Can we trust either the BBC, or the BBC Trust?

The Chairman

BBC Trust

 

Dear Sir,

 

CAN WE TRUST EITHER THE BBC, OR THE BBC TRUST?

 

I refer to the recent statement by the BBC Trust on the BBC website in which you say:

 
“We have made clear that we regard any deception or breach of faith with our audiences as being utterly unacceptable”. (My emphasis)
 

However, I suggest that this statement is not true. Deception by the BBC is clearly widely practised and even glaringly obvious examples are apparently ignored. Therefore some forms of deception are apparently condoned by both the BBC and the BBC Trust. I therefore believe that the BBC Trust can therefore also be accused of deceiving the public and of a breach of faith towards the licence fee paying members of the public and the viewers generally. The reasons for claiming this are broadly set out below.

 
BBC Trust Report: “See Saw to Wagon Wheel”
 

Although the BBC Trust is responsible for ensuring impartiality by the BBC it approved and adopted as its own the BBC Report “From See Saw to Wagon Wheel”. This was published only about three months after the BBC Trust came into being. This 81 page report on “impartiality” in the 21st century virtually ignores one of the main criticisms of BBC bias over the last 35 years i.e. that relating to the BBC’s bias in favour of Britain’s membership of the EU.

The Wilson committee confirmed two years previously to this Report that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU, that the BBC failed to report issues on the EU that should have been reported and that “urgent action was necessary to put this right”. Despite this recommendation the BBC Trust has virtually ignored the problem of proven pro-EU bias in its Report. In addition, where the report does refer briefly in passing to the possibility of pro-EU bias, these references are generally qualified by the claims that the BBC came “late” to Euro scepticism or that the BBC was “ignorant” about Europe.

It can therefore be argued that the BBC Trust has in effect, already made its excuses about any claims of pro-EU bias in this Report. This is considered to be a breach of faith by the BBC Trust as it implies that any complaints of BBC pro-EU bias will not be promptly and impartially dealt with by the BBC Trust in the future. This view is possibly borne out by the BBC Trusts response to Lord Pearson’s complaint in July this year that only one person in 5 interviewed by the Today programme was a Eurosceptic. Despite this statistically proven evidence of bias you replied that this complaint would be looked at “in the autumn”. This tends to confirm the view that the BBC Trust, like generations of BBC governors before it, is not going to treat complaints of pro-EU bias with the vigour and urgency they deserve.

Furthermore, there are a number of questionable or possibly misleading statements and views throughout the Report which, through having adopted the Report as its own can therefore be taken to be the views of the BBC Trust. Many of these are discussed in the addendum to this letter. No doubt, it will be argued that these quotations are taken out of context, or that they are only included as part of the discussion to illustrate the immense difficulties the BBC has with impartiality. In addition, it could be argued that the Report goes on to discuss the problem and describes methods of dealing with some of the problems raised. Unfortunately, the BBC cannot be trusted to take any more notice of the guidelines contained in this Report than the notice the BBC has taken of the producer’s guidelines or its legal obligations under its Royal Charter in the past, as the examples listed below tend to show.

Unfortunately the BBC Trust has already given the (probably mistaken) impression that complaints of many other forms of bias will also not be dealt with impartially as the BBC Trust has apparently already claimed in its Report that the opposite view “is perfectly sustainable”. This implies that the BBC Trust is going to excuse future complaints of bias in the same way the BBC has in the past i.e. by claiming that because opposite complaints even up the score this “proves” the BBC is being impartial. Hence the BBC Trusts commitment to ensuring the BBC’s compliance with the Reports recommendations is open to question.

Therefore, to eliminate any doubt as to its intentions and to honour its claim that “any deception or breach of faith with our audiences as being utterly unacceptable” the BBC Trust should justify the statements it has put its name to within the Report as discussed in the Addendum to this letter, see Para’s referred to in the Addendum for the discussion. The BBC Trust is also asked to justify why no action has apparently been taken by them in the obvious and well publicised cases of deception included in the list below. The BBC Trust is also asked to consider demanding the dismissal of all the BBC staff involved in the scams listed, or to justify why simply reprimanding them or moving them within the BBC is considered satisfactory. (See Para 9 of the Addendum to this letter.)

1) The BBC Trust to justify its statement that “Impartiality has always been (together with independence) the BBC’s defining quality” (My emphasis) (See Para 4.2)

2) The BBC Trust to justify its statement that “Impartiality has always been (together with independence) the BBC’s defining quality” (My emphasis) (See Para 4.3)

3) The BBC Trust is to consider the dismissal of Helen Boaden and ALL the BBC staff involved in the recent incident involving John Redwood. (See Para 4.11)

4) The BBC Trust to consider the dismissal of ALL the BBC staff involved in the incident involving HM the Queen. Peter Finchams “resignation” is simply not adequate and ALL the BBC staff involved should be considered for dismissal. (See Para 4.19)

5) The BBC Trust is to ensure that ALL BBC voxpops are to be banned forthwith. (See Para 4.24)

6) The BBC Trust to justify the statement in the Report that claims the BBC was “ignorant” of Europe. (See Para 4.25)

7) The BBC Trust is to consider the dismissal of ALL the BBC team involved in selecting speakers and producing Question Time. (See Para 5)

8) The BBC Trust is to consider the dismissal of ALL the BBC team involved in producing the Today programme. (See Para 6)

9) The BBC Trust is to consider the dismissal of ALL the BBC team involved with the scam on the Graham Norton show. (See Para 7)

10) The BBC Trust is to consider the dismissal of ALL the BBC team involved in the biased news report on Nigel Farage’s visit to Romania. (See Para 8)

11) The BBC Trust is to consider the dismissal of ALL the BBC team involved in the questionable claims made by BBC Information in their reply to my letter of complaint on the way that BBC news presented the item on Mr Farage's visit to Romania. (See Para 8)

 12) The BBC Trust is to establish the facts behind the Sunday Times report 7 Oct, 2007 that although Alan Yentob allegedly admitted to the practice of “nodding” the BBC has apparently now claimed it cannot find any evidence of Yentob using trickery. If correct as reported some one in the BBC is not telling the truth and the BBC Trust should consider the dismissal of all those involved.

The BBC Trust should also consider resigning en-bloc for the breach of faith it has allegedly displayed by endorsing, approving and issuing as their own document the BBC Report “From See Saw to Wagon Wheel“. A Report which includes a number of questionable statements and claims but which virtually ignores major areas of the BBC’s lack of impartiality in the past.

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

(Addendum to letter dated 8th October 2007)

I refer to the statements by the BBC Trust and by Mr Mark Thompson published on the BBC web site on Wednesday 18th July 2007 after the BBC had to admit that it had deceived the public by rigging the results in a number of phone-in competitions. As a result the phone-in competitions have rightly been suspended, one hopes for good.

1) The BBC Trust stated:

“We have made clear that we regard any deception or breach of faith with our audiences as being utterly unacceptable”. (My emphasis)

2) Mr Thompson stated;

“There is no excuse for deception. I know the idea of deceiving the public would simply never occur to most people working in the BBC”.

3) “Deception” is generally defined as “deliberately presenting misleading information to others”. Similarly, “Deceit” is defined in the Oxford Reference Dictionary as “The act or process of deceiving the public or misleading esp by concealing the truth”. BBC deception and deceit is therefore much more widespread and goes much deeper than scamming the public on phone-in competitions, when the BBC staff may be under pressure to save their programme while on air.

