ESC 1 SEPTEMBER BULLETIN 



Editorial Standards 
Findings: 

Appeals and other editorial issues to 
the Trust considered by the Editorial 
Standards Committee 

1 September 2009 
Issued October 2009 


Remit of the Editorial Standards 
Committee 

The Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) is responsible for assisting the Trust in 
securing editorial standards. It has a number of responsibilities, set out in its Terms 
of Reference at 
bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/meetings_and_minutes/bbc_trust_committees.html. 

The Committee comprises six Trustees: Richard Tait (Chairman), Chitra Bharucha, 
Mehmuda Mian, David Liddiment, Alison Hastings and Anthony Fry. It is advised and 
supported by the Trust Unit. 

In line with the ESC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of handling 
editorial complaints by BBC management, the Committee considers appeals against 
the decisions and actions of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) or of a BBC 
Director with responsibility for the BBC’s output (if the editorial complaint falls 
outside the remit of the ECU). 

The Committee will consider appeals concerning complaints which allege that: 

• 
the complainant has suffered unfair treatment either in a transmitted programme 
or item, or in the process of making the programme or item 
• 
the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a transmitted 
programme or item, or in the process of making the programme or item 
• 
there has otherwise been a failure to observe required editorial standards 
The Committee will aim to reach a final decision on an appeal within 16 weeks of 
receiving the request. 

The findings for all appeals accepted by the Committee are reported in this bulletin, 
Editorial Complaints: Appeals to the Trust. 

As set out in its Terms of Reference, the Committee can decline to consider an 
appeal which in its opinion: 

• 
is vexatious or trivial; 
• 
does not raise a matter of substance; 
• 
relates to the content of a programme or item which has not yet been broadcast; 
• 
concerns issues of bias by omission in BBC news programmes unless the Chairman 
believes that it is plausible that the omission of an item could have led to a breach 
of the guidelines on impartiality; 
• 
has not been made within four weeks of the final correspondence with the ECU or 
BBC Director on the original complaint; and 
• 
relates to matters which are the subject of or likely to be the subject of, or 
relevant to, legal proceedings. 
1 



The Committee will not generally reconsider any aspects of complaints that have 
already been adjudicated upon or considered by a Court. 

Any appeals that the Committee has declined to consider under the above criteria are 
reported in the bulletin. 

In line with its duty to consider topics of editorial concern to the Committee, whether 
or not such concern arises from a formal complaint, and to commission information 
requests from the Trust Unit or Executive to support such consideration, the 
Committee also from time to time requests the Executive to report to the Committee 
regarding breaches which have been accepted by the Executive and are therefore 
not subject to appeal to the Committee. The bulletin also may contain findings 
relating to such cases. 

The bulletin also includes any remedial action/s directed by the Committee. 

It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from: 

The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee 
BBC Trust Unit 
Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street 
London W1U 4AA 


2 



Contents 


Page 

Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 1 
Contents 3 
Summary of findings 4 
Findings 9 

The One Show, BBC One, 28 November 2008 9 
“Return to Gaza”, BBC Online 23 
The Most Annoying People of 2008, BBC Three, 29 December 2008 32 
Mock the Week, BBC Two, 28 August 2008 41 
Mock the Week… Again, BBC Two, 29 October 2008 48 
Today, BBC Radio 4, 14 August 2008 53 

Rejected Appeals 63 



Summary of findings 

The One Show, BBC One, 28 November 2008 

The complainant believed that an item on the British National Party (BNP) was 
inaccurate and misleading. He believed the item gave the impression that the 
BNP shared the same political aims as the British Union of Fascists and the 
National Front and did not highlight the differences between the BNP and 
these organisations. The complainant also believed the item had inaccurately 
suggested that it was a political aim of the BNP to establish a fascist 
dictatorship. He also stated the item did not challenge the claims of a 
contributor regarding the “legitimate” use of violence against “far-Right” 
parties in the Cable Street march of 1936 and as a result did not take an 
objective approach. The complainant also claimed the presenter Adrian Chiles 
should not have expressed his admiration for a contributor who advocated the 
use of violence for political ends. 

The Committee concluded: 

Accuracy 

• 
that the programme had not suggested the British National Party 
and the British Union of Fascists shared similar objectives. 
• 
that, while references to the BUF had been made within the item, 
the programme had made it clear that the parallels being drawn 
were the rise of far-Right parties at times of economic recession 
and the two parties’ opposition to immigration. 
• 
that these similarities were factually accurate. 
• 
that no other policy objectives of either party had been mentioned. 
• 
that is was not necessary, in order to achieve due accuracy, to set 
out the objectives of the BUF and the BNP to avoid the suggestion 
that they were related. 
• 
that there was nothing in the broadcast item which would have 
misled viewers into believing that the BNP shared the general aims 
of the BUF in the 1930s. 
Impartiality 

• 
that the interviewee was recounting the events of the Cable Street 
riots from the perspective of somebody who had been there. 
• 
that she had explained why the local community felt threatened 
and why it had defended itself – no political or ideological points 
had been made. 
• 
that the interviewee had been talking about events in Cable Street 
from a historical and personal perspective in the context of a wider 
item about the rise of far-Right parties at times of economic 
recession, and this had been clearly signalled to the audience. 

• 
that the audience would not have expected a BUF or BNP 
perspective on the Cable Street riots. 
• 
that, with regard to the comments of the presenter after the item, 
there was no evidence that he was encouraging, advocating or 
endorsing violence, or that he was supporting the interviewee’s 
views. 
• 
that the presenter was not expressing an opinion as to the rights or 
wrongs of what the interviewee had said but was respecting her as 
a remarkably lucid interviewee and her powers of recall in a way 
that was in keeping with the style of the show. 
The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full see pages 9 to 22. 

“Return to Gaza”, BBC Online 

The complainant initially said that the website summary of the Panorama 
programme entitled “Return to Gaza” misrepresented the programme and 
breached the BBC guidelines on accuracy and impartiality by significantly 
underestimating the number of casualties caused by Hamas attacks on Israel 
and presenting Hamas in a favourable light. The complaint was not upheld by 
the Editorial Complaints Unit’s (ECU) finding at stage 2 of the BBC’s 
complaints process1. The complainant requested that the BBC Trust consider 
an appeal on the way the ECU applied the right of reply guideline in its finding 
regarding the complaint. The complainant argued that, because of Hamas’s 
terrorist activities and extreme ideology, it was inappropriate to say that 
Hamas should be provided with a right of reply. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that the article was written by the Panorama reporter as a personal 
account of her journey back to Gaza when making the film, and as 
such was not an abridged version of the programme. 
• 
that, while it would have been clearer if the article had been 
signposted as a promotional piece, not doing so did not constitute a 
breach of the guidelines. 
• 
that the conflict in the Middle East is a controversial subject requiring 
the BBC to cover it with due accuracy and impartiality. 
• 
that a web article on the News site should be of itself duly impartial 
and duly accurate unless it was part of a series of articles and signalled 
to be part of such a series. 
• 
that applying the Right of Reply guideline to Hamas simply 
acknowledged that Hamas should be treated fairly and a right of reply 
conferred when circumstances required it. 
1 BBC Complaints process http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml 



• 
that this article dealt with the tensions between Hamas and Fatah and 
the battle for supremacy between them and as such it was impossible 
not to state the Hamas position. 
• 
that Hamas had not put itself beyond the scope of the BBC’s Editorial 
Guidelines. 
The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full see pages 23 to 31. 

The Most Annoying People of 2008, BBC Three, 29 December 2008 

The complainant said that some comments made in an item which discussed 
the relationship between Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson had reinforced 
negative stereotypes of lesbians. 

The Committee concluded: 

Harm and Offence (Audience Expectations) 

• 
that the BBC had not demonstrated with regard to the comments 
made by Ron Jeremy and DJ Spoony the clear editorial purpose of 
lampooning and irony that was ascribed to them. 
• 
that the comments made by Ron Jeremy and DJ Spoony were 
crude and offensive. 
• 
that, even given the wider context of the programme as being 
irreverent and focusing on the lighter side of celebrity, these 
particular remarks went beyond the expectations of an audience 
familiar with the BBC’s broadcasting values. 
• 
that the signposting of challenging material in the programme 
would not have adequately prepared viewers for these remarks. 
• 
that the programme contained difficult and challenging material 
which was not justified editorially and was thus not suitable for 
broadcast. 
• 
that the programme was in breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guideline 
on Harm and Offence (Audience Expectations). 
Harm and Offence (Portrayal) 

• 
that, while the Committee was satisfied the item as a whole was 
editorially justified in this genre of programming, the item had 
included views which reflected stereotypical assumptions. 
• 
that, rather than “sending up a common attitude adopted by 
heterosexual people”, the comments had appeared to reinforce 
stereotypical views. 
• 
that the programme was in breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guideline 
on Portrayal. 

The complaint was upheld. 

For the finding in full see pages 32 to 40. 

Mock the Week, BBC Two, 28 August 2008 

The complainant said that comments made by Frankie Boyle about Olympic 
gold medallist Rebecca Adlington were offensive and unacceptable for 
broadcast. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that the programme had included challenging material and that 
these remarks risked offending some of the audience. 
• 
that the remarks regarding Rebecca Adlington were humiliating. 
• 
that, in the view of the Committee, Rebecca Adlington had not 
sought celebrity status or courted media attention. 
• 
that there had been no clear editorial justification for including 
these comments in the broadcast. 
• 
that the programme had breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on 
Harm and Offence. 
The complaint was upheld. 

For the finding in full see pages 41 to 47. 

Mock the Week… Again, BBC Two, 29 October 2008 

The complainant said that a joke made by Frankie Boyle relating to the Queen 
was offensive and should not have been broadcast, regardless of the context 
and the timing. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that the programme had contained challenging material which 
risked offending some of the audience. 
• 
that, while the joke was pointedly about what the Queen would not 
say and so could be construed as not being directed at the Queen 
personally, it had ageist and sexist overtones. 
• 
that for some people any risqué joke mentioning the Queen would 
cause serious offence. 
• 
that, although the joke was in poor taste and clearly was offensive 
to some of the audience, it would not have gone beyond audience 
expectations for the programme. 
• 
that the programme had not breached the BBC’s Editorial 

Guidelines. 

The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full see pages 48 to 52. 

Today, BBC Radio 4, 14 August 2008 

The complainant said that an item on Radio 4’s Today programme regarding 
the killing of a Reuters cameraman by an Israeli tank crew had been biased 
towards Israel. The complainant said that the Israeli Government spokesman, 
Mark Regev, who had taken part in the item had been allowed to make 
misleading comments and had not been sufficiently challenged by the 
presenter. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that listeners to the item would have been left in no doubt about 
the circumstances of the cameraman’s death as this had been 
clearly set out earlier in the discussion between the presenter and 
the Reuters representative. 
• 
that the audience would not have been misled as to the 
circumstances of the cameraman’s death. 
• 
that, by allowing the Reuters representative to respond to the 
points made by Mr Regev, the presenter had provided sufficient 
balance to ensure that the item was duly impartial. 
• 
that there was reasonable justification for giving Mr Regev the final 
word given that the discussion had begun with the Reuters 
representative, who had received a larger share of the airtime and 
plenty of opportunity to set out his case in some detail. 
• 
that, in this case, the final word was immaterial to the substance of 
the discussion. 
• 
that the item had not breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. 
• 
that, the delay in replying to the complaint at stage 1 of the 
process was unacceptable. 
The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full see pages 53 to 62. 



Findings 

The One Show, BBC One, 28 November 2008 

1. The complaint 
Stage 1 

The complainant emailed BBC Information on 29 November 2008 stating that 
the programme’s item on the British National Party (BNP) was “extremely 
misleading and irresponsible”. He believed the item strongly suggested that it 
was “a political aim of the BNP to establish a fascist dictatorship”. The 
complainant noted that the BNP was completely opposed to dictatorship and 
totalitarianism. The complainant also stated that the programme had 
suggested it was “commendable” to use violence to oppose the BNP in the 
same way that violence was used against Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of 
Fascists (BUF). In doing so, the complainant believed the programme had 
inaccurately suggested the BNP was politically related to the BUF. The 
complainant also believed it was “grossly irresponsible” for one of the 
presenters, Adrian Chiles, to “express his admiration for a contributor who 
had admitted to, and who continued to advocate, the use of violence for 
political ends”. The complainant said he hoped The One Show would clarify 
that the BNP did not aim to establish a dictatorship and was strongly opposed 
to this. 

