself and the words and deeds of all it employees.

      I do question whether this, and the system being deployed, time and again, by mantra, without thought, is serving its reputation and credibility for professionalism and impartiality well any more.

      The Head of Editorial Standards agrees that the Twitter headline was somewhat different from the headline on the report itself,

      What does ‘somewhat different’ mean?

      And no matter what grade of ‘difference’ the BBC chooses to accord it, how does this agreement tally with:

      BBC News website replied on 24 February 2012 saying that the headlines on the story and on Twitter were one and the same, so in that sense there was no discrepancy between them.

      You would appear to be confirming that they had no clue what they were on about, but went into denial by default.

      Yes, or no?

      but the issue is whether the Twitter headline was materially misleading.

      That’s another issue. Again, you are trying to split a single complaint up based on your own system creating a situation to isolate chunks and ‘deal’ with them, semantically.

      The Head of Editorial Standards does not believe it was.

      But if the best that can be managed, after all this… is internal ‘belief’… again, I fear I am merely astounded that is the best that can be managed.

      Mr Cameron criticised the way in which the Welsh NHS was being run by the Labour administration in Wales, in particular the longer waiting times which he claimed had resulted. The headline “David Cameron attack on Welsh NHS” provides a reasonable summary of this in the Head of Editorial Standards’ view, bearing in mind the limited space available.

      And I, with the benefit of clear fact, dispute this, and now add the amazing efforts of the BBC Complaints system as itemised above, to the extent of utter contradiction between you, in example of what your default settings in handling complaints are, and the muddle you get in when abusing them.

      [more waffle]

      —

      This level of bovine attrition, combined with a cynical attempt to steer the complaint to a comfort zone where it can be killed off, explains but does not excuse why so few BBC Trust appeals are upheld. They are as crooked as the whole sorry edifice beneath that shares their name.

         6 likes

      • Lunchtime Loather says:
        May 10, 2012 at 1:50 pm

        Brilliant! Well done!
        I notice some stock phrases in the BBC text that have appeared in my similar communications with them. You can just imagine the poor person who has to produce this bilge pulling up the “stroppy complainer” template and filling in the blanks.
        I was told “they will consider your request at their 29 March meeting. Their decision is likely to be ratified at their May meeting and you will be given their decision shortly afterwards.”
        10th May, still nothing. I can’t wait…!

           6 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          May 10, 2012 at 2:03 pm

          Tx.
          One reason I share in full is to let others compare and contrast, as I value those from guys like you.
          I actually appreciate they are between a rock and a hard place, and it must be one of the worst jobs in the world, so a bit of cut ‘n paste is fine.
          But… it’s the bit in the middle that counts. I have had to wade through scores of them, up to Director levels, following their blasted procedures to the letter and, at last, at the top… simply more of the same! They have not even tried to go beyond ‘belief’ or ‘comfort’ or ‘satisfaction’ and actually answer legitimate questions or address fair points.
          Even at Trust level it is ‘we are right because we are right’, when the idiocy of some of what they are blindly, knee-jerk trying to defend is there in black and white… often penned by another department!
          I am under no illusions that what I am doing here will get me anywhere much, but it chips away at that ‘most trusted’ conceit, the ‘we’re listening’ conceit… etc.
          Even the cherry vultures must be wondering if their bunkers have a wine cellar on some of the stuff quoted above.
          They’ll all bluff it out, but one day a person of power or influence (preferably both) will read some of this, pick up the phone and demand ‘explain… now’ and if met with the same waffle… act.
          Or, maybe, not.

             3 likes

      • Deborah says:
        May 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm

        Guest Who – you are amazing to keep going but I do think it important that you continue to post your replies from the BBC here – in the public arena.

        As far as the Trust is concerned – if you look at who the Trustees are you will see that they are just as much part of the ‘BBBC establishment’ as the rest.

        But until you feel so frustrated that you are losing the will to live – keep going – it is important what you are doing.

           7 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          May 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm

          ‘I do think it important that you continue to post your replies from the BBC here – in the public arena.’
          Deborah – Which I will do, despite their obvious extent, about which I can do little, if guys like you are kind enough to find value and ask for more.
          As I do of any who take them on on their own terms, or their own ground (don’t forget to add ‘no I’d don’t’ to the ‘you agree by replying it’s our little secret’ disclaimer they sneak in).
          I have questions to ask, and if they are not answered, or swatted aside, or weaseled, I’ll ask again. I am sure you have some too. Pose them.. politely, firmly, and if at all possible in clear factual terms, with URLS or quotes. They really seem to be struggling with being confronted by no more than what they have committed to broadcast, especially in print. More so if you can get a BBC source to contradict another.
          United we may do more than stand… we could start pushing back.
          And ‘holding the powerful to account’ can work in more than the one way the BBC has monopolised as its sole preserve to now.
          They are huge, a monopoly, and are unaccountable more than any other entity, even MPs, who need to garner votes every few years.
          Hold up the mirror enough, and if cut repeatedly smashing it away through brute force, they may come to look at the reflection and like what is staring back even less.

             3 likes

      • David Preiser says:
        May 10, 2012 at 2:37 pm

        It was generally understood that headlines provided a brief summary and readers who wanted more detail could reasonably be expected to click on the link to the full report.

        Except – unless I misunderstood the issue from last time – it was a summary of their opinion of Cameron’s actions from a partisan standpoint, not of what he actually did. The fact that the Head felt it was a fair summary doesn’t inspire confidence.

