Ed Richards
OFcom
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
www.ofcom.org.uk
Telephone +44 0)20 7981 3000
Textphone +44 0)20 7981 3043
Facsimile +44 10)20 7981 3333
Ofcom reference: 1-41818452
19 2 2008
Dear Mr Richards,
I have delayed my response to David Burkin's letter of 24 January (see
below) because I wanted to get the BBC Trust's response to my complaint
to them -see bottom of this email. .
In his letter of 15 January (copy below) M Burkin advised me to refer
the matter to the BBC Trust, claiming that it fell within their remit
not OFcom's. I have done this. The BBC Trust say it does not fall
within their remit and have referred it to the Director General of the
BBC. This is unsatisfactory because it emphatically breaches natural
justice as the DG is an employee of the organisation I am complaining
about and, hence , by definition not disinterested. Unless OFcom
investigates, there will be no independent investigation of what is a
very serious complaint, because if the BBC are censoring 239 people on
Radio 5 alone there must be thousands censored throughout the entire
BBC, many thousands possibly bearing in mind the number of local BBC
stations which rely very heavily on phone-ins.
Let me now turn to Mr Burkin's letter of 24 January. The fact that
OFCOM have only fined the BBC for the Blue Peter scandal is irrelevant
to my case. You have investigated other complaints of a similar nature
and that is all I am asking you to do, investigate. The police do not
fail to investigate alleged crimes because they do not think they will
get a conviction. Neither should OFcom.
Mr Burkin's claim that flagging those deemed to be abusive or "a
nuisance" is "an appropriate and pro****tionate response by a
broadcaster" will strike most people as astoni****ng. What he is
sanctioning is the BBC operating a covert system of censor****p which is
operated entirely at their will and for which no records of why people
are censored are kept. .
The fact that this censor****p is made without telling the person banned
that they have been banned means that the person is left in the same
situation as those taking part in reality shows and others programmes
which invite audience participation such as Blue Peter, namely, they are
invited to take part in a programme in which the BBC has ensured they
have no chance of taking part.
Mr Burkin's claim that "It also appears reasonable that a broadcaster
could expect the individuals concerned to be aware of the possible
implication of their previous actions. Far from raising the matter of
“fixing ... phone-ins”, the issue appears to concern the treatment
of specific individuals off air rather than the potential general
misleadingness of programme content " is best described as ludicrous.
Both what constitutes abuse and "being a nuisance" are very subjective
matters. No one could be expected to know that they have been banned,
especially when there is no public advertising of this fact by the BBC.
Moreover, no matter what has happened previously, the fact that the
caller's phone will still ring will make it seem as though there is no
problem. The system is designed to deceive.
As for " the potential general misleadingness of programme content "
(are you comfortable with a senior member of your staff writing in such
an ugly fa****on? ) , the fact that people deemed a "a nuisance" are
banned suggests that they may be banned because of their views, i.e.,
the BBC is directly censoring views.
I ask again that you investigate this matter.
Yours sincerely
Robert Henderson
OFccm
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
www.ofcom.org.uk
Telephone +44 0)20 7981 3000
Textphone +44 0)20 7981 3043
Facsimile +44 10)20 7981 3333
Ofcom reference: 1-41818452
24 January 2008
Dear Mr Henderson
Alleged “surreptitious censoring of phone-in programmes” by the BBC
Thank you for your email dated 22 January 2008, which now clarifies
precisely your current concern - namely, that the BBC may be,
“misleading listeners and viewers into believing they can take place
in phone-in programmes when there is no chance of them doing so.”
I have only two points to add to my letter dated 15 January 2007:
1. While certain BBC programmes are under investigation by Ofcom, the
“phone-in scandals” to which you refer (i.e. those investigated in
2007) included only one sanctionable breach of the Ofcom Broadcasting
Code (“the Code”) by the BBC - Blue Peter, which you have cited. The
relevant programme included a competition that all viewers were invited
(on air) to enter, when none of them had a chance of winning. This
resulted in a breach of Rule 2.11 of the Code. Rule 2.11 states:
“Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be describe
accurately and rules should be clear and appropriately made known.”