BBC Information replied on 3 December 2008. The reply included a response 
from the series editor of The One Show. He explained that the feature on the 
BNP had come about “in the wake of the publication of the BNP’s membership 
list”. He noted that the purpose of the item was to examine the history of the 
far-Right in Britain and, in particular, why support for parties “at that end of 
the political spectrum” tended to grow during difficult times for the economy. 
The series editor noted that the people on the BNP membership list – who 
had included a vicar, policemen and former civil servants – had had a positive 
effect for the BNP. He stated: 

“By definition, this was a far cry from the Blackshirts of Sir Oswald 
Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, or the skinheads of Martin Webster’s 
later National Front.” 

The series editor explained that the programme had interviewed a person 
who had marched “to block the Blackshirts’ provocative march through the 
heart of London’s Jewish community in the Thirties”, and Billy Bragg to 
comment on similar marches by the National Front in Lewisham and West 
Bromwich in the late Seventies. The series editor stated that there had been 
no attempt by the programme to link these tactics with the BNP of today “for 
the simple reason that this isn’t what it (the BNP) has done”. He said the 
feature recognised the BNP was a legitimate political party working within the 



electoral process and there was no suggestion to the contrary. He said the 
BNP shared with earlier parties of the far-Right “the characteristic that 
immigration is seen as a threat to indigenous Britons”. He noted that this view 
was not a judgmental or condemnatory view held by the BBC or The One 
Show, but was a political fact acknowledged by the BNP. The series editor 
said that in the film and the short discussion which followed, care had been 
taken to restrict matters to those of known fact. He noted: 

“the evaporation of support for the far-Right in the late Thirties has 
accurately been explained in terms of a wider war against Fascism, and 
in the late Seventies via overwhelming support for the Conservatives at 
the General Election. … These are not matters of opinion or of bias, 
they are matters of fact – no more no less.” 

He concluded by saying it was hoped that the explanation reassured the 
complainant of the programme’s concerns that the BNP should be treated “as 
would any other party’s ideological antecedents”. 

The complainant responded on 7 December 2008 stating that he remained 
concerned that despite the stated intention of the programme to explain the 
BNP in terms of “political facts”, the report had failed to point out: 

“what is … also a fact of considerable significance; namely, that unlike 
Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists the BNP does not aim to 
establish a fascist dictatorship, which the One Show report otherwise 
seemed to suggest given that the BNP was discussed largely in the 
context of, and responses to, the BUF.” 

The complainant went on to say that he considered the statement that 
marches by the BUF and the National Front were “provocative” appeared to 
endorse a particular, and contentious, viewpoint of the “far-Left”. He pointed 
out that political bias and impartiality on the part of The One Show “would 
seem to be in evidence here”. The complainant noted: 

“Violent responses to what were in fact lawful marches were, after all, 
deliberately orchestrated by opponents of the BUF and NF.” 

The complainant also added that he was concerned that The One Show did 
not question the use of violence to pursue political objectives and “seemed to 
infer that violence was a justifiable means of opposition to the ‘far-Right’.” 

BBC Information replied on 19 February 2009, having informed the 
complainant in January 2009 of a delay to the reply, stating that the series 
editor had been approached for any further comment. He noted there was no 
evidence in the film that suggested the aim of the current BNP was to 
establish a Fascist dictatorship. He also stated that the interviewee who was 
at the Cable Street riot had reacted as she did because the place where she 
lived had been invaded by Fascists “whose aim was to intimidate, provoke 



and attack local residents”. He noted the action had no contemporary parallel 
with the modern BNP – and the programme “didn’t imply there was one”. He 
stated “she was being commended for her courage and resolve under attack, 
and for her robust recollections 70 years later – that was all”. 

Stage 2 

The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) on 4 March 
2009. He said that even though The One Show said the purpose of its feature 
on the BNP and the far-Right had been to examine the history of the far-Right 
in Britain, the feature served only: 

“to give the impression of, and to emphasise, continuity between the 
political parties which served as the subject matter for the 
programme’s feature, namely; The British Union of Fascists, The 
National Front and The British National Party. No differentiation was 
made in the course of the feature, or by The One Show presenters or 
reporters.” 

The complainant acknowledged that the BNP shared with earlier parties of the 
far-Right the characteristic that immigration was seen as a threat to 
indigenous Britons, as was claimed by the programme’s editor, but went on to 
argue that unlike the BUF, the BNP does not aim to ban other political parties 
and establish a dictatorship. He also stated that the BNP, unlike the BUF, was 
opposed to establishing a pan-European political and economic bloc. The 
complainant believed the report’s failure to make these “salient and significant 
points” was a “gross misrepresentation” of the BNP and was thoroughly 
misleading to viewers. 

The complainant also repeated his concern that The One Show had inferred 
that violence was a legitimate means of opposition to far-Right parties. He 
noted that while the series editor of The One Show took the view that 
violence was an “understandable response” to the “provocation” of the 
proposed BUF march in Cable Street in 1936, the BUF march was, in fact, a 
lawful political demonstration. The violent response, as expressed by the 
interviewee, was unlawful. The complainant noted that The One Show did not 
make known to viewers the unlawful nature of the interviewee’s point of view 
or her actions at Cable Street. He also noted that the programme did not 
challenge the interviewee as to her actions or advocacy of violence. The 
complainant concluded by suggesting that: 

“it is incumbent upon the Editor and makers of The One Show to 
urgently issue a public statement clarifying the political position of the 
BNP in relation to the BUF, and, also, to acknowledge that the report in 
question … effected to legitimise violence against parties of the far-
Right.” 



The ECU wrote to the complainant on 5 March 2009 summarising the 
complaint as well as suggesting that the relevant editorial guidelines under 
review regarding the complaint were those concerning Accuracy and 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion. 

The complainant replied on 18 March 2009 stating that he was satisfied with 
the summary of his complaint. He added that while he accepted that the 
purpose of the item was not to primarily present a history of events at Cable 
Street the “absence of a BUF perspective on the proposed Cable Street march 
of 1936 in itself showed a lack of impartiality”. He also stated that “the far-
Right organisations in question were solely refracted through the political 
perspective of the political Left.” 

The ECU replied with its decision on 26 March 2009. It did not uphold the 
complaint. The ECU noted the complainant’s concern that the report gave an 
inaccurate and misleading impression that the BNP shared the same political 
aims as the British Union of Fascists (BUF) and the National Front (NF). It 
noted the argument for the report was to consider whether history suggests 
that support for far-right political parties tends to increase during periods of 
economic decline. The ECU acknowledged the editor of The One Show had 
already explained that no link was made between the tactics used historically 
by far-Right groups and the BNP and that this “was largely true for any 
political aims or objectives”. The ECU also noted that the report had not 
mentioned any of the policies the complainant had highlighted, such as an 
aim to establish a fascist dictatorship or ban on other political parties. As 
such, it could not conclude that the item would have given viewers the 
impression that the BNP shared such aspirations. The finding noted that the 
only parallel that was mentioned was the fact that: 

“both the BUF and the NF tried to turn increased economic 
disillusionment into support by highlighting their opposition to 
immigration, and that the BNP [was] following a similar path.” 

The ECU stated that this was confirmed in the item by the BNP leader, Nick 
Griffin, who said: 

“I think that the impact of the recession is making people realise that 
there’s problems in society that they can’t turn away from, and that 
the old parties have let them down.” 

The ECU also noted that Mr Griffin stated: 

“stopping the immigration that’s flooding this country is at the heart of 
our politics, yes.” 

The ECU therefore concluded that there were no grounds to uphold this 
aspect of the complainant’s complaint. 



The ECU then turned to the complainant’s concern that the report did not 
corroborate or challenge the view of the interviewee, and in doing so had 
failed to take an objective and even-handed approach to the subject. It 
considered that as the interviewee was one of the few remaining 
eyewitnesses to the events in Cable Street the majority of viewers would have 
“considered her contribution in that context and understood she was 
expressing a very personal view of events, based on her experience at the 
time.” The ECU noted that the interviewee only ever spoke of “blocking or 
opposing the BUF, rather than advocating violence against far-Right parties”. 
The finding noted that the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Achieving Impartiality 
said that impartiality must be 

“adequate and appropriate in our output … and does not require the 
representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every 
occasion.” 

The ECU, therefore, did not think it was necessary to provide the kind of 
balancing comment or explanation the complainant had suggested and, as 
such, did not uphold this aspect of the complainant’s complaint. The finding 
then considered whether it was irresponsible for the presenter, Adrian Chiles, 
to express his admiration for someone who advocated the use of violence for 
political ends. The ECU explained that it had already noted that the 
interviewee did not speak in favour of violence and that when Mr Chiles said, 
“She is fantastic. I really like the cut of her jib”, he was simply voicing his 
admiration for someone who had made a stand against a perceived injustice 
and was still passionate about the matter. The ECU concluded that it did not 
take his comments to be supporting or advocating the use of political violence 
against parties of the far-Right. Therefore, it did not consider there were 
grounds to uphold the complaint. 

Stage 3 – Appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee 
(ESC) 

The complainant wrote to the ESC on 15 April 2009. He repeated his concern 
that it was misleading for the item to discuss the BNP in relation to the BUF 
without pointing to the significant political objectives of the two organisations. 
The complainant noted the ECU’s view that the political aims of the BUF were 
not stated, but felt that this was insufficient evidence to suggest that a 
misleading impression was not given. He also noted that the ECU claim that 
the interviewee “did not speak in favour of violence” had no credence or 
foundation in view of the actual events of violence and disorder at Cable 
Street. He stated: 

“[The interviewee’s] talk of ‘blocking’ or opposing the BUF must be 
kept in this context which clearly meant orchestrated violence, and was 
not at all as innocuous as [the ECU] claims.” 



The complainant also noted that the tone of Adrian Chiles, expressing his 
admiration for the interviewee as being “fantastic”, compromised the viewers’ 
perception of impartiality, given the interviewee’s political position. 

2. Applicable editorial standards 
Section 3 – Accuracy 

Introduction 

The BBC's commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental 
to our reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound 
evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We 
should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded 
speculation. 

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than 
a question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information 
should be weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant 
opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. 

We aim to achieve accuracy by: 

• 
the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources 
wherever possible. 
• 
checking and cross checking the facts. 
• 
validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital 
material. 
• 
corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever 
possible. 
Misleading audiences 

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or 
knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label 
material to avoid doing so. 

Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 

Introduction 

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It 
applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio 
news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a 
commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. 

The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce 
comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current 
affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed 
debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial 
subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other 



programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial 
controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an 
opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. 

Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections. 

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: 

• 
we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any 
subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there 
are good editorial reasons for doing so. 
• 
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide 
an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we 
do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right 
of reply. 
• 
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on 
controversial subjects. 
• 
the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our 
editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the 
public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact 
on the perceptions of our impartiality. 
• 
our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current 
affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express 
personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial 
controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC 
programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our 
journalists and presenters on such matters. 

Achieving impartiality 

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach 
to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the 
type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the 
content and approach is signposted to our audiences. 

Impartiality is described in the Agreement as "due impartiality". It requires us 
to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all 
the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our 
approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every 
argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division 
of time for each view. 
News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 

3. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial 
standards, as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a 
statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 



In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available 
evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report and the 
subsequent submissions from the programme team. 

The Committee considered the complaint under two headings of the BBC’s 
Editorial Guidelines: 

• 
Accuracy 
• 
Impartiality 
Accuracy 

The guidelines on accuracy say that the BBC’s output must be well sourced, 
based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise 
language. They also say that the BBC should not distort known facts, present 
invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead its audiences. 

The Committee noted that the complainant believed the item was “grossly 
misleading” and “irresponsible” in its reporting of the British National Party 
(BNP). The Committee also noted that the complainant felt that the item had 
failed to point out the significantly different political objectives of the BNP in 
relation to the British Union of Fascists (BUF) and had argued that the BUF 
had aimed to establish dictatorship and totalitarianism – aims which he said 
were the complete opposite of those of the BNP. As such, he believed the 
programme had erroneously suggested the BNP was “politically related and 
akin to the BUF”. 

The Committee then noted what the programme team has said in its reply to 
the complainant’s criticism. The Committee noted that The One Show’s series 
editor had stated that the idea for the item had stemmed from the recent 
publication of the BNP’s membership list and that the purpose of the item was 
to: 

“examine the history of the far right in Britain, particularly as why 
support for parties at that end of the political spectrum tends to grow 
when economic times are tough.” 