But of course the BBC is currently only admitting to deception occurring in phone-in competitions and is giving the impression that once these are stopped and BBC staff have attended their “re-training” courses the problem will have been solved.

However, there are many other areas in which the BBC is deceiving the public by claiming to be impartial when it is not. The BBC Trust is apparently supporting the BBC in this scam by ignoring many glaring areas of bias and deception. Some examples are discussed below.

4) Report: “See Saw to Wagon Wheel”

The BBC Report, ”From See Saw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century” published in June 2007 was approved by BBC senior management and also approved and adopted by the BBC Trust. It will therefore be referred to as the BBC Trust Report. This report was a major exercise for the BBC and must have cost many thousands of pounds of licence fees to produce. One might expect therefore that it would be totally accurate and honest in its content. This is particularly important bearing in mind that it was approved and adopted by the BBC Trust, the body responsible for ensuring impartiality by the BBC. Unfortunately, there are a number of questionable statements in the BBC Trust Report which could give the wrong impression and may therefore mislead and/or deceive the public. Some of these are discussed below.

4.1) Title Page

The title can be misleading; “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century” gives the impression that the BBC was impartial during the 20th century which is not true.

4.2) Page 2: Foreword,

The first line of the BBC Trust Report states that “Impartiality has always been (together with independence) the BBC’s defining quality”. (My emphasis.)

This is an incredibly unwise claim for the BBC Trust to make as it arguably not sustainable in the case of pro-EU bias. It is also probably not sustainable in many other forms of BBC bias notably its alleged left wing bias which is also briefly discussed below.

a) The Breakfast Meetings 

It is a historical fact that the BBC deliberately chose to support Ted Heath’s campaign to win over public support for his disastrous decision to join the then EEC. The infamous “breakfast meetings” in the early 1970’s between BBC officials, government ministers and Foreign Office officials are now widely recognised as having taken place. The BBC even sacked Jack de Manio, the popular radio presenter of the “Today” programme at that time as he was seen to be anti-EEC, although the BBC has always denied this was the reason. (NB See also Para 5 below.)

Hence, the BBC cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as always being impartial, or that “impartiality” has always been the BBC’s defining quality, particularly as the BBC deliberately supported Britain’s entry into the EEC in the 1970’s. Since then it has been alleged that the BBC has never deviated from its commitment to“Europe”. The BBC must therefore have allegedly been deliberately deceiving the British public for well over thirty years as to its supposed “impartiality” on this issue.

 

 

The BBC Trust has therefore made a categorical statement in the first line of the Foreword to the BBC Trust Report which must be justified.

b) Wilson Committee

The Wilson committee confirmed in January 2005, just over 2 years before this report was issued, the BBC’s “institutional mindset” in favour of the EU and said the BBC was failing to report issues (about the EU) which ought to be reported. Its main conclusion was that “urgent action is required to put this right”. Yet the BBC Trust chose to ignore the findings of the Wilson committee in a major review of “impartiality”.

Hence the BBC Trust Report simply serves to confirm the view that the BBC is in denial over its bias towards the EU and therefore no amount of BBC self-regulation or monitoring by government appointed governors, Trusts or committees is ever likely to correct this. It should be noted that the Wilson Committee was only set up after persistent and frequent complaints to the BBC by Lord Pearson based on a vast amount of statistical data proving BBC bias towards the EU had been established over many years by Minotaur Media Tracking Ltd. (MMT). After countless denials of bias by both the BBC and the Governors Complaints Committee an independent review confirmed that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU and was not therefore impartial in its treatment of European matters.

Admittedly, there is in the 81 pages of the BBC Report a small concession (by omission) that accusations that the BBC is hostile to Euro-scepticism and sympathetic to Euro-federalism were correct. Passing references are also made in the Report about the BBC’s difficulty in “recognising” Euro-scepticism. But these failures are virtually dismissed by feeble excuses. A pro-EU “institutional mindset” is a massive problem to overcome in an organisation currently employing 27,000 people and which has allegedly had this mindset for 35 years. Deliberately ignoring this vast problem simply debases the value of this Report on “maintaining” impartiality to nil.

c) Left Wing Bias

Similarly, the BBC Trust Report tends to dismiss the alleged left wing bias in the BBC of which there are many examples.

For example, the Evening Standard, 25th February 1997, reported that the BBC had given Labour candidate Ben Bradshaw five months paid leave to fight a marginal election seat. A former BBC radio presenter, Graham Robb, was allegedly sacked when he was chosen as a Tory candidate in the 1987 election.

The Sunday Times, 20th September 1995, reported that the BBC was to spend thousands of pounds of licence-payers money sponsoring a Labour Party celebration for new MPs at its conference in Blackpool. The entire intake of newly-elected Labour MP’s would be invited to the event to be hosted by Andy Parfitt, Radio 1’s controller. A spokesman defended the BBC’s use of the licence fee, saying “It is an opportunity for the controller of Radio 1 to address new Labour MP’s about young people”.

The Rt. Hon. John Whittingdale, OBE, MP, when he was Shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, wrote in Heartland, October 2003, that the Conservatives presented a dossier of specific examples of bias to the BBC, focussing on its coverage of the local election results. He said “the BBC privately acknowledges that we were entitled to complain, but unfortunately the damage had been done”.

Nevertheless the first line of the BBC Trust Report states that “Impartiality has always been the BBC’s defining quality” (my emphasis). The BBC Trust Report also essentially dismisses allegations of left wing bias by saying that “it was a minority view”.

A more recent example of anti-Conservative Party bias was the BBC’s action in humiliating John Redwood by showing in Aug 2007 a 14 year old clip of him trying to sing the Welsh National Anthem. The clip was included during BBC coverage of Conservative Party plans to cut red tape to which the BBC clip had no relevance whatsoever. (See Para 4.11 below.)

I therefore challenge the BBC Trust to justify its statement that “Impartiality has always been the BBC’s defining quality”. (My emphasis)

 

 

4.3) Page 2: Foreword

Again, in the first sentence of the BBC Trust Report you state that “Impartiality has always been (together with independence) the BBC’s defining quality”. (My emphasis.)

a) This is again a questionable statement bearing in mind that the BBC has practically always been totally dependent on the government of the day to agree its total income through the iniquitous licence fee system.

In addition, the BBC has been lent vast sums of money by the European Investment Bank, a main aim of which is to lend money to projects which are “achieving European aims”.  (My emphasis.) This does not appear to comply with the BBC’s legal obligation for impartiality and independence.

During a recent debate in the House of Lords on the EU constitution it was revealed that a number of members who spoke in favour of adopting the EU constitution were receiving pensions from the EU, the continuation of which was conditional on their continued support for greater EU federalisation. It is inconceivable therefore that the EIB loans to the BBC involving many millions of pounds would not contain certain obligations as to the support expected by the EU in return for the loans in the same way as it is for grubby EU pensions which are little more than bribes. The BBC has always denied any conflict with their legal obligations for impartiality in the terms of their EIB loans. The terms of the EIB loans must be fully exposed to check the veracity of the BBC denials and the BBC Trust claim that BBC independence has always been the BBC’s defining quality. (My emphasis.)

As an example consider the BBC’s treatment of the Countryside March which took place on Saturday 21st Sept 2002 and was the biggest mass demonstration for human rights that had ever been seen in Britain. A total of over 400,000 people took part and many others were prevented from taking part due to traffic and access problems.