           3 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          May 10, 2012 at 2:49 pm

          David… you recall correctly.
          If I copied in here the full screed I’d blow up the thread memory.
          Also, interestingly, I have discovered they ‘sample’, in or out, exchanges between me and them that serve various (mis)directions they are trying to steer the discussion down.
          One has to be alert to that, but it is worth catching out, as then you can focus on what they clearly down like dealing with at all.
          I think it is a combination of being an engineer and a writer that makes me attuned to things not adding up. Plus a few decades as an ad man can reveal BS a mile off.
          In the above they have tried to put words in my email, and I have called them on it.
          If they fail to answer, I am not sure what or with whom, but I may make a bit of a noise about being misquoted, and point out that if the heads can do it, no wonder the rotten stink drips down.
          If you’re interested, I had a truly snotty reply to my complementing Stuart Hughes complaint, which I would share here (in all its logic-free glory), but don’t want to clog up the thread.

             2 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 10, 2012 at 3:33 pm

        They can move quickly when motivated.
        A near immediate reply, if with a few further bear traps that I felt needed to be put in context:
        —-

        Dear xx,

        Thank you for a prompt reply.

        I might add that as the later exchanges, from such as Ms. xx, do allude to earlier exchanges with others, and less than completely, it would seem odd for the Committee not to be privy to all that was written.

        That way who said what, and took the discussion and topics off in various directions, may be properly assessed as a whole.

        You can’t very well create a system and then cherry-pick what you feel like from it, surely?

        You will note that my challenges also contain some key questions that, no matter what the outcome of the committee meeting, do require answers.

        I am happy to receive these under separate cover.

        One, in particular, goes to words possibly being accorded to me that I do not recall penning. If not, then this needs to be accounted for too by the Committee.
        ****

        On 10 May 2012, at 15:05, Trust Editorial wrote:

        Thank you for your responses to xx’s letters regarding your requests for appeal to the Editorial Standards Committee.

        As you have challenged the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision not to proceed with your appeals we shall provide the Committee with xx’s letter and your challenges to the decision not to proceed. The Committee will then take a decision on whether it will proceed to hear your complaints on appeal.

        This will be done at the Committee’s next meeting, on 14 June 2012. When the minutes from this meeting have been ratified at the Committee’s July meeting we will write again to inform you of the Committee’s decision.

        BBC Trust Unit

           1 likes

      • Millie Tant says:
        May 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm

        Oh my word! How idiotic to write this: “…the Twitter headline had been automatically generated from the headline of the story so there was no discrepancy”, of two distinctly different headlines with very different import.

        A distinct break in logic there and a makeshift bolting together of two things that plainly don’t go, despite the attempt to make them. Talk about a non sequitur!

           3 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          May 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm

          ‘Talk about a non sequitur!”
          Spun at the outset and defended all the way up.
          ‘Repeat it often enough…’

             3 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:
      May 10, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I salute your indefatigability. How you have the patience and time to bang your head off this particular brick wall, I cannot begin to imagine.

      As a masterclass in obfuscation, that reply to you will take some beating. Take some solace in the fact that you’ve forced them to write it.

         6 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 10, 2012 at 2:14 pm

        Tx, means a lot.
        I had the time today as, after 6 months of negotiating I was to at last get to appeal a patent rejection with the USPTO… and now another government department in another country has pulled a fast one and left me high and dry, with a looming deadline of their setting. I am more at AK47 postal stage.
        As I am stuffed until they reschedule, I will next turn to writing the snail mail letters to the two other, new departments, that the ECU Director has pointed me at as he can’t handle various bits of single complaints now, that the BBC has chopped up internally between various barely functioning departments who seem to exist to divide and rule but, if you are methodical, only end up dropping each other in it.
        There’s no higher body at the BBC even when hung out to dry, but at least, via such as here, there is the court of public opinion. And, if they end up playing dirty and simply expedite me, there is another court that does deal in facts and is less inclined to be swayed by one party’s ‘belief’ in their rectitude.
        And as I have a fair number of stealth edits (pre and post) page captured, and less than coherent emails from drunk producers or snotty peons carefully archived, they might find that is an expensive route to go down.
        And my servers/back-ups here and remotely (ironically in the US) are not, sadly, FoI exempt.

           3 likes

        • chrisH says:
          May 10, 2012 at 2:20 pm

          Can I second what Roland says?
          I see your cause as vital-that you keep on at them and their procedures will surely wear the f***ers down.
          I play at it, but your termite-like tenacity is deeply respected and appreciated…and they`ll be long gone before you.
          The likes of yourself and “lunchtime loather” are heroes-stay encouraged and indefatiguable as long as it takes, please!

             6 likes

          • Guest Who says:
            May 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm

            Chris – tx.
            May I simply suggest that it can be done, easily, by many more.
            Just… pick battles carefully (I avoid where possible areas of ‘bias’ no matter how blatant, as they have an armoury of subjective counters. Note above they tried to make one of mine about a small aspect that had ‘bias’ in it, ready to swat away. I hope I isolated it enough to keep the substantive factual complaint alive), stay polite… and don’t take no (or rather belief/comfort/satisfaction) as answers if they are not.
            I am on borrowed time, so we need the next wave when they get me on a single technicality (or I crack and show actual ‘poor faith’), even though I have fielded many ‘sorry about that’s’ from them that don’t seem to compound the same way.

               2 likes

            • chrisH says:
              May 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm

              My hobby horses are education, cultural rewriting of the 60s-90s, and anti-Christian bias…sitting ducks really.
              Been keeping notes on the BBCs Education website since start of the year…would value some more details before I go into their cursed systems though.
              Let us know-thank you!