The Committee also noted the series editor’s comments on the legitimacy of 
the BNP. He stated: 

“The BNP is a legitimate political party working within the electoral 
process, and there is no suggestion to the contrary.” 

The series editor continued: 

“On the wider issues of strategy it is nonetheless a fact that it shares 
with earlier parties of the far-Right the characteristic that immigration 
is seen as a threat to indigenous Britons. 



“This isn’t a judgmental, condemnatory view held by the BBC or The 
One Show. This is a political fact acknowledged by the BNP itself.” 

The Committee then noted how the item was introduced: 

Christine Bleakley: 
Last week the British National Party’s membership list was posted on 
the internet. Details of more than 10,000 names were published, 
including a police officer, a vicar and some former civil servants. 


Adrian Chiles: 
The BNP said the publication was malicious but there’s a school of 
thought that it might actually do the party no harm, precisely because 
the individuals on the list were amongst those on there. 


Christine Bleakley: 
The fear of the BNP’s many enemies is that as the economic outlook 
worsens more people will be attracted to the far right. As Justin 
Rowlatt points out, it wouldn’t be the first time. 


The Committee also noted how the programme dealt with the issue of the 
various right-wing organisations within the piece: 

Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
In the depths of the great depression, this pitched battle took place in 
the East End of London. Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of 
Fascists tried to march his Blackshirts through the then-heart of 
London’s Jewish community… 

Justin Rowlatt: 
This mural stands as a permanent memorial to the battle that was 
fought here on Cable Street. And of course our current economic crisis 
is being compared to the 1930s. Dole queues are expected to 
lengthen; many people will lose their homes. So will that once again 
increase the appeal of extreme parties, parties like Mosley’s British 
Union of Fascists, which suggest that our economic woes can be 
explained in terms of race and immigration? 

Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
The lesson from the Seventies is cautionary. When the economy hit 
rock bottom there was a surge in support for the National Front. It 
boasted a membership of 17,000 and notoriously won 1 in 6 votes at a 
by-election in West Bromwich. Again though, many were determined to 
stop its advance. One of those was singer, Billy Bragg. 

Billy Bragg: 



The National Front had a habit of marching through immigrant areas. 
They were very provocative. People organised against them, there 
were street confrontations, Rock Against Racism was formed to bring 
people together. There was a lot more direct anti-fascist action. When 
economic times get difficult, people want simplistic answers and, to 
their minds, it’s easier to point a finger and blame people who stand 
out. 


Justin Rowlatt: 
Economic hardship certainly makes people feel uncertain and insecure. 
Only last week a Labour cabinet minister said white working class 
communities felt abandoned by the mainstream political parties. So will 
that sense of alienation swell the ranks of the BNP? 


Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
Matthew Collins spent 6 years as an activist in the National Front and 
BNP. But he rejected the politics of race and now spends his time 
campaigning against his former comrades. 


Matthew Collins: 
I grew up in a happy home but it was still a working class home and it 
was in difficult economic times in London in the 1980s. And their 
appeal to me and other people who were members at the time was the 
fact that we didn’t have many work opportunities and we didn’t have 
great education opportunities, we didn’t have half the things we have 
now. A time when you might be losing your job, you might be losing 
your business, you could be losing your house, and you feel that there 
is no-one in the political establishment who can help you. An 
alternative would be to go to a political party who can’t cure these 
things but just says instead, blame someone else for it. Blame the 
person who lives next door to you of a different colour. 


Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
BNP leader Nick Griffin is certainly campaigning hard. He hopes to turn 
economic disillusion to increased support for his party. 


Nick Griffin: 
I think that the impact of the recession is making people realise that 
there’s problems in society that they can’t turn away from and that the 
old parties are letting them down. 


Justin Rowlatt: 
But one difference between the BNP and mainstream parties is that 
race is at the very heart all your policies, isn’t it? 


Nick Griffin: 
I’d say that immigration and stopping the immigration that’s started in 
this country is at the heart of our policies, yes. 




Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
Support for the BNP has grown over recent years but for now it 
remains small. They’ve only managed to elect 56 councillors out of a 
total of 22,000 nationwide. 


And: 

Adrian Chiles: 
It’s worth pointing out that in this country unlike the rest of Europe the 
far-Right never had a foothold has it? 


Justin Rowlatt: 
Yeah, we’ve never had a Hitler, a Mussolini or a Franco. And indeed, in 
many European countries the far-Right still polls, you know, 20% of 
the parliamentary vote. In Britain it’s very, very different. The BNP at 
the last general election, 2005, polled just 0.7% of the vote. Now, 
frankly, that makes them pretty insignificant on the political scene. 


Christine Bleakley: 
That percentage was up slightly though in the general election in ’79 
but then of course support just collapsed for the National… 


Justin Rowlatt: 
It did, it just fell away. I mean the National Front was a popular party, 
it was polling up to 1.3% of the vote – still very small but, you know, 
really looking quite a significant player, becoming… 


Adrian Chiles: 
So what’s different now? 


Justin Rowlatt: 
Well what seems to have happened in ’79 if we look at it was that 
there was a kind of mainstream alternative for some people who were 
voting for the extreme right in the form of a quite right-wing 
Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. And if you look at 
the Tories now, David Cameron’s Tory party really isn’t nearly as right-
wing as that. And so, you know, there’s arguably less option. 

Adrian Chiles: 
OK Justin, thank you very much. 


The Committee when coming to its finding noted that the two organisations, 
the BNP and the BUF, did not share the same aims. It also noted, having 
considered the content of The One Show in question, that the programme did 
not suggest the two organisations shared similar objectives. The Committee 
noted there had been brief references to the BUF within the item but it had 
been made clear within the piece that the parallels which the programme had 



drawn between the two organisations had been the growth in support for 
right wing parties at times of economic recession and that both opposed 
immigration. The Committee agreed these similarities were factually accurate. 
The Committee noted that no other policy objectives of either party had been 
mentioned. The Committee concluded that the programme had used the 
references to the BUF to illustrate the history of the far right in the United 
Kingdom and, in doing so, had said nothing to suggest the parties were 
related or that the BNP planned to establish dictatorship and totalitarianism. 
The Committee agreed that setting out the objectives of the BUF and the BNP 
to avoid the suggestion that they were related was not necessary to achieve 
due accuracy. 

The Committee concluded that there was nothing in the broadcast item which 
would have misled the viewer into believing that the BNP shared the general 
aims of the BUF in the 1930s. The complaint of inaccuracy was not upheld. 

Impartiality 

The guidelines on impartiality say that the BBC must ensure that it avoids bias 
or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. They say that the BBC is 
required to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and 
weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in 
its approach to a subject. News, in whatever form, must be presented with 
due impartiality. 

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the BBC’s output. The 
approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the 
subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to 
which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. 

The complainant further said that The One Show report served to legitimise 
the use of violence against far-Right organisations by using the account of a 
contributor who was present at the Cable Street riots without challenge. 

The Committee noted what the contributor said in the piece: 

Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
[The interviewee] remembers it well. 90 last week, she was just 17 on 
the day of what became known as the battle of Cable Street. 


Interviewee: 
They broke shop windows, they came and disrupted, they attacked 
people, they made life very uncomfortable and very nasty. 
Confrontation was in the air. 


Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
[The interviewee] joined a quarter of a million fellow East Enders to 
block the march. Mosley and his Blackshirts were forced to turn back. 




Interviewee: 
Oh, we were determined they were not going to come. They were not 
going to come into our territory. It’s our place and they should keep 
out. We kept them out. 


And: 

Voice Over (Justin Rowlatt): 
Whatever you think of today’s anti-immigration party, one East Ender 
remains modestly defiant about her stand 70 years ago. 


Justin Rowlatt: 
Looking back, are you proud of what you and your fellow East Enders 
did that day? 


Interviewee: 
Can you be proud of doing what has to be done, what’s absolutely 
necessary? Everybody rallied, they didn’t want them. They were there 
to cause trouble, that was their only purpose. And we were there to try 
to prevent it. 


Justin Rowlatt: 
And you did prevent it. 


Interviewee: 
I think we did, yes. 


The Committee noted that the interviewee was recounting the events of that 
day from the perspective of someone who had been there. She had explained 
why the local community had felt threatened and why it had defended itself. 
There was no political or ideological points made. The Committee noted that 
the approach to impartiality and to deciding what is appropriate and adequate 
means taking into account a range of matters including the nature of the 
subject, the type of output etc. The interviewee had been talking about Cable 
Street from a historical and personal perspective. This was part of a wider 
item about the rise of far right-wing parties at times of economic recession. 
This was clearly signalled in the programme to the audience. The Committee 
did not consider the audience would have expected a BUF perspective to be 
given as to why they had marched in Cable Street or indeed a perspective 
from the BNP on the Cable Street riots. The complaint was not upheld with 
regard to impartiality. 

The complainant also said that the tone of The One Show presenter, Adrian 
Chiles, at the end of the report (when he expressed his admiration for the 
interviewee as being “fantastic”) had compromised the viewers’ perception of 
impartiality given the interviewee’s clearly expressed political position. The 



complainant believed it was impossible to make comments of this kind 
without them being perceived “as a tacit endorsement of her controversial 
and otherwise contestable political viewpoint”. 

The Committee noted what Adrian Chiles had said at the end of the item: 

Adrian Chiles: 
She is fantastic. 


Justin Rowland: 
Isn’t she, yes? 


Adrian Chiles: 
I really like the cut of her jib. 


The Committee concluded that the style of presenting used by Adrian Chiles 
and the nature of the overall programme presentation had to be taken into 
account. In this context the Committee believed that there was no evidence 
that he was encouraging, advocating or endorsing violence or public disorder 

– nor supporting the interviewee’s views. He was respecting a remarkably 
lucid interviewee and her powers of recall in a way that was in keeping with 
the style of the show, and with the audience’s expectation. The Committee 
was satisfied that within the context of a topical magazine-style programme 
he had not breached the guideline requirement that presenters should not 
express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political controversy, 
as he was not expressing an opinion as to the rights and wrongs of what the 
interviewee had said. The Committee did not uphold the complaint. 
Finding: Not upheld 



“Return to Gaza”, BBC Online 

1. Background to the article 
The BBC News website carried a summary of a Panorama programme entitled 
“Return to Gaza”, presented by Jane Corbin and broadcast on 20 August 
2007. The summary described Ms Corbin’s visit to Gaza and the situation 
there following Hamas’s seizure of power and Israel’s imposition of an 
economic blockade. 

2. The complaint 
Stage 1 

The complainant wrote to BBC Information on 31 March 2008. The 
complainant felt the website summary “seriously misrepresented” the content 
of the Panorama programme entitled “Return to Gaza”. In his letter of 
complaint he provided eight examples where, in his view, this had happened. 
He noted that: 

• 
the article had omitted to refer to Hamas’s call for the destruction 
of Israel 
• 
the article had also referred to the armed wing of Hamas being 
better known for its suicide bombers who had killed over 100 Israeli 
civilians, which contrasted with the programme’s comment that 
Hamas’s armed wing is infamous for suicide bombers who have 
killed hundreds of Israeli citizens 
• 
the reference to arms “smuggling” through tunnels into Gaza in the 
programme was changed to “flowed” with no reference to the 
tunnel sequence in the article 
• 
the article omitted the detailed description of the violent Hamas 
takeover in June 2007 
• 
the article also omitted to mention the Hamas attack on a wedding 
party, while putting points in favour of Hamas 
• 
the article omitted to mention allegations of torture 
• 
the article also omitted to mention the nightclub burnt out as a 
consequence of Islamist influence 
• 
the article omitted criticism of Hamas, which had been carried in 
the programme, but left in the criticism of Israel. The complainant 
believed the misrepresentation formed a pattern which showed a 
desire to “whitewash the activities of Hamas”. 
The complainant asked for the summary to be withdrawn and for an 
assurance that this type of “content manipulation” would not happen again. 

BBC Information replied on 9 May 2008 following contact with Panorama’s 
editor and the presenter of the programme. It said that the summary was not 
a revision of the Panorama programme but a promotional piece posted before 



the programme was aired. The reply stated that the piece could not have 
covered all the points raised in the programme. The reply also stated that the 
article did not do a “disservice to the facts broadcast in the programme” nor 
did it misrepresent them. 