Predictions the BBC would go to any lengths not to achieve “balance” were borne out, as an inordinate coverage was given to a small group of anti-hunt protestors. The Countryside Alliance criticised as “trite” the interview by the Today programme on 23rd Sept, of an Australian busker who was singing animal welfare songs during the march rather than dealing with more substantive issues.

BBC1 devoted just a few minutes to the march out of the entire 3 hour breakfast show, and had dropped it completely by lunchtime.

The pro-referendum rally, on October 27th this year, promises to be much bigger than the Countryside March. It will be interesting to see if the BBC gives it more than a few minutes coverage on prime time TV. The significant question however is will the terms of the EIB loans allow it to as it is against EU principles to allow voters to express their views in an election when they know it will not be in the EU’s favour.

I therefore challenge the BBC Trust to justify its statement that “Independence has always been the BBC’s defining quality”

 

4.4) Page 11: Accuracy and Impartiality

“The BBC’s compliance with impartiality is the responsibility of the BBC trust. The Framework Agreement accompanying the 2006 Royal Charter states that the BBC “must do all it can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output” which is defined as output consisting of news or dealing with matters of public policy …….”

Like, for instance, the BBC and the BBC Trust producing at great expense to the licence fee payers an 81 page Report on “impartiality” which virtually completely ignores its pro-EU “institutional mindset”, allegedly prevalent for thirty five years.

 

4.5) Page 16: The Falklands War

In its reference to the BBC‘s treatment of the Falklands war the BBC Trust Report gives the impression that the BBC’s biggest “crime” was to surrender editorial control by allowing the MOD spokesman Ian McDonald to give the latest military position without “vetting” his statements thereby relinquishing “editorial control”.

This was clearly not a problem to the public as Mr McDonald was obviously making statements on behalf of the MOD. Allowing this to happen was probably infinitely more preferable than the BBC doing its own reports. In his autobiography “Upwardly Mobile” Norman Tebbit, (now Lord Tebbit), described the unctuous “impartiality” of the BBC’s editors. He said few would forgive the phrase, “the British authorities, if they are to be believed, say … …”, or the regular references to British and Argentinean forces rather than “our forces” and “enemy forces”.

Far more serious was the fact that accounts of the Falklands war describe how the BBC World Service broadcast tactical information useful to the enemy, not just once but many times during the conflict. This was a treasonable offence which unfortunately was not pursued through the courts after the war ended.

 

4.6) Page 33: Westminster Parliament

The BBC Trust Report says that the “Westminster Parliament is less esteemed, and now competes for attention with other centres of democratic expression – in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Strasbourg …..” 

Why Strasbourg? Strasbourg is a side show compared to Brussels. Why is the BBC Trust so coy about mentioning Brussels? Is this is another example of the BBC’s pro-EU mindset which avoids bringing attention to the massive take-over of the British way of life by the unelected EU commissioners and bureaucrats in Brussels and the real and potential loss of our ancient rights and privileges?

As for being “less esteemed:” Westminster is practically redundant. The unelected EU commissioners and bureaucrats in Brussels imposed 80% of our new laws last year and our so called “elected” representatives in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Brussels etc had no say in any of them. Hence they are hardly “centres of democratic expression” as described in the BBC Trust Report.

 

4.7) Page 33: The BBC and Parliament

Further down the BBC Trust Report states that “The BBC is still required to provide dedicated coverage of Parliament …..”

Where in that statement is the much vaunted BBC independence evident? The man who decides how much is paid to the piper calls the tune! In addition, the BBC uses this requirement as the reason why it has blanked UKIP and Euro-scepticism so much as UKIP is not represented in Westminster and there was no call within Parliament to withdraw from the EU. However, this excuse is arguably not sustainable. No party within Parliament espouses republicanism, nevertheless the BBC is allegedly strongly anti-monarchy as recent events have once again demonstrated and this is discussed further below.

 

4.8) Page 33: The BBC and UKIP

Again the BBC Trust Report is misleading in its reference to UKIP and its policy of leaving the EU. It says that “ UKIP had no representation in Parliament, and therefore no institutional profile to give credibility to its central policy – British withdrawal from the EU”.

This is not true. UKIP had 3 MEP’s at the time of the European elections in 2004 and was therefore a legitimate Party within the main seat of the governing body of the UK, the European parliament in Brussels. It was therefore arguably not a case of the BBC being caught “on the hop”  by UKIP’s success in the European elections of 2004 where UKIP pushed the Lib Dems into fourth place. Rather, it was another case of the BBC allegedly blanking, as far as possible, any dissenting opinion against the EU as the vast amount of statistical evidence demonstrates.

 

4.9) Page 34: The task for content providers

“The task for content providers, in escaping this institutional bias, is to get out more and devote more time to exploring the undercurrents of opinion …..” etc.

The BBC Trust Report is again misleading. It gives the wrong impression of a BBC which is only just realising that many people are opposed to greater EU federalism. In fact there has always been a strong public distaste for the EU as the BBC must know having been brought in 35 years ago to help swing a mistrust of EEC membership into a more positive approach. Since then the public’s disaffection with the EU has steadily increased, not just in the UK but in many of the European countries in the EU as well.

It is therefore incredulous that the BBC Trust calls for content providers to “get out more” to explore the “undercurrents of opinion” etc., when their own 81 page report on “impartiality” in the 21st century totally ignores the findings of the Wilson committee which confirmed the BBC’s pro-European bias and which also found that the BBC was failing to report issues which should have been reported. (See next Para.)

In addition, when the BBC “does get out more” to “explore the undercurrents of opinion” the BBC does not always give the public the full facts.

A striking example of the way the BBC can deliberately manipulate the “news” is the evidence of the BBC interview with Elizabeth Winkfield.At the time Ms Elizabeth Winkfield (EW), was an 83 year old pensioner living in Devon. Along with other pensioners, she protested at the crippling council tax increases brought about the previous year by her local council. She protested in the most practical way; by refusing to pay any more than that equivalent to inflation over the previous year’s demand.

Ms Elizabeth Winkfield made front page news when, after being prosecuted by her District Council on Thursday 19th February 2003 for the residual amount of Council tax owing, she vowed to go to prison rather than pay the increase. The Daily Mail, Friday February 20th reported that she said “… millions goes to the EU and then they make us pay for it.”

ITV interviewed EW live on Friday, 20th February 2004. During this live interview she said, “I am not paying because there is so much waste in the councils and they are sending money to the SW Regional Assembly and to the EU, without telling anyone. Our money is going to the French and others whilst we are told there isn’t enough money to do things here”.

EW was interviewed in her home on Saturday 21st February, for the Frost programme, to be transmitted on the morning of Sunday 22nd February. During the interview she allegedly made essentially the same damaging statements about the waste of her council taxes as she had stated to the ITV and as described above.

This interview was witnessed by John Kelly. It was apparently stressed to the BBC film crew present that EW was taking a stand against the principle of taxes being given to the SW Regional Assembly (SWRA) and to the EU.

When the interview was broadcast on the Sunday morning, all references by EW to the SWRA and the EU had been deleted. After EW’s cut down interview was broadcast, John Prescott was interviewed by David Frost in the studio.