                 4 likes

              • Guest Who says:
                May 10, 2012 at 5:32 pm

                some more details before
                In, as far as I know, via:
                https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor
                Now, already, despite their claims, things divide up, at the very least between online and the rest, to an extent the ECU Director has admiited in print to me even he can’t grasp:
                ‘You may find it useful to know that complaints made direct to BBC News online do not get a reference number (I don’t know why that’s the case), unlike complaints made via the BBC Complaints page http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ which are given a reference beginning CAS-and followed by seven numbers and six numbers/letters.
                You might get that number, you might not. You might get nothing. You might get an abusive call from a drunk producer.
                Keep calm and carry on.
                I’ll let my ECU chum again share:
                In all cases, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust can also consider the manner in which complaints have been handled at Stage 1 and at Stage 2. To be clear, the ECU represents Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process in relation to complaints which raise a potential breach of the BBC’s Editorial Standards. In other cases, such as editorial judgement and complaints handling, BBC management are responsible for providing a Stage 2 response to complaints.
                Stage 1 involves a complaints bot that says they got it about right.
                If there is more to it than that, you reply and request an escalation. Oddly they seem to think you will say something different to the first one, while they are allowed to cut & paste the same thing.
                They can get ‘testy’ and even claim to be pulling the plug.
                Ignore ’em. If you have done your duty and they are being stupid, head to ECU, ecu@etc (up there).
                They will be a bit nicer, but basically fall back on belief, feelings, etc.
                Stick to your guns, but keep it sweet.
                Before they get bored suggest that as it is deadlocked on opinion only, time to bump again.
                These guys tend to be more polite and will offer up the Trust Bot. Sadly, as I and LTL are discovering, it is no flippin’ different to the one at the start of the horror story.
                Keep records, and save powder. If one says something daft, store it and use when the next says there is no issue.
                Then, on top of the complaint you have a cover up or new complaint on service failings. That’s useful when you fire a ‘bad faith’ warning shot across their bows before they get round to trying one on you.
                URLs and especially page grabs… very useful. They can and do change. Great if they say it never happened and you can show it did.
                And… of course, do share.

                   1 likes

    • Millie Tant says:
      May 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm

      I think I gave up the will to live around about here: “The role of the Head of Editorial Standards is, first, to determine whether your appeal has engaged any of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. I should emphasise that it is not the Head of Editorial Standards’ function to decide whether there has been a breach of the guidelines, as that is a matter for the ESC.”

      A strange bureaucratic realm in which they dwell. One gets the same feeling upon reading the guff pumped out by Ofcom when reporting the findings of one of their investigations.

      I really think it would almost be better and save a lot of time and bilge if these Complaints Beeboids adopted a straightforward policy of replying: “Sorry to say, dear viewer, that we don’t agree with any of that and we dismiss your complaint totally and absolutely. Tatty bye and better luck next time. Sorreee!”

         2 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm

        ‘I think I gave up the will to live around about here: ‘
        It’s almost… almost like they… designed it that way!

           3 likes

  2. Dickmart says:
    May 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    The BBC website this morning looks like a page from the
    Socialist Workers’ Party journal, giving prominence to the public sector strkes, which will have very little effect apart from saving the Government a fair of money from the pay foregone of those involved. Its provision of live comments enables the strikers to put forward their absurd arguments for maintaining the status quo on pensions.

    The BBC is excelling itself in its usual standards of impartiality with reports such as the protesters being in a “great mood”, and the Government being disappointed that there isn’t a greater level of support!! You couldn’t make it up.

       6 likes

    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:
      May 10, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      “You couldn’t make it up.”
      They can and they frequently do.

         7 likes

  3. Umbongo says:
    May 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Apropos of how the BBC manifestly fails in its statutory duty to be impartial,and unbiased, this is a quote from an article by Michael Apted in the Times (behind paywall) concerning his work as a TV documentary maker in general and concerning his “7 Up” series on ITV in particular.
    I am what I am, with my own set of values and my own definitions of success and failure, and I take those values into the cutting room. But over the years I’ve learnt a hard lesson that, unless I rigorously question my process and do all I can to avoid projecting myself on to other people’s lives, the films are worthless. I can’t allow myself to have an agenda [my bold].
    Apted’s self-discipline is in stark contrast to the self-indulgent lefty laxity of those in the BBC news/comment/documentary etc departments most of whose working life at the BBC is devoted to pursuing the Narrative. Unluckily for British TV, Apted emigrated to the US 30 years ago.

       8 likes

  4. chrisH says:
    May 10, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    I note that Brighton College is being used by OFSTEDs inspector to begin the fightback in education.
    The BBC trailed his intention to prevent kids being able to bring mobiles into schools…”good luck with that one” as they say.
    Now I wonder how the BBC got this gobbet, since they don`t like people “leaking”.
    Maybe it`s the £125 entry fee to this “Independent School” and its “Day Conference”…maybe it`s the fact that Paxman will be speaking…as well as Gove and Starkey(none of that Bogtown local health food shop owner givin` out the stiff`kits for the toffs)…but in any event, the Revolution will henceforth only be called for from the commanding heights of private schools with housetrained Beeb sleb`s at High Table until further notice.

    Seeing that Any Questions prefer the safety of private schools to park their OB vans in as they call for equal access for all rather than risk Salford Comp; the BBC should have plenty knowledge of them-even (as is unlikely) if they did not benefit themselves from these “brakes to equality and fairness”.
    They only say it….heaven forbid that anybody DID anything about it!
    These keepers of the class flame don`t half talk a good revolution don`t they?