The complainant replied on 8 June 2008. He disagreed that the summary was 
merely promotional. He reiterated his view that it seriously misrepresented 
the programme and served to “whitewash the actions of Hamas”. 

On 18 June 2008 BBC Information replied stating that there was nothing 
further it could add to its earlier response. The reply provided the 
complainant with details as to how he could escalate his complaint. 

Stage 2 

The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) on 13 August 
2008 reiterating his complaint that he felt the summary was not merely a 
promotional article but rather seriously misrepresented the programme. He 
said: 

“The effect of this ‘summary’ was to rewrite what Jane Corbin had 
broadcast, to be misleadingly selective about her programme, and to 
whitewash Hamas to the maximum possible extent.” 

The ECU wrote to the complainant on 21 August 2008 setting out a brief 
summary of the complaint and the relevant guidelines (Accuracy and 
Impartiality). 

The complainant replied on 3 September 2008 with a summary of his 
complaint. He stated: 

“The BBC website summary of Return to Gaza by Jane Corbin breaches 
the Truth and Accuracy guideline in the way it deals with the number 
of casualties of Hamas attacks on Israel. It also breaches the 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion guideline, firstly by changing Jane 
Corbin’s own terminology in a way which reveals bias concerning 
Hamas, and secondly by the method used to select content for the 
summary, which is misleadingly selective and also reveals bias 
concerning Hamas.” 

The complainant also noted that the question of Israeli casualties killed as a 
result of Hamas attacks was in fact well over 400, not “over a hundred” as 
stated in the website summary. The complainant also reiterated that the 
changes in terminology and the selection of content for the summary, 
whitewashed Hamas to the maximum possible extent. 

The ECU replied to the complainant with its decision on 9 September 2008. 
The ECU said in reference to the criticisms of Hamas in the Panorama 



programme and the section of the Fairness guideline concerning the right of 
reply: 

“the programme appropriately sought to put these criticisms to Hamas, 
in an interview with its leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya. The web article 
did not offer the same opportunity to Hamas for a response, so, to 
conform with this Guideline, it was obliged to take a different 
approach.” 

The ECU also stated that it did not feel the article need to reflect every detail 
of the programme since it was designed as a short précis. The ECU also felt 
that as the article was likely to be seen by people who had not seen the 
programme, the article had therefore to comply with the guidelines without 
reference to the programme. As to the eight examples of misrepresentation 
supplied by the complainant, the ECU replied that: 

• 
the web summary was intended to be a shorter, more personal 
version of the Gaza report and that while it sought to give some 
impression of Hamas, it was not essential to give background 
information about Hamas’s ideology 
• 
the figures on casualties were disputed and the presenter was 
entitled to rely on her research and professional judgment and that 
using the lower figure did not give a materially misleading 
impression 
• 
it was reasonable for the summary to leave out references to 
weapons smuggling 
• 
the article’s summary of the clash between Hamas and Fatah was 
appropriate 
• 
it was not necessary to go into further detail on Hamas violence 
and torture 
• 
the presenter was entitled to make a professional judgment in 
summarising how Gaza had become more overtly Islamic 
• 
because of the right of reply provision, it was necessary to adopt a 
different approach in the summary compared with the programme, 
and it was therefore appropriate to exclude the presenter’s 
conclusion criticising Hamas. 
The complainant wrote on 6 October 2008 to the BBC Trust stating that while 
he took issue with the ECU analysis, he did not intend to appeal against the 
findings in relation to accuracy and impartiality. However, he did believe the 
ECU’s reference to the issue of a right of reply did merit an appeal. The 
complainant said that the BBC’s interpretation of its right of reply obligations 
had led to it taking a different approach (i.e. a softer line on Hamas) in the 
summary compared with the programme. He said: 

“I would argue that, in view of the Hamas track record of deliberate 
violence against civilians, it is unethical for the BBC to afford Hamas 



the privilege of an obligatory ‘Right of Reply’. It is a misapplication of 
the Editorial Guidelines.” 

Referring to the Hamas Charter whose content was “extreme and in many 
places explicitly anti-semitic”, the complainant said: 

“I question the right of an organisation which subscribes to such a 
document to have a ‘Right of Reply’ on the BBC. Indeed, for the BBC to 
afford Hamas a ‘Right of Reply’ rewards their rejectionism, emboldens 
them and reduces the prospects of them renouncing this nihilistic 
tract.” 

Referring to Hamas’s links to Iran and incitement of Palestinians against 
Israel, the complainant asked why the BBC should consider itself obliged to 
confer a right of reply on such an organisation. 

He concluded: 

“I therefore challenge the BBC claim that Hamas have a Right of Reply 
under the Fairness Guideline. I maintain that the website summary of 
the Jane Corbin TV programme reflected a misconceived application of 
the BBC’s Fairness Guideline.” 

The BBC Trust replied on 22 October asking the complainant to submit his 
appeal once all correspondence with the ECU was complete. 

The complainant wrote again to the ECU on 23 November 2008 stating that it 
was apparent that the “features” of the website article he originally 
complained about were “symptoms of the fact that the BBC felt obliged to 
comply with the Right of Reply in the website summary”. He believed the 
question of whether Hamas should enjoy a Right of Reply went to the heart 
of his complaint, having wider policy implications beyond the specific detail of 
this programme. In response to the ECU decision on the eight examples of 
misrepresentation, the complainant reiterated that these constituted 
significant changes to the content of the programme in his view. He also 
emphasised that the pattern of selecting material for the summary was 
important, as well as the individual items and noted that the ECU had not 
responded to the complaints about the changes of terminology. 

The ECU replied on 26 November 2008 noting that as the complaint had been 
referred to the Trust it was inappropriate for the ECU to provide a further 
response. 

Stage 3 – Appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee 
(ESC) 

The complainant wrote to the Trust (ESC) on 24 November 2008 confirming 
that his correspondence with the ECU was complete. 



3. Applicable editorial standards 
Online Services Guidelines 

Section 1 – The BBC’s Editorial Values 

Transparency 

We will be transparent about what we are offering to our users. We will help 
them, where appropriate, by labelling content and by being clear about who 
has created it and under whose editorial control. This will enhance our role as 
a Trusted Guide to the Internet. 

Section 4 – Impartiality 

Introduction 

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It 
applies across all our services and output, whatever the format, from radio 
news bulletins and our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a 
commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. 

Editorial Guidelines 

Section 3 – Accuracy 

Introduction 

The BBC's commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental 
to our reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound 
evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We 
should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded 
speculation. 

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than 
a question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information 
should be weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant 
opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. 

Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 

Introduction 

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It 
applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio 
news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a 
commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. 

• 
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an 
opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do 

not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of 
reply. 

• 
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on 
controversial subjects. 
Achieving Impartiality 

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach 
to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the 
type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the 
content and approach is signposted to our audiences. 

Impartiality is described in the Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter as 
“due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining 
the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective 
and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the 
representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every 
occasion or an equal division of time for each view. 

Section 5 – Fairness, Contributors and Consent 

Right of reply 

When we make allegations of wrong doing, iniquity or incompetence or lay 
out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the 
presumption is that those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, 
given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before transmission. 

In very rare circumstances where we propose to broadcast a serious 
allegation resulting from our own journalism without giving those concerned 
an opportunity to reply the proposal must be referred to a senior editorial 
figure and Controller, Editorial Policy or for Independents to the 
commissioning editor and Controller Editorial Policy. 

Section 11 – War, Terror and Emergencies 

Introduction 

The BBC has a special responsibility to its UK and international audiences 
when reporting conflict. At such times, large numbers of people across the 
world access our services for accurate news and information. We must ensure 
they can be confident that we are telling them the truth. They also expect us 
to help them make sense of events by providing context and impartial 
analysis and by offering a wide range of views and opinions. 

4. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial 
standards, as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a 
statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 



In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available 
evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report and the 
subsequent submissions from the complainant and the Head of the Editorial 
Complaints Unit (ECU). 

The Committee considered the complaint under the following headings of the 
BBC’s editorial guidelines: 

• 
Accuracy 
• 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
• 
Fairness, Contributors and Consent 
• 
War, Terror and Emergencies 
The Committee noted that the complainant’s initial complaint was that the 
BBC News website article “Return to Gaza” differed substantially from the 
Panorama programme it accompanied, in that sections critical of the Hamas 
organisation had been omitted. The complainant stated in his initial letter of 
complaint that the “website summary” had: 

“obscured crucial facts about Hamas which Corbin [the presenter] had 
exposed in her programme.” 

The Committee noted that in response BBC Information stated that the 
programme was not a revision of the Panorama programme but was a 
promotional piece posted before the programme aired. 

The Committee then noted what the ECU had said when it did not uphold the 
complaint at stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. The Committee noted 
the ECU had not upheld the complaint for two reasons. Firstly, because it was 
not necessary for this kind of article to reflect every detail of the programme 
it was linked to. The Committee noted what the ECU replied: 

“As Jane Corbin put it to [us] ‘one version was a half hour script 
written by me and the other was a short précis on the website also 
written by me.’” 

And: 

“Secondly, the web article is likely to be seen by people who have not 
seen the programme, and it must therefore comply with the BBC 
guidelines without requiring reference to the programme.” 

The Committee then noted that following the ECU finding the complainant, in 
his appeal to the Trust, took issue with the reasoning behind the ECU finding. 
The complainant noted that Hamas by its activities had put itself beyond the 
guideline requirement that it be given a right of reply. He contended that 
since a Right of Reply was a “presumption”, then that presumption could be 
overridden. 



The Committee agreed that there was no requirement for an online article to 
follow the form of its accompanying programme, but there was a requirement 
for all BBC content including website articles to comply with the BBC’s 
Editorial Guidelines. The Committee noted that the article was written by the 
Panorama reporter Jane Corbin as a personal report on her journey back to 
Gaza when making the film, and, as such, was not an abridged version of the 
programme. The Committee was satisfied that this was not unusual. The 
practice of presenters or journalists writing accompanying pieces to promote 
a programme they are appearing in was considered normal practice. The 
Committee concluded there was no expectation when producing these articles 
that they should follow the exact form of the programme; the article was an 
addition to the programme and by its nature was unlikely to be an exact copy 
of the programme to be aired. The Committee recognised that it would have 
been clearer had the article been signposted as an accompanying piece for 
promotional purposes. Nevertheless, the Committee concluded that by not 
doing so the article had not breached editorial standards. 

The Committee then addressed the substantive point of the appeal – namely 
that Hamas should not enjoy a right of reply. The Committee noted that the 
complainant had appealed this point as a result of the ECU ruling. The 
Committee noted what the complainant said: 

“I have appealed against your findings on the basis that the BBC has 
misapplied the Fairness Guideline by conferring upon Hamas a ‘Right of 
Reply’.” 

The Committee when coming to its finding noted that in the January 2006 
election Hamas had won a majority of votes and seats in the Palestinian 
Assembly and had formed a unity government with Fatah in Gaza. The 
Committee also agreed that given the conflict in the Middle East the issue was 
a controversial subject that required the BBC to cover it with due accuracy 
and impartiality. It was important that the BBC cover the activities of Hamas 
with fairness which would include a ‘Right of Reply’ where appropriate. The 
Committee considered that applying the requirement for a right of reply to 
Hamas, where appropriate, simply acknowledged that Hamas should be 
treated fairly and a right of reply conferred when circumstances required. 

The Committee considered that a web article on the news site should be of 
itself duly impartial and duly accurate unless it was part of a series of articles 
and signalled to be part of such a series. The Committee concluded that in 
the case of this article – which set out to explain the tensions between Hamas 
and Fatah and the battle for supremacy between them – it was impossible not 
to state the Hamas position. 

As to whether Hamas had put itself beyond the scope of the Editorial 
Guidelines, the Committee was of the view that it had not. 



The Committee did not uphold the complaint. 

Finding: Not upheld 



The Most Annoying People of 2008, BBC Three, 29 December 2008 

1. Background 
This BBC Three programme was a two-part entertainment series taking a 
light-hearted look at the 100 most annoying people of 2008. The series was 
described on the BBC Three website as: 

“An irreverent review which looks back over the year at everything and 
everybody that got under our skin and caused our hackles to rise.” 

The section of the programme complained about was in the second 
programme and concerned the celebrities named at number 43, Lindsay 
Lohan and Samantha Ronson. The reason for their inclusion in the listing was 
how they “teased” the press over their sexual relationship. Amongst the 
contributors to this section were DJ Spoony and Ron Jeremy, who made 
comments about the couple’s lesbian relationship and their personal attitudes 
towards it. 