John Prescott used this opportunity to make a patronising statement about EW's political drive and initiative to show that the government “admired” her stand. He urged her to be a good citizen and pay her taxes and that if she could not afford them help was available. He then made bland statements about the way some council’s were overcharging their ratepayers by increasing council taxes well above inflation. He threatened to “cap” council tax rates if they rose above inflation this year. He also widened the subject by saying that the method of raising council taxes was all wrong and his department was looking at ways to improve it and make it more equitable.

David Frost did not ask him what costs were associated with the setting up of the EU inspired Regional Assemblies without democratic involvement by the voters. He was not asked how much of these and other council tax increases, paid by EW and others, resulted from taxpayers money being diverted to the EU to fund various EU programmes. This was, after all, the reason EW was refusing to pay all of her council tax and was even willing to go to prison for her principles.

In short, the programme enabled John Prescott to patronise EW and defuse EW’s stand against the costs of the EU by falsely implying she could not afford to pay the council tax increases. This was therefore an inaccurate report on her reasons for taking the stand she did. Miss Winkfield, an 83 year old pensioner, could have ended up in prison for the sake of her principles and deserved fairer treatment from Prescott and the BBC which she legally had to pay for.

The question that also ought to be answered is whose idea was it to stage this alleged propaganda programme in the first place? Prescott or the BBC? In either case the BBC possibly illegally used licence fee payers money (including the cost of sending a BBC film crew to Devon to do the interview) to produce a programme which gave Prescott the opportunity to imply that EW’s motives for not paying her council tax increases were not related to the costs of the EU.

Yet the BBC Trust claims that “Impartiality has always been the BBC’s defining quality”. (My emphasis.)

 

4.10) Page 35: Road pricing

The BBC Trust Report says that “Downing Street has encouraged single-issue petitions on its website, and seems intent on continuing the idea, despite the potential embarrassment of more than a million and a half “signatures” in opposition to its preferred policy of road-pricing”. (My emphasis).

This is again misleading. It gives the impression that Downing St had a choice in bringing in the policy of road pricing. This does not appear to be the case. Road-pricing is evidently EU policy and Downing Street can do nothing about it if the EU decides to proceed. EU Directive 1999/62/EC refers to the harmonisation of road-pricing across the EU and road-pricing is being used as a reason for propping up the EU policy of proceeding with the redundant Galileo space satellite at vast and un-necessary cost to UK taxpayers.

In fact, the million and a half signatories, most of whom had probably voted for the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative parties if they had voted at all in the last General Election, had already voted to stay in the EU and thereby voted for the possibility of EU inspired road-pricing and the Galileo programme. But of course, these political parties would not make that clear to the voters, nor it seems would the BBC which had a legal obligation to “inform” the public.

(NB The same criticism could be made about the Royal Mail troubles and closure of rural post offices. Four million people signed a petition to Tony Blair against the policy of closing rural post offices. They all apparently did not realise that this was a direct result of EU directives and Tony Blair could not do a thing about it while we stayed in the EU. The Great British government even had to get EU permission to give some of our own money to our own post offices to help them survive. In all the references to the problems being experienced by competition to the Royal Mail I have never heard BBC making it clear that this was directly due to EU directives. Yet the BBC had a legal obligation to inform the public.)

 

4.11) Page 35: Anti-Conservative bias

The BBC Trust said that “Although other opinion surveys have previously recorded a minority view of an anti-Conservative bias on the BBC, it was notable that none of the participants in the Sparkler audience research discussed impartiality domestically in terms of party politics. They seemed to regard that as sorted”. (My emphasis.)

Hence the BBC Trust appears to be taking the view that the BBC may now be free of party political bias. However, let us look at the John Redwood incident in August this year referred to above in more detail.

i)        The BBC firstly had to decide to include a news report on John Redwoods announcement concerning Tory plans to cut red tape.

ii)       The BBC then had to decide to include a clip ridiculing John Redwood as part of the news report. (NB These additional items do not occur by accident.)

iii)     The BBC then had to decide what sort of clip to include.

The BBC then had to decide  to trawl through its archives to find a suitable clip

v)      The BBC then decided to use a 14 year old clip which from its age must have been selected to maximise John Redwood’s humiliation and embarrassment.

In answer to complaints from the public Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News, was reported to have said “In retrospect we weren’t right to use that footage again which came from a long time ago”. This hardly amounts to an apology. In fact, her alleged statement does not rule out the probability of BBC staff using similar, but more recent footage! It was not just a case of not being “right” in retrospect. It must have been a deliberate BBC decision to ridicule and humiliate John Redwood, a senior Conservative Party member, to the maximum amount possible when he was delivering a new piece of Conservative Party policy and in the process belittle the policy being presented.

However, was Helen Boaden herself involved in the decisions to include this clip? Perhaps the BBC’s Executive Board and the BBC’s Journalism Board were all involved in agreeing to the humiliating footage being broadcast. Did none of the BBC’s news team, journalists, researchers, the news reader or any of the production crew say “I am independent, impartial and honest”, therefore is it right for me to include this clip? ALL BBC staff who carry the card stating that they are “independent, impartial and honest and which the BBC Trust states is “the first of the BBC’s values”. A claim that is not justifiable. They should therefore ALL be considered for dismissal for deception and a breach of faith with the licence fee payers. (See Para 9)

 

4.12) Page 39: BBC Banning of Complainants

The BBC Trust Report recounts the case of Mary Whitehouse and how the then DG Sir Hugh Greene banned her from the BBC airwaves in the 60’s. It was an abuse of his personal power let alone of her human rights. The BBC trust Report says that “The fact that such a ban is unimaginable today ……”

This is misleading. It gives the impression that the BBC would not think of banning anyone today. However, if a ban is not actually imposed by the BBC it certainly avoids giving certain classes of people the opportunity to present their views on the air waves. Peter Shore, a noted Labour Party minister who was anti-EEC was never given air time on the BBC. In the 1999 European elections MMT established that not a single Labour Eurosceptic appeared on air in more than 250 hours of main national news coverage.

In a smaller way the BBC even bans people from complaining about its apparent pro-EU bias and censorship. Some time ago the BBC refused to accept any more complaints from me concerning BBC bias in favour of the EU. A gross denial of my human rights and a total disregard of the BBC’s legal obligation to consider all complaints. Apart from obvious cases of bias in their reporting I was particularly concerned about the BBC’s apparent censoring of bad news about the EU. None of my complaints were upheld by the BBC Complaints Unit or by the Governors Complaints Committee. Yet the Wilson committee confirmed the BBC’s pro-EU “institutional mindset” and they also said that the BBC was failing to report issues which ought to be reported, vindicating in principle my complaints of bias and censorship.

 

4.13) Page 40; Bias by elimination

The BBC Trust Report states that “Bias by elimination is even more offensive today than it was in 1926”.

Very true, so why has the BBC Trust eliminated the findings of the Wilson committee in its 81 page Report on “Impartiality”? Many more examples of “bias by elimination” involving bad news about the EU are described in this note including very recent cases. If the BBC Trust really believes that “bias by elimination” is so offensive it will take strong and immediate action to consider demanding the dismissal of any BBC staff involved.

 

4.14) Page 41; Euro-scepticism

The BBC Trust Report states that “Euro-scepticism was once belittled as a small minded blinkered view of extremists on both left and right ….”. (My emphasis)

This appears to accurately describe the view allegedly prevalent throughout the BBC and which allegedly resulted in slanted BBC reports on the legitimate views of Euro-sceptics. It also confirms that in rejecting nearly all the many complaints of pro-EU bias, both the BBC and the BBC’s governors were not being impartial in their findings.