       5 likes

  5. David Preiser says:
    May 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Can’t wait for Mark Mardell to write a post asking how the debate on the Wisconsin governor recall “got so heated”:

    Wife hits husband with SUV after fight over Wisconsin recall election

    A Wisconsin woman sent her husband to the emergency room after she hit him with her car during a heated argument over the Wisconsin recall election.

    According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 36-year-old Jeffrey Radle was hospitalized with head, neck and back injuries Tuesday after he tried to prevent his wife from leaving their Chippewa Falls, Wis., home to vote in the Wisconsin recall election Democratic primary.

    To be fair, the guy shouldn’t have tried to stop his wife from voting. But he stood in front of the car, and from what I can tell never tried to physically stop her. The full story from the local paper says that the most he did was climb onto the hood of her car after she kept driving toward him.

    When she finally attempted to drive around him, Jeffrey Radle jumped in front of the vehicle and was hit. Aman da Radle left the scene and went to the police department to report the incident, the release said.

    “These crazy liberal nuts are always pulling this crap,” said Radle’s brother, Mike Radle, describing himself and his brother as firm supporters of Walker, the subject of the recall.

    Mike Radle said his brother was in stable condition but had suffered serious injuries and was still unconscious Tuesday afternoon.

    “He’ll be in the hospital at least overnight,” he said.

    Quite why the guy tried to stop his wife from voting in the Democrat primary is beyond me, since the vote on Walker himself isn’t until next month. Seems idiotic. But the actual violence came, as usual, from the Left. And the BBC never reports that stuff.

       4 likes

  6. David Preiser says:
    May 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    What a shock. Will the BBC be mentioning this in their “analysis” about the President finally supporting homosexual marriage?

    Top Obama donors witholding money over executive order punt

    Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser’s office tells me. In some cases, I’m told, big donations are being withheld.

    Jonathan Lewis, the gay philanthropist and leading Democratic fundraiser, is one of many gay advocates who has been working behind the scenes to pressure Obama to change his mind. When Obama decided against the executive order last month, arguing that he would pursue a legislative solution instead, advocates were furious — such a solution will never pass Congress, the executive order has been a priority for advocates for years, and the move smacked of a political cave to conservatives who will not support Obama no matter what he does.

    Now these and other donors are beginning to withold money from Priorities USA, the main pro-Obama super PAC, out of dismay over the president’s decision. (Some of these donors have already maxed out to the Obama campaign, I’m told.) It’s the first indication that areas in which Obama is at odds with gay advocates — and in fairness, his record on gay rights has been very good — could dampen overall fundraising.

    Well, well, well. This is from three days ago, two days before His heroic announcement. I did say it was really a grab for campaign cash.

    This is in the Washington Post, ladies and gentlemen, written by a JournoLista, no less. So the Beeboids know all about it. Not a single cynical thought expressed in any of the BBC reports about this, and certainly no negativity from the US President editor. He just unwittingly writes this great straight line:

    It injects a little hope and change into a campaign where supporters strain to find much of either.

    It injects “change”, as in coin, really. But Mardell refuses to acknowledge it, as do the rest of his astute colleagues.

       4 likes

  7. Guest Who says:
    May 10, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    This, by the way, is the calibre of ‘analysis’ as news the tweet-generation political editor is capable of…
    Nick Robinson ‏ @bbcnickrobinson

    Coulson’s hands no longer clasped. I sense he feels in control. Now wielding straight bat with confidence #leveson
    I feel Mills and Boon is missing an author.
    No bias, just… what the heck is he on about?
    I am sure it can and will be twisted into something better in post.

       8 likes

    • jarwill101 says:
      May 10, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      Nick Robinson? Mystic Bilko.

         7 likes

    • Millie Tant says:
      May 10, 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Didn’t you know? Robinson is clairvoyant.
      I know this thanks to a Complaints Beeboid screed that was posted on this blog some time ago. It is part of his professional expertise which, they stated, enabled him to know by looking at George Osborne’s eyes that he was lying.

      Seriously, they said that. I am not making this up. It beats even the magic powers of “so” (in “so there is no discrepancy”) to sweep away all notion of difference, inaccuracy, misleading information, partiality, party bias or spin.

         6 likes

  8. Guest Who says:
    May 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    http://order-order.com/2012/05/10/the-eagle-has-floundered/
    ‘Taking her lines from Twitter is enough of a worry, but from the Sun?
    Hey, if it’s good enough for the BBC, I am sure it is good enough for the Labour Party in Opposition.
    The twitter bit I mean, not The Sun. Well, not since they swapped sides, anyway.

       3 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      May 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Speaking of order-order, Guido also has a tweet from Beeboid Callum May showing the following photo, with the caption “Golden Dawn Party Conference”:

      goldendawn.jpg?w=458&h=191

      It’s a reference to the Greek far-right Party, most likely this photo from the Guardian:

      Golden-Dawn-supporters-008.jpg?w=350&h=210

      Somebody alerted May about it, and he tweeted the usual “views my own” disclaimer, and has this verbage on his page:

      What I say is not what my employer thinks.

      No, but if you all think that way, it’s just as bad.

         3 likes

  9. Fred Bloggs says:
    May 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Being interested in things military I awaited the announcement about the planes and the aircraft carriers. Hammond gave his statement, Murphy gave his responce http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18020976 1 minute 45 secs. Then that was about it, virtually all the backbench questions came from the Tories. I smelt a HUGE rat, why would Labour and the bBC not pile in on an apparently obvious Tory cock up, or was it? Basicly if you choose VTOL aircraft you need samll carriers, normal aircraft and you need a big carrier for the takeoff length. So why did labour order big carriers and VTOL aircraft.