2. The transcript 
(Number 43: Soundtrack Goodbye Sam, Hello Samantha) 

Commentary: 
Next up it’s unknown LA DJ Sam Ronson – sister of world famous 
music producer Mark. She really dragged out this year’s worst kept 
Hollywood secret… 


Caption: Hollywood’s worst kept secret is out (And so is Lindsay 
Lohan) 


Commentary: 
…that she and one time man-eater Lindsay Lohan were lovers. 

Heidi Parker (Editor, Star Magazine): 
What’s been annoying is that they’ve really had a lot of fun with 
working up the press into a tizzy about are they or aren’t they. And it’s 
just so obvious that they are. But you know it’s, it’s, they’re kind of 
sweet in a way ’cos they seem like they’re in love and happy but 
they’re kind of annoying too because they’re working it. 


(Soundtrack I Kissed a Girl) 


Commentary: 
As soon as they went public the couple were never out of the papers. 


Caption: 
LILO: MY GAY LOVE 
SHE ADMITS DJ IS HER GIRLFRIEND 




Commentary: 
And some blokes were a little bit miffed that Sam had scored with Lins 
at all. 


Ron Jeremy (Porn actor): 
You know it’s a double edged sword you know, men wishing they could 
be with her and change her mind and “yeah well she’s a lesbian now 
’cos she never met ME”. 


Spoony (Presenter, 5 Live): 
Let the munters and you know the mingers get each other, that’s cool 
see no-one really wants them ones, but when they’re hot and fit d’ya 
know what I mean and Hollywood superstars they should be saved for 
guys like, you know, not me but, you know, for other guys. 


Heidi Parker: 
Sam provides a safe, happy environment for Lindsay, keeps her from 
going bananas on Sunset Boulevard. Samantha Ronson’s career’s taken 
off as a DJ because when they, you hire her you get Lindsay too. 
Lindsay is the hot girl who helps Samantha make money so together 
they’re a good team. 


Miranda Sawyer (Journalist): 
I mean Lindsay Lohan I mean for years you’ve seen her kind of 
smashed and falling over, looking really terrible and unhappy. How 
great does she look now – she looks really happy ’cos she’s in love. 
And Samantha Ronson, I have to say she’s cute. She’s like, the lesbian 
that every woman would get off with. She’s fit. 


Paul Flynn (columnist, Grazia): 
The lesbian community must be absolutely jumping for joy about that 
woman because you don’t have hot, cool lesbians in culture, they don’t 
exist. 


(Soundtrack Push Push in the Bush) 


Paul Flynn: 
One of the things, one of the interesting dynamics about them just 
visually is that you sort of know what goes on in the bedroom just by 
looking at them. 


Ron Jeremy: 
Guys always ask me in the street “What’s the best situation – two girls, 
three girls, four girls, ten girls?” I say two, and if they’re into each 
other that’s even better – you can take a break and have a sandwich 
while they keep going, going, hey that looks pretty good. Those two 
girls are both very good looking; I’d love to be in the middle of that, 




are you kidding me. They’ll do each other, do me, do each other, do 

me, back and forth, all of a sudden (popping noise) we do a pop and 

it’s over. And the polite thing to do is to pop on both of them. You 

shouldn’t show partiality in a threesome. 

3. The complaint 
Stage 1 

The complainant emailed BBC Information on 29 December 2008 stating that 
the programme had reinforced negative stereotypes of lesbians. She noted: 

“I was completely offended by the programme’s misogynistic and 
homophobic discussion of the relationship between Samantha Ronson and 
Lindsay Lohan.” 

On 2 January 2009 BBC Information replied saying the programme was not 
intended to cause offence. It noted the format of the programme made it 
clear that the contributors would be voicing their “concerns and anger about 
celebrities featured, but in a light-hearted fashion with no malicious intent”. 
The reply also noted that the views did not represent the views and opinions 
of the BBC. 

The complainant responded by writing to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) 
on 6 January 2009. The complainant noted that there was nothing lighthearted 
about the “offensive section” of the programme. She explained that 
the programme, instead of discussing why these two people [Sam Ronson 
and Lindsay Lohan] were annoying, had allowed a porn star, Ron Jeremy, to 
spend a significant amount of time telling the audience how much he loves 
watching women having sex with each other. The complainant believed the 
comments had “grossly sexualized” the two women, “along with all lesbians, 
in the most vile and disgusting way”. The complainant also complained about 
DJ Spoony’s contribution to this section of the programme and his references 
to “munters” and “mingers” and not being happy about “good-looking 
lesbians going out with women because … they wouldn’t be available for his 
mates”. The complainant also referred to the BBC Editorial Guidelines and in 
particular to the guideline on portrayal which states: 

“we [the BBC] should not perpetuate it [prejudice and disadvantage 

which exists in society]. We should avoid offensive and stereotypical 

assumptions.” 

The complainant did not believe the BBC followed these guidelines in this 
programme. Instead she believed it had allowed two men to “deride, 
sexualise and perpetuate offensive and damaging myths about lesbians in a 
most gratuitous manner”. 



The ECU replied to the complainant on 9 January 2009 stating that in line 
with the BBC’s published complaints procedure they had passed it back to the 
programme team for a more detailed reply. 

The series producer responded on 9 February 2009 reiterating that The Most 
Annoying People of 2008 was a light-hearted, comedic review of the events of 
the last twelve months. She explained that the two celebrities had one of the 
most “over-publicised” stories of 2008 and that they had made it onto the list 
not simply because of their sexuality, “but because of their constant denial of 
their relationship, that was simultaneously being played out in the public eye”. 
The series producer also explained how the commentators had been chosen. 
She stated that they were chosen because “they covered a broad base of 
views and sexuality”. She noted that: 

“DJ Spoony and Ron Jeremy admittedly made some very non-pc, 

unsophisticated remarks but they were not malicious in any way. Ron 

makes a pompous statement that they were lesbian because they had 

never met him … Spoony’s comments were, we felt, largely in the same 

‘what a waste’ vein that straight women often talk about gay men.” 

The producer also noted that other commentators to the section, Miranda 
Sawyer and Heidi Parker, had discussed the positive impact of the relationship 
on Ms Lohan and that another commentator, Paul Flynn, had mentioned how 
the couple had changed the normal perception of lesbians. The producer also 
said that as a woman, she would have been “very uncomfortable with the 
idea of broadcasting anything that could be construed as being misogynistic 
or homophobic.” 

Stage 2 

On 13 February 2009 the complainant contacted the ECU noting that while 
the response from the series producer was more considered, it had not 
answered her fundamental points raised in her letter [6 January 2009] about 
the BBC falling foul of its own guidelines regarding “its gratuitous and 
stereotypical discussion of lesbians on the programme”. The complainant 
requested that the ECU consider her complaint. 

The ECU replied with its finding on 25 March 2009. The ECU did not uphold 
the complaint. The ECU explained the purpose for the choice and range of 
contributors to this section of the programme. It noted how the contributors 
had reflected on Ms Lohan and Ms Robson’s relationship with the press. The 
ECU also noted that the programme had alluded to the fact that Lindsay 
Lohan had been known for being exclusively heterosexual prior to the 
relationship and had highlighted how men were “miffed” at this apparent 
sudden change. The ECU noted what Ron Jeremy had said regarding men 
being both envious and dismissive of Lindsay Lohan’s change in sexuality. The 
ECU noted his comment parodying a common held heterosexual male 
response of “yeah well she’s a lesbian now because she never met me”. The 



ECU considered that Ron Jeremy was “lampooning” an attitude often struck 
by men in the face of rejection by a woman which led it to a view that, 
“rather than perpetuating a stereotypical attitude towards lesbians, he was in 
fact pinpointing a certain form of male behaviour and mocking it”. As to DJ 
Spoony’s contribution, the ECU believed the intention was to be ironic, 
“sending up a common attitude adopted by heterosexual people when 
confronted with someone they find attractive who is gay – that it’s a “waste”. 
The ECU believed this was borne out in his last comment that “Hollywood 
superstars should be saved for guys like, you know, not me but, you know, 
for other guys”, which it believed was parodying a prevailing attitude rather 
than expressing his own view. The ECU also noted Ron Jeremy’s further 
comments about group sex, which the programme makers told the ECU were 
included purely for their comedy value. The ECU stated that “[the] comments 
were of a general nature, with only a passing reference to sex between 
women”. The ECU did not consider the comments were establishing a 
“particular stereotype of lesbian women, harmful or otherwise”. 

Stage 3 – Appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee 
(ESC) 

The complainant wrote to the ESC on 21 April 2009 requesting the Committee 
consider her appeal of the ECU’s decision. 

4. Applicable editorial standards 
Section 8 – Harm and Offence 

Introduction 

The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human 
experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our 
right to broadcast and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate 
to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. 

When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending 
some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial 
purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, 
humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be 
sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of 
children, as well as clearly signposting the material. 

Harm and offence editorial principles 

• 
We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences 
have enough information on which to judge whether content is suitable 
for themselves or their children. 
• 
We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our 
services. 
Audience expectations 



We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including 
children, in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular 
time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as 
the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions: 

• 
what is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely 
number and age range of children in the audience taking into account 
school time, weekends and holidays? We should be aware that school 
holidays are different in different parts of the UK. 
• 
does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations 
which may be challenged by the content? 
• 
is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in 
the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? 
• 
has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted? 
Portrayal 

We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom’s people and 
cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage 
which exists in our society but we should not perpetuate it. We should avoid 
offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in 
terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly 
editorially justified. 

5. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial 
standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a 
statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available 
evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report and the 
subsequent submissions from the programme team. 

The Committee considered the complaint under two headings of the BBC’s 
Editorial Guidelines concerning Harm and Offence: 

• 
Audience expectations 
• 
Portrayal 
Audience expectations 

The Committee noted that the BBC had to balance its right to broadcast and 
publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of its services 
and its responsibility to protect the vulnerable. 

It also noted that when the BBC publishes challenging material which risks 
offending some of the audience it must always be able to demonstrate clear 
editorial purpose. The BBC must also be sensitive to audience expectations, 
particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly 



signposting challenging material to ensure that the audience has enough 
information on which to judge whether the content is suitable for themselves 
or their children. 

The Committee noted that the complainant was offended by the comments 
made about Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson’s relationship. The 
Committee then noted what the complainant said in her initial letter of 
complaint to BBC Information: 

“I was completely offended by the above programme's misogynistic 
and homophobic discussion of the relationship between Samantha 
Ronson and Lindsay Lohan. 

“Lesbians have spent years struggling against being sexualised by men 
and you positively encourage it on your programme. Did you just 
decide to spend the whole section on Samantha Ronson/Lindsay Lohan 
confirming every negative stereotype of lesbians.” 

The Committee noted that the complaint concerned three interview clips with 
Ron Jeremy and DJ Spoony. The Committee considered the responses from 
the series producer and the ECU. The Committee noted that the series 
producer referred to the programme as “light-hearted” and that the 
comments from the two contributors were “very non-pc, unsophisticated 
remarks” and that Ron Jeremy made “a pompous statement” about lesbians 
preferring women rather than men. The Committee also noted that the ECU 
referred to these comments as ironic and “sending up a common attitude 
adopted by heterosexual people”. The ECU also quoted the programme-
makers’ response that Ron Jeremy’s final comments about group sex were 
included for their comedy value. The Committee noted that other 
commentators, such as Heidi Parker and Miranda Sawyer, had made positive 
comments about this couple’s relationship. 

The Committee also noted the announcement that had preceded the 
programme, which stated: 

“So far the mildly annoying ones have been counted and it’s now time 

to up the irritation ante with Part 2 of the most annoying people in 

2008. This programme contains some strong language.” 

The Committee believed that the programme did include challenging material, 
but did not consider that the BBC had demonstrated with regard to these 
particular remarks by Ron Jeremy and DJ Spoony the clear editorial purpose 
of lampooning and irony ascribed to them. The Committee noted Ron 
Jeremy’s description of group sex and, specifically, his comments referring to 
the celebrity couple in question. He stated: 

Guys always ask me in the street “What’s the best situation – two girls, 
three girls, four girls, ten girls?” I say two, and if they’re into each 



other that’s even better – you can take a break and have a sandwich 
while they keep going, going, hey that looks pretty good. Those two 
girls are both very good looking; I’d love to be in the middle of that, 
are you kidding me. They’ll do each other, do me, do each other, do 
me, back and forth, all of a sudden (popping noise) we do a pop and 
it’s over. And the polite thing to do is to pop on both of them. You 
shouldn’t show partiality in a threesome. 