Furthermore, the BBC Trust Report gives another misleading impression. The BBC’s alleged view of Euro-sceptics as being extremists was not once prevalent; it is still prevalent as the recent report on Nigel Farage’s visit to Romania clearly confirms. (See Para 8 below)

 

4.15) Page 42; Andrew Marr Footnote

Andrew Marr is quoted as saying that “….as a BBC journalist…… your organs of opinion removed with a pair of secateurs……”

Mr Marr hosted a “discussion” programme on the EU some time ago which was rampantly anti-Euro sceptic. The programme consisted of Mr Marr as the host, a roving reporter with a hand microphone, pro and anti-EU proponents as a panel and (presumably) an invited audience. The anti-EU speakers included Peter Hitchens and Ruth Lea.

The most notable feature of the programme was that the BBC were going to expose “Lies” said about the EU and these were flashed up as banner headlines. ALL the items the BBC selected related to anti-EU statements such as sneers about “straight cucumbers” etc.

NO PRO-EU LIES WERE DISPLAYED THROUGHOUT THE PROGRAMME.

For example:

Ted Heaths lie “we will not lose sovereignty if we join the EEC”

“The European Constitution was equivalent to reading the Beano”

 “In Europe but not run by Europe”

“The benefits of being in Europe are so obvious it is not necessary to do a cost/benefit analysis”

“3 million jobs depend on us being in Europe”

“The EU has prevented another European war”

Etc, etc.

The roving reporter went amongst the audience to get their comments from time to time and from their comments they all appeared to have been selected to support the EU.

Peter Hitchens tried to get some real sense and purpose into the programme by saying that all the discussion so far was unimportant. What was really important was the question of “who was running the country”? Andrew Marr agreed and then ignored his comment completely to go back to the prepared script. He did say that there were a couple of political parties opposed to EU membership and the BBC flashed up UKIP together with the Monster Raving Loony Party. The inference was obvious. Hardly an impartial programme!

In addition, this example clearly illustrates the way in which the BBC can manipulate the debate about the EU. Although Peter Hitchens made a very valid and serious point about a really fundamental issue such as “who was really governing the United Kingdom” the BBC were clearly not going to be diverted from their prepared objective of ridiculing Euro sceptics. It proves that the BBC cannot be trusted to host impartially any debate about the EU.

 

4.16) Page 60: Political consensus

The BBC Trust says that “the BBC should be wary of political consensus: it may conceal intellectual laziness, and quite often turns out to be wrong”.

Absolutely true in the case of membership of the EU! Perhaps the BBC will now take its own advice and produce a number of impartial programmes examining the real issues involved in EU membership. (See comments below)

 

4.17) Page 61: Peter Fincham

The BBC Trust Report says that Peter Fincham, Controller BBC 1, has been “intrigued by the amount of time some in senior management spend worrying about impartiality”.

This looks like a particularly in-appropriate quote bearing in mind the fiasco Peter Fincham allegedly presided over with regard to the BBC decision to include a film clip which could embarrass HM the Queen as discussed below.

  

4.18) Page 64: Paul Dacre’s Comments

The BBC Trust Report referred to Daily Mail Editor Paul Dacre’s Cudlipp lecture on 22 January 2007 as a “philippic”. They quoted him as saying that “under the figleaf of impartiality” the BBC was “imposing its own world view”. The BBC Trust Report described Mr Dacres criticism as “the latest of several accusations of a political conspiracy levelled by those on the Right – a notion which few who have worked at the BBC would recognise”.

It was possibly unfair of the BBC Trust to label Mr Dacres comment as an “accusation of a political conspiracy” as there is nothing in the quote selected which appeared to justify that accusation. In fact, from the examples of BBC manipulation quoted it would appear that Mr Dacre’s comment concerning the BBC “imposing its own world view” was essentially correct. Remember the BBC’s decision to support Britain’s entry into the EEC, its alleged continuous commitment to “Europe” ever since and the BBC treatment of Ms Elizabeth Winkfield referred to above.

Furthermore, whilst a formal political conspiracy probably does not exist in the BBC the net effect from the consensus of opinion within the BBC as described and discussed in the BBC Trust Report virtually amounts to the same thing. If there is anything approaching a political conspiracy in the BBC it is in the appointment of staff where they all seem to be of a like mind and no conscious effort appears to be made to employ “right wingers” to balance the opinions held by staff members.

Nor was it correct to imply that it was only those on the Right who held such a view as Mr Dacre’s. In 1996 BBC bosses invited Lord Skidelsky, a leading academic and former SDP peer and Jean Lambert, Green Party activist, to analyse the Corporations political coverage. The results were reported by Anthony Doran and Sean Poulter on the front page of the Daily Mail, 16th April 1996, under the headline, “You are soft on Labour, BBC told.” Lord Skidelsky, Professor of Political Economy at Warwick University, said, “My view also was that the BBC was a power-broker and it should not pretend it was just reporting. They are selecting and creating news (my emphasis). They decide what’s news and then shape events partly by selecting what’s important. They didn’t like hearing that much.” The BBC said “… but these are the opinions of only two people” implying that the BBC did not accept the adverse comments of the very people it had commissioned to review its political coverage.  

In addition, it appears that the BBC trust has unfortunately already given the impression that it will not be impartial about complaints on a number of issues involving bias by the BBC. Paul Dacre argued that the BBC was hostile to Britain’s past, British values, America, Ulster Unionism and the countryside amongst other topics. The BBC Trust virtually dismissed these criticisms in the Report by claiming “but it is perfectly sustainable to compile different lists and argue (as many do) ….” . The BBC Trust even claimed that the BBC could be accused of being “sympathetic” to the police and the monarchy! (See next Para.)

 
4.19) Page 65: The Monarchy

The BBC Trust to claim that the BBC could be accused of being “sympathetic” towards the Monarchy has to be justified.

Bear in mind the furore over the BBC’s treatment of the death of the Queen Mother. There are many other examples. On the day of HM the Queens Jubilee the BBC allegedly put on a joke item of two artists discussing a portrait of Her Majesty formed in excrement and vomit, judging it to be “better” than Lucian Freud’s portrait. Minutes later they were allegedly mocking Prince Charles.

The BBC treatment in July this year of the clip showing HM the Queen walking off a film set in a huff is worth examining in this context because the main story was missed by the media in general. The main story was NOT the fact that the Queen was (as it turned out, erroneously) walking off the set in a huff. Even if She was, surely HM the Queen is entitled to have a “bad hair day” once in a while. She is, after all 80 years old this year and she was in her own home at the time. NO, the main story that the media (and apparently the BBC Trust) missed was the fact that the BBC were apparently relishing the opportunity to show Her Majesty in a bad light! This proved how little respect the BBC has for Her Majesty and for Her position as Head of State.

However, the BBC incorrectly showed Her Majesty storming OUT of the interview when in fact Her Majesty was going IN. The whole sequence was wrong and gave the wrong impression. After the controversy this caused the BBC claimed that the independent film crew sent them the film clips in the wrong order and this was agreed by the film company. BUT, let us look at the BBC’s track record when it is dealing with people it allegedly despises. The BBC deliberately inserted a 14 year old film clip into a news report which humiliated John Redwood. The BBC deliberately corrupted a film sequence of Nigel Farage which made him look comical and ridiculous. (See Para 8.) The BBC deliberately showed totally offensive and completely irrelevant film clips concerning Her Majesty on the day when She was celebrating a major achievement. Hence, the BBC has a proven track record of deliberately including in its broadcasts irrelevant items, the net effect of which is to humiliate and ridicule the subjects involved. Hence, it has to be recognised that the BBC’s track record indicated that at the time the BBC was quite capable of falsifying the films itself. In this case it did not even have to search through 14 years of film clips to make the switch. 