    It is clear that Labour ordered the those carriers for political reasons not defence. What the full reasons are I do not know, but I am pretty sure it is to do with jobs in Scotland firat, British taxpayer a remote second. Will we be informed by the bBC, will we fuc……

       8 likes

    • Fred Bloggs says:
      May 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm

      Just heard R4 PM about 5:15pm give their take on the aircraft carriers. Full of labour lies uncorrected by the bBC. Murphy said project delayed 2 years. Total lie, the carriers were being built and the aircraft by the US, no additional delays. Murphy said planes would not fly until 2022, total lie, 2018. So if you want to know anything do NOT rely on the bBC to find out.

         8 likes

  10. Lunchtime Loather says:
    May 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    We had been discussing complaints and appeals to the BBC Trust earlier and, completely coincidentally, the response to my second appeal has just landed in my Inbox. The following is the text verbatim and I am happy to confirm that it is both unaddressed and unsigned, so I don’t even know who to respond to!:
    Application of the expedited handling procedure at Stage 1
    The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee following the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.
    The complaint
    Stage 1
    The complainant wrote to the BBC regarding BBC Audience Services’ decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure to his complaints concerning the Jeremy Vine radio show, its website and Mr Vine’s Twitter feed.
    The complainant wrote on numerous occasions between January 2011 and January 2012 complaining about various aspects of the Jeremy Vine show, the website and the Twitter Feed. BBC Audience Services replied to each of these complaints.
    BBC Audience Services then wrote saying that the complainant had submitted dozens of complaints over the past 17 months about the Jeremy Vine show, its output, the website and Mr Vine’s own Twitter account, and that these complaints revolved around three recurring themes: his disagreement with the selection of items on the show and alleged bias by Jeremy Vine; the website updates; and Jeremy Vine’s right to use his Twitter feeds in the way he chose. On each of these issues the BBC had provided the complainant with a clear explanation of their policy and they could not continue to devote such a disproportionate amount of scarce time and resources to responding to these same complaints.
    BBC Audience Services said that, in this context, they had applied the expedited complaints procedure. This meant that for the next two years they would not reply to complaints from the complainant submitted directly to production teams or via the central BBC Complaints Unit which related to the Jeremy Vine show unless new and substantive issues raising questions of serious editorial breaches were raised.
    The complainant replied seeking clarification about the alleged “dozens” of complaints he had submitted over the past 17 months. He said his records only covered 12 months so he asked the BBC to explain the “dozens” reference. He also asked what constituted a complaint – did this include emails to the show directly, to Jeremy Vine at his BBC email address and/or his Twitter account?
    Appeal to the BBC Trust
    The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust saying that he wished to appeal against the decision to subject his complaints to the expedited complaints procedure.
    The complainant said that he had sent 19 complaints during the past 13 months, and therefore had sought clarification as to how the BBC concluded that he had submitted “dozens” but had not received an answer to this point. He also questioned what constituted a complaint and explained why the failure to update the programme’s website in a consistent and timely manner was highly problematic for him as a listener. In a series of letters he outlined his argument that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feeds ran contrary to BBC guidelines, particularly his decision to block him from accessing his account. Finally, in response to the BBC’s claim that they had provided countless explanations of their policy on
    these key issues, he said that the responses from the BBC frequently missed the point of his complaints.
    The Trust’s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards.
    She explained that the Trust did not adjudicate on every appeal that was brought to it, and part of her role was to check that appeals qualified for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. The Head of Editorial Standards had read the relevant correspondence and considered that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.
    The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards did not feel the BBC had a case to answer concerning its decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints about the Jeremy Vine show.
    She said that the Complaints Framework Annex B, Expedited Complaints Handling procedure, states:
    “The BBC needs to be able to ensure that its complaints procedures are not abused by vexatious complainants or otherwise by persons making repeated complaints which are without substance.”
    There were a number of criteria which may be relevant but the Head of Editorial Standards’ view was that the following two were the most significant:
    “The complaint recipients should consider whether to make use of the expedited procedure where a complainant has a history of persistently and/or repeatedly making complaints which:
    (a) Are repetitions of substantively identical complaints that have already been resolved; and/or
    (b) Although within their remit, are shown on investigation to have no reasonable prospect of success.”
    The Head of Editorial Standards noted that the majority of the complaints submitted by the complainant concerned the editorial choice of subjects and the treatment of them on the Jeremy Vine show, and it was clear from the BBC’s guidelines that this was a matter for the BBC and its creative teams. In this context, BBC Audience Services were necessarily eventually supplying the complainant with near-identical responses irrespective of the specific complaint about choice of item as these issues were a matter for the BBC staff concerned. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards believed it was reasonable to view the complaints as falling within the terms of the procedure as set out above.
    The second major recurring complaint about the inconsistent updating of the website was also a case where the Head of Editorial Standards could not see how the BBC could have responded differently or was likely to do so in future to a similar complaint. The BBC had said that it could not guarantee that every website would always be updated at a specific time, priorities and resources necessarily dictating these matters. Again this was clearly a matter for the BBC to exercise its judgment over its priorities. The Head of Editorial
    Standards therefore did not believe an appeal against the application of the expedited procedure on this matter had a reasonable prospect of success.
    The Head of Editorial Standards had noted that the BBC had repeatedly said that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter account was a personal one, and that they were happy with its relationship to the show, and that he was not in breach of the appropriate BBC guidelines. Here too the Head of Editorial Standards could not see their response changing, or that there were grounds to consider that there had been a breach of the guidelines. In this context in seemed to the Head of Editorial Standards reasonable to conclude that the complainant’s main complaints had become “repetitions of substantially identical complaints” with “no reasonable prospect of success” as the guidelines covering this procedure required. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards could see no reasonable chance of success if this complaint was pursued to appeal.
    The Head of Editorial Standards noted that one of the complainant’s complaints had led to a change to the web page and she assured the complainant that under the expedited procedure his complaints would still be read and if there was a matter of substance then the complaint would be handled as normal, including acceptance of a need for a clarification or correction if necessary. It would not be ignored.
    Finally the Head of Editorial Standards noted that the BBC had suggested that there had been dozens of complaints over 17 months and the complainant had said that he had made 19 complaints during the past 13 months. She appreciated that this difference concerned the complainant but it did not seem to her to make a material difference to the essential issue which was that the BBC were expending resources on replying to similar complaints on which the complainant had already had an answer and knew the BBC’s position, and on which he had no reasonable prospect of success.
    The complainant requested that the Committee review the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards not to proceed with the appeal. He said that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category which the Head of Editorial Standards had ignored (factually inaccurate, speculative and biased reporting) and made further comments on those categories of complaints which she had identified. He concluded by requesting that his complaints should no longer be subject to the expedited complaints procedure.
    The Committee’s decision
    The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision. The Committee was also provided with the Stage 2 response from the Editorial Complaints Unit.
    The Committee noted the complainant’s contention that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category, that of allegations of factually incorrect, speculative or biased reporting. The Committee agreed that, however the various complaints were categorised, the fact was that they were largely repetitive with no reasonable prospect of success.
    The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
    Taking into account the nature and frequency of the complaints made by the complainant, the Committee was satisfied that the decision not to accept his appeal against the application of the expedited procedure was correct.
    The Committee therefore decided this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.
    So, I’m still on the naughty step then.
    My appeal has been beautifully cherry-picked, in particular when they wrote:
    The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
    I also stated that I would not complain about the programme’s editorial decisions if my appeal was allowed, but they missed that. Should have gone to SpecSavers, perhaps.
    I’ll stew on this for a while and decide what to do.