The Committee concluded that his comments did not appear to add comedic 
value to the item. The Committee found it difficult to reconcile the remarks 
made by DJ Spoony and Ron Jeremy with the programme-makers’ comments 
that they were light-hearted. Having fully considered the item as a whole, 
including the positive comments about the celebrity couple, the Committee 
believed that the remarks made by DJ Spoony and Ron Jeremy were crude 
and offensive in their targeting of Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson. Even 
given the wider context of the programme as being “irreverent” and focusing 
on the lighter side of celebrity, the Committee believed these particular 
remarks exceeded the expectations of an audience familiar with the BBC’s 
broadcasting values. 

The Committee noted that the programme attracted a predominantly adult 
audience with 70% (0.475 million) aged between 25-54 years. Although the 
Committee took into account that a BBC Three audience generally has a 
younger demographic than the other BBC television channels, it felt that 
these comments went beyond generally accepted standards on the BBC. The 
Committee did not believe that the signposting would adequately prepare 
viewers for these particular remarks. 

The Committee concluded that this item included difficult and challenging 
material which was not justified editorially and was thus not suitable for 
broadcast and was, therefore, in breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. 

Portrayal 

The Committee noted that programmes may reflect the prejudice and 
disadvantage which exist in society today. However, offensive or stereotypical 
assumptions should be avoided and only described in terms of their sexual 
orientation when it is clearly editorially justified. 

The Committee noted the reasons the series producer had stated for including 
the relationship between Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson within the 
programme. The Committee noted what she said: 

“Sam Ronson and Lindsay Lohan was one of the most over-publicised 
celebrity stories of 2008. They made it onto the list not simply because 
of their sexuality, but because of their constant denial of their 
relationship, that was simultaneously being played out in the public 
eye.” 



The Committee was satisfied that the item as a whole was editorially justified 
in this genre of programming. However, some of the views in the item did 
reflect stereotypical assumptions about a vulnerable minority. These included 
DJ Spoony’s association of some lesbians as being “munters” and “mingers”2 
and Ron Jeremy’s remarks about male attitudes to women preferring lesbian 
relationships – “yeah well she’s a lesbian now ’cos she never met ME”. Rather 
than “sending up a common attitude adopted by heterosexual people”, the 
Committee believed that it appeared to reinforce stereotypical views. 

The Committee concluded that these comments were offensive and made 
stereotypical assumptions which were not editorially justified. On this basis 
the programme was in breach of the Editorial Guidelines. 

Finding: Upheld 

Action: The Committee would write to BBC Vision to request that the 
programme-makers edit this programme by removing the three clips 
featuring DJ Spoony and Ron Jeremy in any future repeat 
broadcasts. 

2 Definitions found in the Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/ 
Munter - Most often used to describe an incredibly unattractive female 
Minger - A male or female who could be described as “ugly” 

Oxford Reference Online Dictionary http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/GLOBAL.html 
Minger -informal, derogatory an unattractive or unpleasant person or thing. 



Mock the Week, BBC Two, 28 August 2008 

1. Background 
Mock the Week is described on the BBC’s website as: 

“Comedy show combining elements of a panel game, stand-up and 
improvisation, with two teams of comedians taking a satirical swipe at 
the news and world events.” 

It is hosted by Dara O'Briain, with regulars Hugh Dennis, Frankie Boyle, Andy 
Parsons and Russell Howard, joined by special guests each week. 

2. The transcript 
This complaint concerns comments made by panellist Frankie Boyle about 
Olympic gold medallist Rebecca Adlington: 

Frankie Boyle: 
The thing that nobody really said about Rebecca Adlington is that she 
looks pretty weird. She looks like someone who’s looking at themselves 
in the back of a spoon. 


And then, when she arrived back on the flight she met her boyfriend. 
Did you see her boyfriend? He was really attractive. He was like a male 
model. So from that I have deduced that Rebecca Adlington is very 
dirty – I mean if you just take into account how long she can hold her 
breath… 


Andy Parsons: 
And you’re thinking, you’re thinking she may be a bit worried… 


Dara O’Briain: 
Sitting at home for the first weekend after the Games, medals jangling 
in Mansfield, new shoes on, loving the new kind of look to the place 
like whatever, and then “Oh I haven’t seen Mock the Week in about 
four weeks time. I wonder who they’re tearing in… Oh…” 


Frankie Boyle: 
Do you know what, she’s sitting there going “he’s got a point. I am 
dirty…” 


3. The complaint 
Stage 1 



The complainant emailed BBC Information on 31 August 2008 stating that he 
was appalled at the comments concerning Rebecca Adlington. He said he 
could not believe the BBC had broadcast them. 

On 5 September 2008 BBC Information replied apologising if the complainant 
was offended by the comments. The reply noted that Mock the Week was 
widely publicised on television and in the press as a satirical topical comedy 
show. It noted that not all of the material featured would be enjoyed by all 
viewers, although others would consider them “necessary comments about 
the world around us”. The reply also stated: 

“Mock the Week makes every effort not to make jokes at the expense 
of ordinary members of the public, however, making satirical 
observations about public figures will always come under the brief of 
the show. However, we do not wish to offend any individual and we 
apologise if on this occasion you have been upset.” 

The complainant responded to BBC Information’s reply on 8 September 2008. 
He stated that he accepted the “proposition that not everyone will find every 
joke inoffensive”. However, the complainant was concerned as to whether 
any comment, no matter how potentially offensive, about any public figure, 
was permissible. With regard to Rebecca Adlington, who was a public figure 
because she had won two Olympic gold medals, he considered the jokes 
made by one contributor, about her facial appearance and the crude sexual 
innuendo explaining how she kept a boyfriend, to be cruel. The complainant 
asked why no exception was made in this case and how these comments 
could be considered “necessary”. 

BBC Information replied on 16 October 2008 saying that it was sorry that the 
complainant felt the joke went too far. However, the reply noted that 
“nothing and no-one is ever safe on the programme”. The reply cited a 
number of examples including Clare Balding’s resemblance to Eddie Izzard, 
Gabby Logan’s comparison to a transvestite and Paula Radcliffe’s 
disappointing performance in the Olympics. The reply also stated: 

“We feel that Frankie Boyle’s comments are well recognised by viewers 
as being close to the mark but are without malice, for example this is 
exemplified in his light-hearted rant about his own children in this 
episode.” 

Stage 2 

The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) on 3 November 
2008 repeating his complaints about the comment. He summarised by saying: 

“I think the comments about Rebecca Adlington were unacceptable for 
broadcasting; and so far as I can see from the responses I have had, 
the BBC does not have any developed way of thinking about what is 



acceptable and what isn’t; or that if they do, it isn’t being 
communicated to programme makers or the people who have the job 
of fielding complaints from members of the public.” 

The ECU replied in full to the complainant on 4 December 2008. The ECU 
considered the complaint against the BBC Editorial Guidelines concerning 
Harm and Offence. The reply noted that the intonation in Frankie Boyle’s 
voice after he said “deduced” made it fairly clear that he intended to say that 
either Rebecca Adlington is very dirty or something else but was interrupted 
and did not get to the alternative deduction. The ECU’s finding also included 
points provided by the programme’s producer. The producer stated: 

“I can assure you it was never our intention to belittle the 
achievements of Rebecca Adlington. All the show’s performers and 
producers are huge sports fans and took as much pride in Rebecca’s 
remarkable efforts in Beijing as I’m sure you did. In the previous 
week’s episode we included comments by Russell Howard describing 
Rebecca as ‘fantastic’ and expanding on how down to earth and 
likeable she is.” 

The producer went on to say: 

“The week you refer to saw Rebecca Adlington absolutely at the 
forefront of the news in this country and we felt it was therefore 
acceptable to feature her. The programme team’s treatment of 
Rebecca Adlington was no different to any other athlete or sporting 
star. 

“I was aware that Frankie Boyle’s typically misanthropic comments 
were not in accord with a jubilant nation but reasoned that they were 
not outrageously offensive and were wholly consistent with Frankie’s 
hugely popular comedy persona in the show as both a perpetually 
negative voice and someone whose ‘seedy lifestyle’ is reflected in his 
inability to view celebrities by any yardstick other than their physical 
attractiveness. In the show, the host Dara O’Briain immediately chided 
Frankie on the inappropriateness of his position.” 

“However, I can understand how you felt about the material. In 
hindsight, and taking into account the timing, I concede that the 
ribbing might have gone a tad too far on this occasion and for that I 
sincerely apologise. Please be assured this is something I have taken 
into consideration.” 

The ECU then considered, given the acknowledgement from the programme 
that the “ribbing might have gone a tad too far”, whether the comment 
amounted to a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines. The ECU did not 
believe the remarks amounted to a serious breach. It noted that the remarks 
about her being “dirty” and able to hold her breath were speculative, “albeit 



in a rather juvenile, smutty sort of way”. The ECU stated that the reference to 
Ms Adlington’s looks were more serious. The ECU considered whether this 
humour was something that went beyond “ribbing” to something approaching 
a level of “humiliation” However, the ECU was satisfied that it did not in this 
case. The complaint was therefore not upheld. 

Stage 3 – Appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee 
(ESC) 

The complainant wrote to the ESC on 13 December 2008 requesting the 
Committee consider his appeal against the ECU’s decision. 

This appeal was held over in order to provide the Committee and the 
appellant with research undertaken by the BBC Executive into taste and 
standards. This can be found at: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/running/reports/index.shtml 

4. Applicable editorial standards 
Section 8 – Harm and Offence 

Introduction 

The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human 
experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our 
right to broadcast and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate 
to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. 

When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending 
some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial 
purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, 
humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be 
sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of 
children, as well as clearly signposting the material. 

Harm and offence editorial principles 

• 
We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences 
have enough information on which to judge whether content is suitable 
for themselves or their children. 
• 
We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our 
services. 
Audience expectations 

We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including 
children, in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular 
time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as 
the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions: 

• 
what is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely 

number and age range of children in the audience taking into account 
school time, weekends and holidays? We should be aware that school 
holidays are different in different parts of the UK. 

• 
does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations 
which may be challenged by the content? 
• 
is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in 
the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? 
• 
has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted? 
5. The Committee’s decision 
*The Committee held over its consideration of the appeal until after 
the publication of the BBC Executive’s report on “Taste and 
Standards”, published in June 2009, in order to be able to note the 
findings of the report. 

The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial 
standards, as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a 
statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available 
evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report and the 
subsequent submission from the complainant and programme area. 

The Committee considered the complaint under the following heading of the 
BBC’s editorial guidelines: 

• 
Harm and Offence (audience expectations) 
Harm and Offence 

The Committee noted that the BBC had to balance its right to broadcast and 
publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of its services 
with its responsibility to protect the vulnerable. 

It also noted that when the BBC publishes challenging material which risks 
offending some of the audience it must always be able to demonstrate clear 
editorial purpose. The BBC must also be sensitive to audience expectations, 
particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly 
signposting challenging material to ensure that the audience has enough 
information on which to judge whether the content is suitable for themselves 
or their children. 

The Committee noted that the complainant considered Frankie Boyle’s 
comments about the Olympic gold medallist Rebecca Adlington to be 
offensive and unacceptable for broadcast. 



The Committee noted that Mock the Week is a well-established, satirical 
comedy series and that Frankie Boyle, as a regular panellist, is well known for 
his caustic sense of humour. 

The Committee took into account that the programme-makers had apologised 
for the inclusion of the comments about Rebecca Adlington stating that “the 
ribbing may have gone a tad too far on this occasion”. However, at the time 
at which the programme was edited the programme-makers had decided that 
these comments could remain given Dara O’Briain’s sympathetic comments 
towards Rebecca Adlington and the overall balance and the tone of the show. 