Although Peter Fincham has recently “resigned” after an independent report was critical of the BBC this single resignation is totally inadequate. There must have been many more BBC staff involved in the production of this material and the subsequent events and they have all been effectively shielded by Finchams resignation. If the BBC Trust really means what it says about “deception” and “a breach of faith” being unacceptable ALL the other BBC employees must be considered for dismissal. One resignation is not adequate or acceptable in this case where the BBC was apparently relishing the opportunity to embarrass the Queen over a trivial incident which in the event proved to be incorrect.

 

4.20) Page 66: Assertions by BBC staff

The BBC Trust Report says that “ this Report has relied on the assertions (in private and in public) by BBC staff at programme making and executive level….”.

In which case how can anyone really trust this Report, bearing in mind the pro-EU mindset in the BBC as determined by the Wilson committee and the many other forms of bias described in Robin Aitken’s book “Can we trust the BBC”?

For example, in the Daily Telegraph of 2nd February 2003, Elizabeth Day said that Rod Liddle revealed how a “senior editorial figure” dismissed the Euro-sceptic lobby, fronted by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the (then) Conservative peer as insane. Lord Pearson was reported to have said he was “unsurprised” to have been branded “mad”.

 

4.21) Page 66: BBC “Thought police”

The Report goes on to say “Conspiracy theorists may quicken their own pulse with spectres of a “BBC thought police” instructing programme makers what to think; the reality is much more …. “ (My emphasis.)

This is not correct. The reality is that the BBC “thought police” did, or possibly still do exist.

In his article in the Spectator for 10th May 2003, Rod Liddle, ex-editor BBC Today programme, discussed the setting up of the Welsh Assembly. He pointed out that only 38% of the electorate bothered to vote in Wales which reflected the public’s lack of enthusiasm for the new Assembly. However, the BBC’s election night special presenter did her best to assure the world the reverse was true. This was despite the fact that Plaid Cymru, the keenest party on the new Assembly, did extremely badly in the election.

Rod Liddle pointed to the “purblind political correctness” within the BBC that results in repeated assertions that the Welsh National Assembly is really adored by the people of Wales, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Rod Liddle included the BBC’s attitude to the Scottish Parliament in the same statement.

Further on, he stated the BBC’s attitude was “the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism”. It is the result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t”. (My emphasis).

These seminars and workshops did not apparently contain any instructions for the BBC’s journalists to be impartial or to treat these subjects with due accuracy. The BBC clearly instructed its journalists to promote the view the BBC wished to promote. In the case of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh National assembly the BBC view accorded with the EU policy of breaking the United Kingdom up into regions which could be more effectively controlled by “Brussels” (or as the BBC Trust apparently prefers - “Strasbourg”.)  

Another example is the BBC self imposed ban on any exposure of Peter Mandelson’s sexuality until it was such common knowledge even the BBC could not ignore it. The reality is therefore that the BBC is quite capable of defining political boundaries which must not be crossed where it suits the BBC to do so.

 

4.22) Page 66: Roger Mosey

The BBC Report quotes Roger Mosey, Director of Sport as saying I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times”.

This is a heartening change of mind as Roger Mosey, when Head of Television News allegedly wrote an article in the Independent in August 2002, rejecting the claim that BBC presenters were “pinko lefties”. This was just after left wing presenters from the New Statesman had appeared many times on BBC programmes!

 

4.23) Page 67: Early stages “missed”
 

The BBC Trust claims that “The BBC has come late to several important stories in recent years….. It missed the early stages of monetarism, Euro scepticism and recent immigration ….”

It is ridiculous for the BBC Trust to claim that the BBC came “late” to Euro scepticism. This is a lame excuse for the BBC “blanking” as much as possible the fact that many people are sceptical if not downright hostile to Britain’s membership of the EU. After all, the BBC was heavily and willingly involved over 35 years ago in the propaganda programme to swing public opinion in favour of Britain joining the EU. Mori polls have shown that the “get out” of the EU vote has not dropped below 41% since 1987 and has been slowly increasing since then. This is in spite of the electorate being told for 25 years by all our main political parties and the media that the EU is “vital” to the national interest. However, the BBC Trust is apparently promoting the ridiculous view that the BBC “missed the early stages of Euro scepticism”.

In addition, the BBC Trust claim that the BBC has come “late” to “recent immigration” is also ridiculous considering the BBC’s efforts to present only one side of the immigration saga.

For example, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman, Migrationwatch UK, wrote to the Daily Telegraph on 10th Nov 2003 to point out successive opinion polls show that 80% of respondents (including, importantly, 52% of ethnic minority groups) want to see much tougher immigration controls. Yet … Migration watch had only been invited to speak on Radio 4 twice that year. His search of the BBC News web site revealed that the Refugee Council scored 271 references, Refugee Action 231 and Migrationwatch UK, just 6. It is arguably deceitful of the BBC Trust to claim that the BBC was a little “late” in recognising “late immigration” when the BBC was clearly doing its best to promote popular acceptance of mass immigration.

The BBC approach to uncontrolled immigration generally seems to be to give the impression that nobody from the new countries in the EU want to come here anyway or, that the immigrants who are already here are easily absorbed into the community and/or are only here on a temporary basis and cannot wait to get home again. (See Para below) However, it does appear that recently the BBC has been paying more attention to the adverse effects of mass immigration from Eastern Europeans.

 

4.24) Page 68: “Voxpop’s”

MMT has reported that the BBC’s use of voxpops is frequently a cause for concern. It was alleged that time and time again voxpops are used to give a view which is not representative. During the introduction of euro notes and coins the BBC tried to make it sound as if individuals in particular countries were more in favour of the euro than they actually were. Audiences were almost three times as likely to hear euro positive voxpop opinions as euro negative opinions.

The MMT finding was borne out by a real experience quoted in the BBC Trust Report. Roger Mosey, then Head of BBC News described the story of a BBC news report on census returns in east London. The film included interviews with council officials, members of the Asian community and one white resident – who pronounced himself happy with his neighbourhood. When Roger Mosey asked him if this was truly representative of the white community the reporter replied with pride: “Oh no, we had to work really hard to find him!”

This proves without a shadow of a doubt what has previously been claimed, that BBC voxpops do not always represent the true picture and therefore ALL BBC voxpops are suspect and unsafe. If telephone phone-ins are being banned because the results are so often being rigged then:

 

ALL BBC VOXPOPS MUST ALSO BE BANNED IN THE FUTURE AS THE BBC HAS (PROBABLY INADVERTENTLY) CONFIRMED THAT IT CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO PRESENT A FAIR PICTURE OF THE SITUATION BEING REPORTED ON!