       5 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:
      May 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      I had to laugh at this one:

      “In this context, BBC Audience Services were necessarily eventually supplying the complainant with near-identical responses irrespective of the specific complaint”

      I thought they did that anyway?

         8 likes

      • Millie Tant says:
        May 10, 2012 at 7:03 pm

        ” Dear Mr D, I am sorry you feel that we Beeboids supply the same responses irrespective of complaint. …”

           6 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      May 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      In other words, screw you, we’re still going to say that Beeboids’ personal Twitter accounts are free personal expression areas but may still be used as the official Twitter account for BBC programming, yet are not really official BBC Twitter accounts, and there’s nothing you can do about it. And we don’t have to listen to you anymore, either.

      Unreal, yet real.

         8 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm

        Unreal, yet real
        It’s like ‘different’ being ‘not different’, though in that there is a difference that takes great BBC seniority to discern.

           4 likes

        • Lunchtime Loather says:
          May 10, 2012 at 7:22 pm

          Thanks for the comments!
          Not hopeful, but I’m going to talk to Ofcom tomorrow and see what they say. I’ll let you know the result here.

             3 likes

          • David Preiser (USA) says:
            May 11, 2012 at 12:30 am

            Good luck, LL. It seems perfectly simple to my tiny, parochial, US brain. If it’s used for a BBC programme, it can’t have the personal biased freedom.

               2 likes

          • Lunchtime Loather says:
            May 11, 2012 at 9:35 am

            I’ve just spoken to a chap at the Ofcom advice line. He listened to what I said and fully understood my point but regretted that the personal/BBC Twitter thing was not something that they would be able to help with.
            His only advice was to engage a solicitor who specialises in broadcasting law. I may be trying to make a point but that is probably going too far.

               6 likes

            • Roland Deschain says:
              May 11, 2012 at 10:17 am

              You’d get someone to represent you FOC if you were, for instance, a beardy terrorist militant who’d once landed at Heathrow. But I doubt you meet any of the qualifying criteria.

                 5 likes

            • Guest Who says:
              May 11, 2012 at 11:12 am

              ‘His only advice was to engage a solicitor’
              OFCOM. If ever there was a quango unfit for any purpose, that was it.
              Our Function Courts Only Money
              Now, what was it our politico-media estate were getting their dudgeons high about not so long ago?
              Ah, yes… the la… justice being skewed only in favour of those who can afford it.
              Here, of course, with certain irony, it’s not private on private, but a public sector entity using your money to first abuse their position and then challenge you to try and defend against their clear abuse of your rights. But the concern does seem to be more on ‘flippancy’ the other way…
              http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17260426
              ‘also sufficiently high hurdles before people are dragged into expensive court actions’
              Liked this comment (before the thread closed… at 5):
              “Best of luck to them, they are going to need it. Both Houses of Parliament are stuffed with lawyers, I can’t see them choking off a revenue stream, can you?”
              Nifty. Unique even.
              I am simply unclear as to why, when a public sector entity acts as judge, jury and executioner in such a case, the only appeal is back to them… and then, dear British Broadcasting Compellee, your only avenue is to sell your house to appeal further.
              I’m amazed the European Court of Human Rights, Shami, Cherie and a few others are not appalled and hitting a studio right now.
              There must be a reason…

                 1 likes

  11. Guest Who says:
    May 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    ‘it is both unaddressed and unsigned, so I don’t even know who to respond to!”
    That seems extraordinary in its own right. How on earth is one supposed to negotiate on such a basis? Also a classic ‘Beware of the Leopard’. You can’t even write back to ask… dun & dusted. Maybe use the addresses I was offered in the posts above?
    As to the rest, it is no more than ‘the BBC is right because we’ve asked each other and agreed, yes, we are right on the basis of view, comfort, etc’.
    On the only specific I can see, I note this:
    Finally the Head of Editorial Standards noted that the BBC had suggested that there had been dozens of complaints over 17 months and the complainant had said that he had made 19 complaints during the past 13 months. She appreciated that this difference concerned the complainant but it did not seem to her to make a material difference to the essential issue
    In my complaint above they also tried to make out that although there was a difference there wasn’t one, but here it is compounded by admitting it and saying it doesn’t matter.
    Judge, jury and, in your case, executioner.
    Not good enough.