The Committee noted that 75 complaints had been received about this 
particular item which was originally aired in the week Team GB returned from 
the Olympic Games (25 August). Although the programme had attracted an 
audience of 3.5 million viewers, the programme-makers had acknowledged 
that this was the first instance that the programme and its repeat (30 August 
2008) had received so many complaints. The Committee considered the 
comments in the context of the programme’s well-established reputation and 
the programme as a whole. The Committee took note of the announcement 
that had preceded the programme, which stated: 

“Kids’ football or a parents’ ego trip? The Cup in half-an-hour here on 

BBC Two. Before that though, with some strong language…” 

The Committee agreed that the programme did include challenging material 
in respect of the remarks about Rebecca Adlington and these remarks risked 
offending some of the audience. The Committee noted that Rebecca 
Adlington had won two gold medals at the Beijing Olympics and thus could be 
considered more or less a public figure, but in the view of the Committee she 
had not sought celebrity status or courted media attention. The Committee 
felt, therefore, that the joke about her appearance and the sexual innuendo 
were humiliating and there was no demonstration of a clear editorial purpose 
for the inclusion of these comments. 

The Committee noted that the Commissioning Editor had made her views 
clear about preferring not to include this item in the programme during the 
compliance process. She had also stated that the team should have 
apologised for its inclusion and “that we did go a little too far on this 
occasion”. The Committee was concerned that with this item the 
Commissioning Editor appeared to have been unable to obtain the edits she 
would have preferred. 

The Committee therefore concluded that the remarks about Rebecca 
Adlington were offensive and not clearly editorially justified. On this basis, this 
programme was in breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. 

Finding: Upheld 



Action: The Committee felt that it would be useful to explore this 
outcome with the Commissioning Editor and the management of 
Vision. 



Mock the Week… Again, BBC Two, 29 October 2008 

1. Background 
Mock the Week is described on the BBC’s website as: 

“Comedy show combining elements of a panel game, stand-up and 
improvisation, with two teams of comedians taking a satirical swipe at 
the news and world events.” 

It is hosted by Dara O'Briain, with regulars Hugh Dennis, Frankie Boyle, Andy 
Parsons and Russell Howard, joined by special guests each week. 

2. The programme 
This edition, a repeat of one broadcast originally in January 2007, included an 
item in which comics were asked to improvise on the theme “things you 
wouldn’t hear the Queen say during her Christmas broadcast”. One of the 
suggestions (from Frankie Boyle) was “I’m now so old that my pussy is 
haunted”. 

3. The complaint 
Stage 1 

The complainant contacted BBC Information on 30 October 2008 complaining 
about “a rude, highly offensive joke”. He also stated: 

“in my view this is a thing you shouldn’t hear anyone say on public 
funded BBC television, involving as it does the nastiest kind of lese-
majesty and ageism. It would have been objectionable at the best of 
times but coming as it did in the midst of the Ross and Brand 
controversy it was quite unforgivable.” 

BBC Information replied in error on 8 November 2008 with a response 
concerning the Russell Brand show. Following clarification from the 
complainant by telephone (10 November 2008) that this was not what he was 
complaining about, BBC Information replied the same day apologising for the 
error. The reply also included a response about the specific edition of Mock 
the Week. The reply noted that this was the fourth time this particular 
programme had been aired since January 2007. The reply also noted that 
Mock the Week was a well-established satirical comedy programme “whose 
audience has very clear expectations of its bold and sometimes provocative 
humour”. The reply also acknowledged that some of the humour was not to 
everyone’s taste, particularly when taken out of the context of the 
programme. 

Stage 2 



The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) on 11 
November 2008. He reiterated his point concerning the “highly offensive ‘joke’ 
involving the Queen”. The complainant stated that BBC Information had not 
addressed his point as to whether the “joke” did or did not fall within “the 
BBC’s rules on matters of taste”. He understood that BBC Information had 
said it did fall within “BBC rules” and asked the ECU to confirm this. 

The ECU replied on 14 November 2008 stating that it would not comment on 
BBC Information’s letter sent out on 10 November 2008 but would investigate 
the complaint if the complainant wished. 

The complainant replied on 27 November 2008 requesting that the ECU 
should take into account the BBC Trust’s report on the Ross/Brand affair 
which would not only consider the grossly offensive nature of the remarks 
made on that programme but would also take account of the fact that the 
programme was recorded. The complainant argued that the same 
consideration should apply to his complaint and that the ECU should consider 
the expectations of the BBC audience as a whole (particularly in the wake of 
the Ross/Brand affair) rather than the specific audience of Mock the Week at 
the time the show was originally broadcast. 

The ECU replied on 3 December 2008. The ECU stated that the BBC Trust’s 
findings on the Russell Brand Show were about specific programmes, and 
reflected the particular contents and circumstances of those programmes. 
However, the ECU had followed the same approach in applying the standards 
expressed in the guidelines to the particulars of the complaint about Mock the 
Week… Again. The reply noted that it was reasonable to assume that regular 
viewers of Mock the Week would be aware of the satirical nature of the 
programme and that it had a reputation for provocative and controversial 
humour. The ECU also pointed out that the programme went out at 10pm, 
well after the Watershed; BBC Two was generally regarded as a channel 
where the audience expected more adult content; the 10pm slot regularly 
featured challenging comedy such as Have I Got News for You and Lead 
Balloon; and there was an announcement before the start of the programme 
which referred to “some strong language” and “adult humour”. In relation to 
this particular edition of the programme, the ECU said that the jokes about 
the Queen came at the end of the programme by which time viewers would 
have been sufficiently familiar with the nature of the material to decide 
whether they wanted to continue watching and it was unlikely therefore that 
they would have been taken by surprise by Mr Boyle’s comments. However, 
the ECU accepted that Mr Boyle’s comments were “near the knuckle” but did 
not believe that his particular joke was significantly out of kilter with the 
overall humour in the programme. The ECU believed this view was supported 
by the fact that the material in question had been broadcast on two previous 
occasions and had prompted only six complaints. The ECU did not uphold the 
complaint. 



Stage 3 – Appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee 
(ESC) 

The complainant appealed to the ESC on 10 December 2008. The 
complainant said that the ECU had not addressed the points made in the 
complaint. Referring again to “a grossly offensive joke made about the 
Queen”, the complainant reiterated that the joke should be judged in the 
same way as the Ross/Brand issue in that it was grossly offensive and that 
there was no justification for it regardless of other considerations; it should be 
judged in terms of the expectations of the BBC audience as a whole, rather 
than the specific Mock the Week audience at the time the programme was 
originally broadcast; and the Watershed should not be a significant factor. 
The complainant added that, if the Editorial Standards Committee rejected 
the appeal, consideration should be given to changing the guidelines. If, on 
the other hand, the appeal was upheld, action should be taken against those 
responsible. 

This appeal was held over in order to provide the Committee and the 
appellant with research undertaken by the BBC Executive into taste and 
standards. This can be found at: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/running/reports/index.shtml 

4. Applicable editorial standards 
Section 8 – Harm and Offence 

Introduction 

The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human 
experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our 
right to broadcast and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate 
to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. 

When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending 
some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial 
purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, 
humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be 
sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of 
children, as well as clearly signposting the material. 

Harm and offence editorial principles 

• 
We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences 
have enough information on which to judge whether content is suitable 
for themselves or their children. 
• 
We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our 
services. 

Audience expectations 

We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including 
children, in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular 
time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as 
the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions: 

• 
what is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely 
number and age range of children in the audience taking into account 
school time, weekends and holidays? We should be aware that school 
holidays are different in different parts of the UK. 
• 
does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations 
which may be challenged by the content? 
• 
is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in 
the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? 
• 
has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted? 
5. The Committee’s decision 
*The Committee held over its consideration of the appeal until after 
the publication of the BBC Executive’s report on “Taste and 
Standards”, published in June 2009, in order to be able to note the 
findings of the report. 

The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial 
standards, as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a 
statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available 
evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report and the 
subsequent submission from the complainant. 

The Committee considered the complaint under the following heading of the 
BBC’s Editorial Guidelines: 

• 
Harm and Offence (audience expectations) 
The Committee noted that the BBC had to balance its right to broadcast and 
publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of its services 
with its responsibility to protect the vulnerable. 

It also noted that when the BBC publishes challenging material which risks 
offending some of the audience it must always be able to demonstrate clear 
editorial purpose. The BBC must also be sensitive to audience expectations, 
particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly 
signposting challenging material. 

The Committee noted that the complainant believed the comment about the 
Queen should not have been shown as the remark was so offensive that the 
context and timing of the broadcast were irrelevant. 



The Committee noted that Mock the Week has an established reputation as a 
satirical comedy show. It is now in its sixth series. Frankie Boyle is a regular 
panel member and is well-known for his caustic sense of humour. 

The Committee also noted that the comment was made during a regular 
feature in which panellists take turns improvising in response to an unlikely 
situation suggested by the show. On this occasion, the comment was made at 
the end of a section about “What the Queen didn’t say in her Christmas 
Message”. 

The Committee took note that this feature appeared towards the end of the 
programme, just before 22.30, well after the 21.00 Watershed and that the 
announcement that had preceded the programme stated: 

“At this time tomorrow here on BBC Two it’s The Graham Norton 
Show. Right now, with some strong language and the adult humour of 
Mock the Week… Again.” 

The Committee agreed that the programme did contain challenging material 
which risked offending some of the audience. Although the joke was pointedly 
about what the Queen would not say and so could be construed as not being 
directed at the Queen personally, the Committee felt that it had ageist and 
sexist overtones. The Committee also recognised that for some any risqué 
joke mentioning the Queen, let alone a comment of this nature, would cause 
serious offence. 

However, given the context of the comment within an improvisation section at 
the end of the programme, well after the 21.00 Watershed, the Committee 
did not consider that, although the remark was in poor taste and clearly was 
offensive to some of the audience, it would have exceeded the audience’s 
expectations of the programme as it was well-signposted and part of an 
established improvisation feature of the programme. 

The Committee noted that the complainant was concerned that the remark 
about the Queen was allowed to be transmitted in the light of the BBC Trust’s 
report on the Ross/Brand case, but was satisfied that this was not a breach of 
the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. 

However, the Committee wished to discuss this finding, together with the 
preceding finding, with the management of BBC Vision and the programme’s 
Commissioning Editor and Executive Producer. 

Finding: Not upheld 

Action: The Committee will contact BBC Vision and the programme 
team to arrange a meeting at a future ESC. 



Today, BBC Radio 4, 14 August 2008 

1. Background 
An item in this edition of Radio 4’s Today programme, discussed a report by 
the Israeli military that had concluded that an Israeli tank crew which killed 
the Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana and eight mostly young bystanders in 
the Gaza Strip four months earlier had acted properly and would not face 
legal action. One of the programme’s presenters, James Naughtie, was joined 
by Reuters bureau chief Alastair Macdonald and Israeli Government 
spokesman Mark Regev to discuss the investigation. 

2. Transcript 
James Naughtie (JN): 
The Israeli military authorities have concluded that the shooting dead of a 
cameraman from the news organisation Reuters and eight unarmed 
bystanders in Gaza four months ago, was not illegal, that the troops acted 
properly and that they won’t face prosecution. Now the incident is one that 
has greatly angered Reuters which says that the army acted against 
international law in harming unarmed civilians going about their business. 
Alastair Macdonald is Reuters bureau chief in Israel and the Palestinian 
territories and joins us from Jerusalem. And also we’re joined from Tel Aviv by 
the Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev. Good morning to you both. 


Alastair Macdonald, remind us … many people won’t have followed the details 
of this story. Precisely what happened on this occasion? 


Alastair Macdonald (AM): 
Oh well, Fadel Shana is one of our cameramen in Gaza. On April 16th he went 
off to cover the aftermath of an Israeli air strike in the Gaza strip in which 
several people, mostly civilians and children were killed. He drove past a tank 
position in a car marked with TV markings. He drove back after filming, past 
the tanks, stopped at a point about a mile from the tanks, got out on the road 
and filmed an area, a panoramic view which included the tanks, for about 4 
or 5 minutes. At this point one of the tanks opened fire with what’s known as 
a flechette shell, that showered the area with darts killing him and eight other 
people, most of them children. 


JN: 
These other people were unarmed? I mean, they weren’t involved in any 
military activity. 


AM: 
No, they were bystanders. One was only 12, the oldest was 20. There were 
no weapons in the area. There was no fighting going on in the immediate 
areas during the half hour that Fadel was in the vicinity of these tanks. 




JN: 
What’s your reaction to the report, because the military authorities in Israel 
did investigate this issue? 