Clearly, this Rule is of no relevance to your current concern.
2. Ofcom is primarily concerned with broadcasters’ output and,
clearly, misleading output has the potential to harm viewers. However,
any response by members of the home audience to a broadcast invitation
for its views (to be made on or off air) may include attempted phone
contact by people who have previously made nuisance calls or have been
abusive. For such calls to trigger a “warning or banned flag” and
alert a phone operator appears to be an appropriate and pro****tionate
response by a broadcaster. It also appears reasonable that a broadcaster
could expect the individuals concerned to be aware of the possible
implication of their previous actions. Far from raising the matter of
“fixing ... phone-ins”, the issue appears to concern the treatment
of specific individuals off air rather than the potential general
misleadingness of programme content.
I am sorry that we remain unable to assist you further.
Yours sincerely,
David Burkin
Programme Executive
Content and Standards
email 22 1 2-008
David Burkin
Content and Standards
OFcom
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
Dear Mr Burkin,
Your letter of 15 January makes no sense. In 2007 Ofcom investigated
various phone-in scandals involving the BBC which included a faked Blue
Peter competition for which the BBC was fined £50,000.
My complaint falls within the same category of behaviour, namely,
inviting the public to phone in when it is pointless to do so. That is
what I am asking you to investigate. I ask you again to do so.
If you fail to investigate this complaint the only rational conclusion
will be that you refuse to investigate this instance of BBC fixing of
phone-ins because it is politically inexpedient to do so.
Just to make sure that there is no confusion, I am asking you to
investigate the practice of misleading listeners and viewers into
believing they can take place in phone-in programmes when there is no
chance of them doing so.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
OFcom
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
www.ofcom.org.uk
Telephone -4-44 0)20 7981 3000
Textphone +44 (0)20 7981 3043
Facsimile +44 (0)20 7981 3333
Ofcom reference: 1-41818452
15 January 2008
Dear Mr Henderson
Alleged “surreptitious censoring of phone-in programmes” by the BBC
Thank you for your email dated 10 January 2008, which has been passed to
me, as a Programme Executive in the Standards Team. You ask why we
“refuse to
investigate” your complaint. I have therefore read all correspondence
to date.
I should state at the outset that Ofcom has not refused to investigate
your concerns. We are in fact unable to investigate them. The following
may assist you in
understanding why:
Both Ofcom and the BBC Trust have specific duties.
Under the Communications Act 2003 Ofcom is the independent regulator and
competition authority for the UK communications industries, with
responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and
wireless communications services.
The BBC was established by Royal Charter to serve the public interest.
The Charter also recognises the independence of the BBC. The BBC Trust
therefore represents the interests of licence fee payers and is
responsible for ensuring the effective promotion of the BBC’s public
purposes. The Charter and a Framework Agreement between the Department
for Culture, Media and S****t and the BBC set out the public obligations
placed upon the BBC and the duties and functions of the BBC Trust.
The Communications Act 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996, the Royal
Charter and the Framework Agreement set out Ofcom’s duties and powers
in relation to the BBC. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) therefore
exists between the Ofcom and the BBC Trust, which can be found at,
httr://www.ofcom .org. uk/aboutlaccoun/mou/mou. pdf.
In your original email you appeared to question the BBC’s transparency
concerning its method of screening out certain callers to its
programmes, which you believe
brings into question “what the BBC is meant to be about, namely, fair,
honest and impartial broadcasting.” In so doing, you have identified
two specific issues:
• The level of transparency concerning the BBC’s decision not to
answer calls from specific individuals; and
• Alleged “censor****p” and its implications concerning impartiality.
It is appropriate to address these in reverse order:
You will note from the MOU that Ofcom does not have the statutory powers
to consider the due impartiality of BBC output. Should you believe the
absence from air of specific views has rendered the BBC partial in news
and/or on a political (or similar) matter, you should therefore contact
the BBC Trust.
Editorial decisions concerning who should feature in a programme, or
which specific individual’s view(s) should be represented in a
programme, are entirely down to the broadcaster. Transparency concerning
this is therefore a matter you may wish to continue to pursue with the
BBC or refer on to the BBC Trust, if you believe that the absence from
air of specific individuals’ views is a form of censor****p that has
rendered the broadcaster partial.