    Your MP, if not a useless waste of space, will have to offer a view and log it. Write to them. Mine has all I have penned so far. Ironically many pointing out his useless girl guide troupe is at the wrong end of inaccuracy and bias that is skewing the UK’s democratic political landscape. I don’t fight for them in this, but for values I hold dear. That they won’t fight with me for all our sakes is not forgotten.

       2 likes

  12. jonuk says:
    May 10, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    funny how no one at work talked about the public sector strike today

       5 likes

    • jonuk says:
      May 10, 2012 at 10:45 pm

      however, there have been a few choice words about the paki muslim grooming thing over the past few days

         6 likes

  13. George R says:
    May 11, 2012 at 12:11 am

    INBBC, uses word ‘Briton’, omits word ‘Muslim’again-

    “Kenya trial Briton Jermaine Grant ‘linked to 7/7 bomber'”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18016978

    ‘Jihadwatch’:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=jermaine+grant&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20

       5 likes

  14. George R says:
    May 11, 2012 at 12:21 am

    There is a strong probability that any Beeboid ‘report’ is written by someone with at least one of the following characteristics:

    a.) leftist;

    b.) homosexual;

    c.) Muslim;

    d.) greenie.

       10 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      May 11, 2012 at 12:27 am

      Just leave it at “a”. The rest follows naturally one way or the other.

         9 likes

  15. Craig says:
    May 11, 2012 at 7:04 am

    When ‘Panorama’ did its hatchet job on Lord Ashcroft they introduced a critic as a “financial journalist” and chose not to mention that he’s also a campaigner with the left-wing Tax Justice Network.

    Their response to my complaint about this was:

    “Mr Shaxson is a journalist and leading expert on tax havens, as well as an Associate Fellow of Chatham House (the Royal Institute of African Affairs in London). Mr Shaxson was interviewed as a tax haven expert and not about tax avoidance or as a representative of the Tax Justice Network.”

    Well, another ‘Panorama’ is coming up next Monday:

    Major UK companies cut secret tax deals in Luxembourg
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17993945

    The write-up on the BBC News website says:

    ‘Tax expert Richard Murphy said of the practice: “All absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, legal. I am still able to ask the question, is this acceptable? This is purely artificial structuring which is designed to undermine the tax revenues of the UK.”‘

    Being suspicious of ‘Panorama’ I thought I’d Google this independent-sounding “tax expert” this morning and, guess what?:

    “Richard Murphy is an adviser to the Tax Justice Network and the TUC on taxation and economic issues. He is also the director of Tax Research LLP”.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/richardmurphy

    I had a feeling he might be. The BBC can be tiresomely predictable.

    Never trust the BBC when it merely introduces someone as an “expert” on a sensitive political or business issue.

       7 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 11, 2012 at 8:32 am

        The issue of ‘affiliation’ is one they will dance around ’til the cows come home.
        Facts on competence suggest a useful avenue of re-approach, asking on what basis they assess his ‘expertise’ which, on some measures, seems in question.
        They might try a ‘but the Telegraph is right wing’ counter, rather missing the trap they set themselves there.
        Also, I am amused to now note, when you call accuracy of headline into question enough, they supply a super selection of their skewed world views in support.

           3 likes

    • Reed says:
      May 11, 2012 at 8:27 am

      …and as you suggest, Craig, if the BBC declared the interests of all of the ‘experts and commentators’ that it calls upon their agenda would be laid bare for all to see. Thus the non-disclosure.

         6 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:
      May 11, 2012 at 10:27 am

      Mr Shaxson was interviewed as a tax haven expert and not about tax avoidance or as a representative of the Tax Justice Network

      But you can’t separate the two, surely. What he has to say on tax havens must by definition be coloured by the fact he represents the Tax Justic Network. The basis on which he was interviewed is irrelevant: the question the BBC should be asking when selecting for interview is surely “What do we expect him to say, taking into account his known views?”

      This is pure sophistry and only serves to reinforce the fact that complaints of bias are a waste of time as the answer will always be “We’re right because we think we are, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

         2 likes

      • Umbongo says:
        May 11, 2012 at 10:37 am

        Daily Tim Worstall evicerates Shaxon’s mate Richard Murphy and the tax “justice” crapola. Murphy is a paid “expert” for the TUC and others, and a hypocrite – since he has a personal history of tax avoidance. That the BBC can’t get enough of his and Shaxon’s “expertise” is thereby completely understandable. The BBC is not seeking disinterested expertise: it seeks any cheer-leader for the BBC Narrative no matter how flawed his intellectual capacity to understand what he’s squawking about.

           2 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 11, 2012 at 10:54 am

        ‘But you can’t separate the two, surely’
        Ah, I think I see the problem here.
        ‘You’ or ‘I’.. can’t.
        The BBC… can…. for some reason, which is unique.
        I am trying currently to track this down with Stephanie Harris, who is Minister for Obfuscation at the BBC, and has been landed the task of clarifying why there are two departments – one for who is invited, and one for what is said – who are not allowed to talk to or speak for each other and hence address the issue. Unless it is on a topic the BBC feels it is important to have a united front upon, in which case they can all talk to their hearts’ content. Especially on twitter. Or not. At least for the BBC. Or not. Apparently.
        Or… “We’re right because we think we are, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
        Sadly, I have to agree on the bias aspect. They have it sewn up.