Other examples include the case of a Polish couple interviewed soon after Poland joined the EU and hundreds of thousands of Polish workers were flooding into the country to seek work. In doing so they were putting great strains on the social services for housing, schooling, medical services benefits etc., nevertheless the BBC managed to interview one Polish couple out of the thousands who were over here who were adamant that they were not going to stay after the summer but were going back to Poland where they belonged. Naturally the BBC made no reference during or after the interview about the possible social or economic effects on the UK population of giving nearly 40 million Poles the legal right to move to the UK any day they liked. There must be over 400,000 Poles living and working in Britain today, yet the BBC managed to interview two of them who were not going to stay!

This interview was in a similar vein to the report included in the Nigel Farage visit to Romania, see Para 8 below. The general aim of these BBC news clips appears to be the same, i.e. that immigration into Britain by hordes of migrant workers from nations newly admitted into the EU was not going to be a problem as none of them wanted to come or those that did were not going to stay anyway!

 

4.25) Page 69: “Ignorance” of “Europe”
 

The BBC Trust quotes Stephen Whittle, ex BBC Controller of Editorial Policy, as saying that “ignorance of subject areas such as rural life, religion or Europe undermining the BBC’s approach” – an ignorance the College of Journalism would be aiming to correct”.

To suggest that the BBC may be “ignorant” of Europe as a subject matter is difficult to comprehend. The BBC employs 27,000 people many of whom are journalists, economics editors and so on. Since Britain joined the EEC on 1st January 1973 the UK population must have stumped up over £50 billion for the BBC through the iniquitous licence fee system. The BBC was instrumental from the start in helping to promote the European “idea” and has allegedly never deviated since from its commitment to “Europe”. To claim therefore that the BBC is “ignorant” of Europe has to be justified by the BBC, particularly in view of the alleged quote taken from a speech by Jonathon Chapman, BBC “Senior World News Reporter”, (previously “Senior Europe Producer” in Brussels) to a media seminar at the Malta Press Club in March 2004.

“The media is extremely effective …… The UK media approach is broadly sceptical …… we try in Brussels to break that cycle of scepticism. The BBC’s job is to reflect the European perspective …… And make news less sceptical. That is why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels.”

If this is a correct quotation of what Mr Chapman said, and it was noted by a journalist in the room, then the BBC clearly had a pro-EU agenda akin to promoting pro-EU propaganda, e.g., “the BBC’s job is to reflect the European perspective…. And make news less sceptical”. (My emphasis)

The inescapable conclusion that must result if this quote is correct is that the BBC has had, even before Britain joined the EU, an agenda to promote the EU and all it stands for. The best way the BBC can do this is to consistently keep covering up, to the best of its ability, the disastrous consequences of Britain being in Europe and to give generous coverage to stories which put Eurosceptics in a bad light.

Even if the quote given above is denied by the BBC the last part must be true. Why should anyone in the BBC lie about the relative size of the BBC presence in Brussels, “That is why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels”. (My emphasis.) So if the BBC is claiming to be so “ignorant” about “Europe” what have the large amount of BBC employees in Brussels being doing for the last thirty five years? The BBC claim is just not believable.

 

4.26) Page 72: Democracy and the cold War

Although the BBC Trust Report on “impartiality” did not specifically include the BBC World Service it did give a potentially misleading account of some of the BBC World service activities. For example the BBC Trust Report states that “The BBC has a long and honourable tradition of international broadcasting in English and many other languages”. Two cases where this was not so were in the Cold War, discussed below and the reference to the treasonable acts by the BBC’s World Service during the Falklands war.

The BBC Trust Report claims that in the case of democracy, the first public purpose implies a support for the British political system. (What British political system? We have been under the control of un-elected EU Commissioners and bureaucrats for over thirty years!)

It says “In the days of the Cold War, it was taken as read that democracy as practised in America and western Europe was superior to communism as practised in the USSR and eastern Europe:…….”. It goes on to say “Attempts to export democracy during the Cold War were assumed to be a good thing, ……..”.

This gives the impression that the BBC always supported the then (pre-EU) British democratic way of life. This is not true. The Times, 24th September 1999, revealed that the Foreign Office had accused the BBC of pro-Russian bias during the Cold War. In 1953, a senior FO Official met senior BBC management and requested they carry out an investigation and this was agreed.

In November 1953, the BBC wrote to the FO and accepted that the news bulletins were open to “misinterpretation”. Criticism of the pro-Communistic tone of the broadcasts was rejected as a “misconception of the role” that the broadcasts should play. Miss P. C. Storey of the FO noted the news bulletins had been ”markedly fellow-travelling in tone and content” and accused the BBC of being “dishonest” in its excuses about the use of defectors in its broadcasts.

 

5) Question Time

The BBC Trust Report contains an example of the public being deceived by the bussing in of black and Asian people “from afar” to make up the audience during a Question Time programme broadcast from Lincoln. What was not mentioned was firstly how were they selected and was it not a fraudulent use by the BBC of licence payers money to deliberately mislead the public?

An analysis of the panellists on “Question Time” was carried out by a viewer, between 6th February 2003 and 23rd May 2003. The viewer noted there was always a left-wing majority on the panel. Of 13 programmes nine had 3 left and 2 right, two had 3 left and 1 right, one had 3 left, 1 centre and 1 right and one had 2 left, 1 centre and 1 right. Left-wing writers and journalists appearing on the panel outnumbered those from the right. In addition, pop singers, actors and others who appear on the panels have no obvious qualification for their presence other than they can be relied upon to be left-wing.

Robin Page, who sometimes provided the countryman’s view on the Question Time panel and was an extremely popular figure, was told he would not be appearing on any more Question Time programmes. He was told “We won’t have you on the programme again; we wanted you as a countryman, not as an anti-European.” (See Daily Telegraph, Saturday March 1st 2003.)

More recently, UKIP has been represented on Question Time only very rarely compared to Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem representatives although UKIP gained more votes than the Lib Dems in the European elections. Hence the BBC Trust needs to investigate the panel selection process of Question Time.

 

6) The Today Programme

Lord Pearson complained to the BBC Trust in July this year that the Today programme refuses to cover the fact that Brussels was putting the failed constitution into place piecemeal, surreptitiously and illegally and that it refuses to challenge the notion that millions of jobs depend on our membership of the EU. This shows that the pro-EU “institutional mindset” is still active in the BBC. The BBC Trust said it would investigate Lord Pearson’s complaints “in the autumn”. This displays a remarkable lack of commitment by the BBC Trust to deal with serious complaints involving pro-EU bias, despite the Wilson committee call over two years ago for “urgent action” to put pro-EU bias right. But then the BBC Trust has virtually totally ignored the findings of the Wilson committee in the first place so is this what one should expect?

(NB Europhiles frequently claim that 3 million jobs depend on our being in the EU based on our exports to the EU. Using the same rationale, it is clear that if we left the EU and manufactured all the goods imported from the EU ourselves this would open up 3.7 million jobs as we import far more from, than we export to the EU. For the benefit of BBC economics editors and the members of the BBC Trust this means we are 700,000 jobs worse off through being in the EU. No wonder there is a marked reluctance for Europhiles to discuss the subject.)

Lord Pearson also complained to the BBC Trust that by the end of 2006 Minotaur Media Tracking (MMT) determined that only one in five interviewees in the Today programme were Euro sceptics. The Today programme is therefore allegedly deceiving the British public on two accounts by allegedly refusing to air discussion on “hot” EU topics and, as has been proven by MMT, favouring Europhiles on its programmes by a ratio of 4 Europhiles to each Eurosceptic.