I am sorry that we are unable to assist you further.
Yours sincerely
David Burkin
Content and Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
From: Robert Henderson [mailto:philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
15 January 2008 13:30
To: Trust Enquiries
Subject: Formal complaint against the BBC's surreptitious censoring of
phone-in programmes
13 January 2008
Sir John Lyons
The BBC Trust
35 Marylebone High Street
London W1U 4AA
Dear Sir John,
Complaint against the BBC's surreptitious censoring of phone-in
programmes
I have used the Freedom of Information Act to get the BBC to admit that
they are censoring callers to phone-in programmes without telling the
people who are censored that this is being done.
The censor****p is achieved as follows. The BBC decides someone shall
not be allowed on air at any time because they are either making
"nuisance calls" or being abusive. In the case of Radio 5 they do this
by using a telephone system which allows the person's phone number to be
marked as banned and the operator then refuses to answer the call. The
caller is not told that they have been banned and the phone is left to
ring until either the caller gets tired of trying or the provider of the
phone cuts off the call. See the BBC's letter to me of 19 10 2007.
The BBC have only given me the current figures for Radio 5 (239 people
banned) because they claim that the cost of providing it for the BBC in
its entirety would exceed the £450 cost limit for FOIA request. (This
is almost certainly not so for the reasons given in my letter to Andrea
Chard dated 22 10 2007.) They also claim to have no historical records
of such bans - the data qwill almost certainly be recorded on the
systems used because deleting does not lose the data only remove it from
immediate access. . However, it is clear from their letter of 19 10 2007
that the practice is a general one and, consequently, the numbers of
banned people involved throughout the BBC could plausibly be thousands
based on the number given for Radio 5.
I would further draw your attention to the refusal of the BBC to give
names and details of those who have authorised the use of such systems.
The BBC does not define what a nuisance call is or what constitutes
abuse. As they operate the system secretly and act judge and jury in
deciding who shall be banned, the system is clearly open to
considerable abuse because they can ban anyone at their whim.
This is a matter of considerable public interest for it is indubitably
destructive of what the BBC is meant to be about, namely, fair, honest
and impartial broadcasting. Consequently , it is far more serious than
fixed quiz shows, dishonestly edited shows and fixed votes for reality
programmes, serious as those are.
I ask you to
(1) stop the practice forthwith
(2) investigate when it began and who authorised it
(3) take disciplinary action you against those responsible for the
practice
(4) notify all those who have been censored of the period of their
censor****p and the reason for it
(5) Find out how what definition of "abusive" and "nuisance" has been
applied
6. Quantify the reasons why people have been censored
7. Publish the results of 1-6.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ref: 15056810
15 February 2008
Dear Mr Henderson
Thank you for your email of 13 January to the Chairman and BBC Trustees
regarding calls to BBC phone-in programmes. I am responding on behalf of
the Chairman as I work in the Trust Unit which provides sup****t and
advice to the Trust. I do apologise for the delay in responding.
I should explain that the role of the Trust, as set out in the BBC's
Royal Charter, is distinct from that of the BBC Executive. The Trust's
role is to set the BBC's strategic and editorial frameworks, but
responsibility for operational decision, such as that which you raise,
rests ultimately with the BBC Director-General.
I am therefore forwarding your email to the Director-General's office
and asking that BBC management respond to your complaint.
Regarding your email to Bruce Vander of 25 September, I understand that
Mr Vander responded on the same day. I am attaching a copy of his
response for your reference.
Yours sincerely
Victoria Finney
Correspondence Manager
BBC Trust Unit
Victoria Finney
Correspondence Manager
BBC Trust Unit
19 2 2008
Dear Ms Finney,
I am advised by OFcom that my complaint does fall within the Trust's
remit - Ofcom letter from David Burkin dated 15 1 2008 .
The DG is not an independent arbiter because he is an employee of the
organisation about which I complain. That is a clear breach of natural
justice which requires those in judicial or quasi-judicial positions to
be disinterested.
Yours sincerely
Robert Henderson
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/
blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
|