           2 likes

  16. Guest Who says:
    May 11, 2012 at 8:16 am

    ‘Never trust the BBC…. when it merely introduces someone as an “expert” on a sensitive political or business issue.’
    An edit is suggested there, but OK.
    Tx for this latest share on a complaint, already being used as I draft my letter (on parchment, using Unicorn tears, as they demand) to the lady who oversees why folk get invited on but cannot discuss what they say, as redirected by the man who oversees what is said but not who said it.
    Or something.
    I imagine that if a a Nick Griffin were to be back in the frame, the person and likely opinions would see a unique level of mutual cooperation in oversight internally.
    Hypocrisy at the BBC not so much being the exception but the rule.

       4 likes

  17. Reed says:
    May 11, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Discussion on BBC Radio now…

    “Should we still be using the word Empire – in relation to awards like the O.B.E.”

    The host opening up with, “Why is the word Empire so toxic”.

    So, they’re not leading the conversation in any way, then.
    Just setting the tone in as non-partisan a way as possible.

       6 likes

  18. As I See It says:
    May 11, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Arch-feminist Nicky Campbell is hanging out with the girls this morning on Salford Local Radio.

    ‘Is celebrity culture a danger to our daughters?’, he asks.

    Yes, of course, celebrity cultural – that will be the main worry on the minds of British parents this week!

       6 likes

    • Reed says:
      May 11, 2012 at 9:35 am

      Let me fix that headline for ya…

      “Is Hello magazine more dangerous to our daughters than muslim pedo rape gangs?”

         4 likes

  19. George R says:
    May 11, 2012 at 9:59 am

    “BBC GAGGED DICTATOR SACHA BARON COHEN”

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/250585/BBC-gagged-Dictator-Sacha-Baron-Cohen/

       0 likes

  20. George R says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Addenda for INBBC reports on SYRIA:

    “Al-Qaeda Ladies’ Choir Struts Its Stuff in Rebel Syria”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/05/10/Al-Qaeda-Ladies-Choir-Struts-Its-Stuff-in-Rebel-Syria

       1 likes

  21. Guest Who says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Meanwhile, in other news, as Levenson grinds on, post-hacking, why are all the media excited by the texts flying to and fro between PMs, ex-PMs and media baronetttes not the least bit interested in how, exactly, the content of these come to be known to one and all?
    I have to presume the senders and recipients deemed them private. Has a whole new era of standards kicked in again?

       3 likes

  22. Guest Who says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Iain Dale ‏ @IainDale

    RT @tombradby: Dear Lord Leveson, If Editors don’t reflect their readers views, readers stop buying the paper. That’s how newspapers work.
    What unique media monopoly exception to that rule could possibly spring to mind?

       7 likes

    • Reed says:
      May 11, 2012 at 11:53 am

      Good find!
      The BBC – There to ̶i̶n̶f̶l̶u̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶d̶o̶c̶t̶r̶i̶n̶a̶t̶e̶ inform and educate.

         6 likes

  23. George R says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:33 am

    BBC-NUJ can always say it had Niall FERGUSON as 2012 Reith Lecturer:

    “Historian Niall Ferguson named 2012 BBC Reith Lecturer”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17259197

       1 likes

    • Umbongo says:
      May 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm

      Even the BBC recognises that, to maintain some tatter of its credibility, it has sometimes to allow a non-groupthink speaker onto the airwaves. Why do you think Starkey is allowed near a BBC microphone? Luckily for the BBC, no-one uninfected with the intellectual disease of easy leftism listens to the Reith Lectures expecting learned discourse. Accordingly Fergusson’s naming as Reith Lecturer for 2012 will be used endlessly to trumpet the BBC’s “impartiality” although the content will be ignored by the BBC apparatchiks and their friends in the Guardian-reading classes. Doubtless, visitors from and apologists for the BBC commenting on this site will cite the naming as proof of lack of BBC bias.

         2 likes

  24. George R says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:49 am

    9/11, Guantanamo.

    Of course, INBBC’s account is as that of political chums at ‘NYT’:-

    “A Tale of Two Courtrooms.”

    (2 page report.)

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/09/a-tale-of-two-courtrooms/

       1 likes

  25. Umbongo says:
    May 11, 2012 at 11:50 am

    A wonderful encapsulation by “sassenach” on Guido’s site of the BBC Narrative.

       4 likes

  26. David Preiser (USA) says:
    May 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    The BBC’s US President editor managed to find something to talk about that doesn’t directly affect the President. It’s such a rare occurrence I had to mark it.

    Why was the US military teaching ‘total war’ on Islam?

    This is not surprising. The FBI has had a guy preaching similar stuff, and it’s not exactly shocking that a few people in the intelligence community think this way.

    But after reading the Wired piece, I noticed something. This is a brand new course. It happened under The Obamessiah’s watch. Yet Mardell managed to ignore that entirely.

    So my initial reaction – that Mardell had managed to find something to talk about other than the President or issues directly related to Him – was wrong. This does affect the President, as it happened on His watch. And under His watchful gaze, more and more drone attacks have been killing Muslims left and right, including civilians. No wonder Mardell had to point the finger of blame somewhere else immediately. If this had happened under any other President, some connection would have been mentioned. Mardell continues to protect the President.

       1 likes

←Older Comments