(NB This is however not the whole story. If one accepts the BBC’s pro-EU “institutional mindset” as determined by the Wilson committee this implies that the pro-EU lobby is actually represented by 9 to 1 under these figures. In which case because the “referee” i.e. the BBC interviewer, also controls the tone and content of the programme the pro-EU lobby have an enormous and very unfair advantage. See for example the reference to Andrew Marr bypassing Peter Hitchens comment in 4.15 above.)

On page 24 of the BBC Trust Report you say “……..impartiality in programme making is often achieved by bringing extra perspectives to bear, rather than limiting horizons or censoring opinion. It applies to every programme maker and content provider in the BBC”. So clearly the BBC Today programme is not impartial by your own definition. So do the Today programme staff qualify for the BBC pass which says they are “independent, impartial and honest”? If not, is the BBC Trust going to call for their dismissal and if not, why not?

 

7) The People, May 13th 2007.

This issue had headlines revealing that the Graham Norton show had been faked. An “outside broadcast” was actually being filmed in the studio next door using actors. One of the actors involved said they even had a rehearsal and were paid travelling expenses and were all given a bottle of the wine being used in the in the studio presentation. This amounts to advertising and licence payers money was possibly being used illegally to pay the actors, provide their transport, wine etc., because the whole episode was a scam.

(NB It was noted that the host Graham Norton was not aware of the subterfuge.)

This was a highly publicised case of deception and fraud to which the BBC apparently took no action whatsoever apart from trying to justify the deception. Yet Mark Thomson and the BBC Trust have both said that deception is unacceptable.

The same newspaper article referred to numerous other scams involving phone-ins on Saturday Kitchen where viewers were deceived into phoning in to programmes which had already been recorded.

 
 

8) BBC News report on Nigel Farage’s visit to Romania

This report, broadcast on 22nd Dec 2006 introduced Mr Farage as an “arch Eurosceptic”. I complained in writing by letter dated 23rd Dec 2006.

In their reply dated 29 March 2007 BBC Information confirmed that they took “arch” to mean “extreme”. The definition of “extreme” includes unsavoury nuances. The BBC therefore was trying to convey to the public that Nigel Farage was in essence, an “extremist” and was deliberately trying to make sure the viewers were aware of this.

This news broadcast was NOT therefore an impartial report and was therefore produced illegally.

Also, in their reply BBC Information made a number of other claims which on the evidence presented above can only be regarded as untrue. Examples are;

The BBC claimed that; “We aim to afford UKIP a fair and balanced amount of coverage generally”. Whatever the BBC’s aims are they are not realised in practice, see Paras 5 & 6 above.

Other examples include the paper published in June 2004 by the Centre for Policy Studies, “Blair’s EU-Turn: a case study of BBCpartiality”by Kathy Gingell and David Keighley, MMT, in which it was stated that up to Dec 2003, UKIP were interviewed only 13 times in 2000 transcripts on the EU despite (at that time) having 3 MEP’s.

Also, during the 2004 European elections UKIP beat the Liberal Democrats into fourth place in the number of votes despite the almost total blanking of the party by the BBC prior to the election. Despite now having 10 MEP’s in the European parliament the BBC had to apologise for not including an interview with UKIP during two weeks of reporting on the recent EU summit this year. Another case of the BBC denying the Euro sceptic point of view.

The BBC showed a speeded up clip of Nigel Farage during the news report. I complained that this was intended to make him look comical and was only fit for the Benny Hill show. The BBC said “it was not intended to humiliate him (the BBC’s description) and we have used similar devices in reports about the leaders of the other main political parties in the past”. In view of the treatment given to John Redwood their claim that this was not intended to humiliate Mr Farage is highly questionable as it is clearly not the first instance of the BBC deliberately using its facilities to ridicule people it allegedly does not agree with.

The BBC said “We would assure you we do not “set up” people or interviewees and the contribution was genuine”. This statement was made to answer my complaint that the barman who harangued Mr Farage when he entered the bar after the tour was “set up” either by the BBC or the Romanian government to provide his input. However, the BBC film crew were all apparently waiting and ready to film the event before Mr Farage appeared in the bar so the inference is that they must have known it was going to take place. In addition, this statement by BBC Information was made 2 weeks after the BBC had to broadcast a humiliating apology for misleading viewers on the Blue Peter programme. It can only therefore be regarded as a deliberate untruth. This was followed up by further revelations of “setting people up” on a number of phone-in programmes as well as the Graham Norton show referred to above. In addition, the BBC Trust Report contains an example where a BBC reporter claimed (with pride) that he had to work really hard to find someone to interview for his programme who’s views was not representative of the community at large.

BBC Information also said in their letter “We have, and continue to, present audiences with full and impartial information relating to the EU which has enabled people to make up their own minds on the subject”. This is not true. The Wilson Committee determined two years previously that the BBC was “failing to report issues which should have been reported”. Lord Pearson has pointed out the alleged refusal of the Today programme to make the public aware of the underhand way the EU and our politicians are enabling the EU constitution to be re-introduced. There must be hundreds if not thousands of complaints on the files of BBC bias towards the EU which has been evident from slanted reports or no reports at all. I have written numerous letters of complaint to the BBC concerning its alleged EU bias and censorship of bad news about the EU and as a reward for my efforts was illegally banned by the BBC from complaining.

Other cases refute this claim by BBC Information. MMT established that during the European elections of 1999, in more than 250 hours of main national news coverage by the BBC, not a single Labour Eurosceptic had appeared on air.

 

9) The BBC “Card”

Let us return to page 2 and the second sentence of the BBC Trust Report which says “It is not by chance that ALL BBC staff carry an identity card which proclaims as the first of the BBC’s values that they are independent, impartial and honest” (My emphasis.)

The BBC has already started to dismiss lower grade employees who were involved in the phone-in scams. One can understand their position and the pressure the relevant presenters were under to keep a live programme on-going and therefore to have a certain sympathy for their dilemma and subsequent action.

However, one cannot have any sympathy at all for the BBC employees who abuse their powerful position of trust by deliberately inserting a 14 year old film clip into a news report which humiliated and embarrased John Redwood. In the same way one does not have any sympathy at all for the BBC employees who deliberately labelled Nigel Farage as the equivalent of an “extremist” before they showed the news report on his visit to Romania.

The BBC treatment of the staff involved in all the recent cases involving deception by the BBC is very revealing. Helen Boaden, is probably paid a six figure salary by the licence fee payers and still heads a BBC department which hides the identity of and (apparently) fails to discipline members of its staff who thoroughly abuse their position by corrupting new items with spurious material which shamefully embarrasses and humiliates the subject. Despite apparently ignoring these clear abuses of trust by their staff in the news department the BBC names and shames and possibly threatens to dismiss a BBC producer who was guilty of fixing the name of a cat after a phone-in competition!

Clearly, despite what Mark Thompson and the BBC Trust have said about deception being unacceptable this is not the case in these and similar instances. It obviously depends on what the deception consists of. If the net effect is to humiliate and embarrass Conservative politicians and Eurosceptics then it appears to be perfectly acceptable to the BBC and also by its inaction, to the BBC Trust.

Furthermore it is totally inadequate to simply reprimand the staff involved in these cases of bias and abuse. Just moving them from one department to another still means they carry the BBC card which claims they are “independent, impartial and honest” which quite clearly they are not. If the first of the BBC’s values is to mean anything at all the only suitable action must be to dismiss the staff involved.