AM: 
We’re very disappointed, I think at two levels. First of all, we believe that it 
was not reasonable. The army itself admits that its soldiers could not tell 
whether they were looking at a camera on a tripod which is what Fadel was 
using, or an anti-tank missile system on a tripod. I may say that there has 
been no case we know of, of an anti-tank missile system on a tripod being 
used in Gaza before. But in spite of not being sure, they still felt they were 
justified in, without warning, unleashing devastating force with a weapon that 
is designed to kill as many people as possible over an area of several hundred 
yards. So in their own terms we are very disappointed. We also don’t agree 
that it was unreasonable to identify Fadel as a journalist. He was wearing a 
flak jacket marked press. He was wearing (sic) a car that at one stage was as 
close as 700 metres from the tanks in the preceding half hour, plastered 
stickers marked TV, press, and so on that level we feel they have not 
observed their international legal obligations to protect civilians. 


JN: 
Let me bring in Mark Regev speaking for the Israeli government. Good 
morning. What’s your response to what Alastair Macdonald says there? 


Mark Regev (MR): 
First of all, I understand the feeling of the Reuters staff in Jerusalem and in 
London. It’s a difficult situation and one of their crew, a cameraman, a 
journalist was killed, and by an Israeli tank shell. And it’s a tragedy, it 
shouldn’t have happened. The question is what does the investigation show? 
And it’s clear both from our own investigation and, I understand from Reuters 
own work, that from where the tank was, and from what they could see, it 
wasn’t at all clear whatsoever that the target was in fact a journalist. On the 
contrary, it wasn’t clear at all. Had there been evidence that it was a 
journalist, or an innocent civilian, and the shell being fired, that would be a 
case for criminal investigation and prosecution. But that’s clearly not the case 
in this specific situation. 


JN: 
What was it that made it impossible for them to identify the markings on his 
vehicle and indeed on his flak jacket indicating, as people in war zones do, 
that he wasn’t any kind of combatant but was there doing a job? 


MR: 
There was a distance of about a kilometre and a half between the Israeli tank 
and the Reuters crew and Reuters did their own investigation as well. Visibility 
was very difficult, both the lighting, the angle, and so forth. It wasn’t possible 
to identify them as journalists. Had we done so the shell would never have 
been fired. 




JN: 
Alastair Macdonald, what’s your response? 


AM: 
Well, first of all, in the army’s own terms there was this doubt, as Mark has 
said, there was a doubt and a very clear doubt so we don’t think it was 
reasonable to open fire without warning. Secondly, I would dispute that the 
visibility was poor. I’ve been to the scene at the same time of day, we’ve 
done our own research and we believe there was plenty of evidence to at 
least suggest this was possibly a journalist working. What it does also mean is 
that this kind of policy of shoot if there’s the slightest doubt has rendered it 
almost impossible for us to do our job in Gaza along with the rest of the 
international media and we are very concerned that the army and the 
Government are not co-operating with us at this stage to try and improve 
safety for journalists in Gaza and allow us to cover both sides of the story 
there. 


JN: 
Mark Regev, how do you feel about that? That this … obviously a tragic case, 
raises a wider question namely whether people are going to be allowed, 
freely, as freely as they can in this situation, to report to the outside world 
what’s happening in Gaza. 


MR: 
As you know the Israeli press is free and you could even say very aggressive. 
We understand fully the role of an independent free press in a society. And I 
think we’re going to be having discussions with the international press 
community in the coming days as how is it possible, to have a situation where 
journalists are doing their work, which we understand they have to do, won’t 
be caught up in these sort of scenarios. I think both Alastair and myself 
understand you cannot find perfect solutions. It’s not about Israel specifically. 
We lost, we didn’t lose, we have an Israeli journalist who’s just come back 
from Georgia, where your team is today, who was very, very badly injured by 
crossfire there. These are situations that are faced internationally. We have to 
find a better way to try to make sure that journalists are not caught up in 
crossfire. 


JN: 
Mark Regev speaking for the Israeli government, Alastair Macdonald of 
Reuters. Both in Israel, thank you very much. 


3. The complaint 
Stage 1 

The complainant emailed BBC Information on 14 August 2008 stating that he 
believed this edition of the Today programme showed a pro-Israeli bias. The 



complainant noted that the programme allowed the Israeli spokesperson to 
end the item by suggesting that the Reuters correspondent, killed in Gaza, 
was caught in crossfire. The complainant also felt that, given the Israeli 
Defence Force’s (IDF) history of “targeting bystanders”, the programme had 
“conveniently” not mentioned previous cases. He also believed the 
programme team should have pointed out “misleading statements” by the 
interviewees. In particular, the complainant felt that the presenter should 
have picked up the point with the Israeli spokesman that the incident had not 
been a “crossfire situation”. 

The complainant wrote again on 18 September 2008 reminding BBC 
Information of his complaint. 

BBC Information initially replied on 2 October 2008 saying that it was awaiting 
clarification on some points from other colleagues in the BBC before it could 
reply fully. BBC Information finally sent its reply on 11 December 2008. The 
reply apologised for the length of delay. The reply pointed out that Today had 
spoken to both parties involved in the issue, the Reuters bureau chief in Israel 
as well as the Israeli Government spokesperson. BBC Information’s reply 
noted that the nub of the discussion concerned whether the IDF should have 
realised they were firing at a bystander rather than a combatant. The 
response also noted that the reference to “crossfire” had been introduced by 
the Israeli representative within his final answer. However, the reply stated 
that the comment did not make any difference given that, by implication, this 
was the issue being discussed by both parties from the start – the Reuters 
argument being that the Israelis should have realised who they were 
targeting. 

Stage 2 

The complainant escalated his complaint to the second stage of the BBC’s 
complaints process on 5 January 2009 when he emailed the Editorial 
Complaints Unit (ECU). In the email to the ECU he reiterated his complaint. 
He also asked why it was that the Israeli spokesperson got the last word. He 
also asked why it took over three months for the BBC to respond to his 
complaint. 

The ECU wrote to the complainant with its finding on 9 February 2009. The 
ECU did not uphold the complaint. The ECU stated in its finding that there 
was no dispute between the Reuters representative and the Israeli 
Government spokesperson as to the specific facts of the death of the 
journalist i.e. there was no combat in the area and the civilians that died were 
not armed and there were no weapons present. The ECU noted that the 
dispute between the two contributors concerned such factors as the distance 
between the Israeli tank and the journalist and the visibility on the day in 
question. The ECU noted that the discussion on “crossfire” came after that 
debate when the Today presenter had invited the Israeli spokesperson to 
comment on the wider question of general safety issues. As such, the ECU did 



not believe that the reference to “crossfire”, which was raised in the wider 
question of safety, would have realistically led listeners to the view that the 
Reuters journalist had been killed in a “crossfire incident”. In relation to the 
complainant’s point that the Israeli spokesperson was given the last word, the 
ECU quoted the Today programme who stated that who should get the last 
word “depends on the nature of the item. In this case Reuters had a case to 
put forward so it was logical to hear them first and get the Israeli spokesman 
to respond second”. The ECU also stated that someone would have to have 
the last word and there was a logic to the order in which the contributors 
were heard. The ECU did not believe that giving the Israeli spokesperson the 
last word showed bias. In fact the ECU believed “the report was more 
challenging than sympathetic to him and the Israeli version of events”. 

The complainant replied on 14 February 2009 stating that he believed the 
ECU response had misrepresented his complaint by suggesting that the report 
gave a misleading impression that the Reuters journalist had been killed in a 
crossfire incident. The complainant stated that what he had objected to was 
that the programme had allowed the Israeli spokesperson to “twist” the 
report into something that sounded more favourable to Israel. The 
complainant also believed that the programme had been wrong to widen the 
discussion to cover a journalist caught in crossfire in Georgia when the 
discussion was specific to Gaza. With regard to the issue of the final word, the 
complainant maintained his belief that giving the final word to the Israeli 
spokesperson not only gave him an advantage but indicated bias in favour of 
the Israeli spokesperson. 

The ECU replied on 23 February 2009 apologising to the complainant if he felt 
that his complaint had been misrepresented. However, the ECU pointed out 
that it had set out in an earlier correspondence to the complainant what it 
had believed the complaint to be and, having not heard from the complainant 
to the contrary, had assumed its interpretation was correct. The reply 
repeated the ECU’s finding that the discussion about the death of the 
journalist would not have led the audience to believe that the Reuters 
cameraman was killed in a “crossfire incident”. The reply also noted that while 
the complainant’s view on the issue of the last word was valid so was that of 
the Today programme and the adoption of one approach over another did not 
amount to a serious breach of editorial standards. 

Stage 3 – Appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee 
(ESC) 

Following a number of exchanges of emails between the complainant and the 
ECU in which the arguments already stated were repeated, the complainant 
on 17 June 2009 emailed the ESC requesting an appeal of the ECU’s decision. 
The appeal repeated the issues previously complained about. It also raised 
new issues as to the role of the ECU to be “judge and jury” as to the impact 
of the item on the audience. The complainant argued that the “ECU had 
absolutely no way of knowing that the audience was not misled.” The 



complainant also said that the presenter had done nothing to prevent the 
Israeli spokesperson’s “obfuscation of the discussion about a deliberate 
killing”. 

4. Applicable editorial standards 
Section 3 – Accuracy 

Introduction 

The BBC's commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental 
to our reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound 
evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We 
should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded 
speculation. 

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than 
a question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information 
should be weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant 
opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. 

Misleading audiences 

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or 
knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label 
material to avoid doing so. 

Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 

Introduction 

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It 
applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio 
news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a 
commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. 

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: 

• 
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide 
an opportunity for a single view to be expressed but in doing so we 
do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right 
of reply. 
• 
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on 
controversial subjects. 
• 
the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our 
editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the 
public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact 
on the perceptions of our impartiality. 
Achieving impartiality 



Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach 
to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the 
type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the 
content and approach is signposted to our audiences. 

Impartiality is described in the Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter as 
“due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining 
the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective 
and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the 
representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every 
occasion or an equal division of time for each view. 

News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 

5. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial 
standards, as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a 
statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available 
evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report and the 
subsequent submissions from the complainant and programme team. 

The appeal raised issues relating to the guidelines on impartiality and 
accuracy. 

The guidelines on impartiality say that the BBC must ensure that it avoids bias 
or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. They say that the BBC is 
required to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and 
weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in 
its approach to a subject. News, in whatever form, must be presented with 
due impartiality. 

The guidelines on accuracy say that the BBC’s output must be well sourced, 
based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise 
language. They also say that the BBC should not distort known facts, present 
invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead its audiences. 

The focus of the Committee’s discussion was whether the Israeli Government 
spokesman should have been challenged about his comments on Today. 

When coming to its finding the Committee first noted the view of the 
complainant who said that the Israeli spokesman, Mr Regev, had been 
allowed to make misleading comments, and that the interviewer had done 
nothing to prevent what the complainant called the “obfuscation of the 
discussion about a deliberate killing”. 



The Committee also considered the complainant’s comments about the Today 
presenter’s final question to Mr Regev. The complainant said: 

“It is totally disingenuous to claim that the audience will not have been 
misled by Mark Regev’s shifting the emphasis of the discussion from 
that of a deliberate killing to one of journalists being caught in crossfire 
in conflict zones.” 

The Committee then considered the BBC’s view that the listener would not 
have been misled because of the context in which Mr Regev’s remark had 
been made – that the precise circumstances of the Reuters journalist’s death 
had been clearly laid out in the earlier part of the discussion with Alastair 
Macdonald, the Reuters bureau chief in Israel, and that Mr Regev’s comment 
came right at the end of the discussion while he was making a wider point 
about journalists in conflict areas. 

The Committee also considered the comments from the person appointed to 
represent the programme team (the complaints lead), who said: 

“It is up to Mr Regev to decide precisely the language he uses. 
However, it is quite clear from the transcript that he is referring to a 
different incident – involving an Israeli journalist – and not to the death 
of the Reuters cameraman. I do not accept that listeners would have 
come away with any other impression. In the preceding discussion it 
was clear that the main point of dispute was whether the Israeli army 
could see whether they were firing at a combatant or at a member of 
the press. There is a clear separation between that debate and the 
final point made by Mr Regev.” 

The comments by the complaints lead about the presenter’s final question to 
the Israeli spokesperson were also noted by the Committee: 

“The final question was prompted by a remark made by the Reuters 
journalist – namely that the nature of this incident had made it 
impossible for Reuters to do its job reporting from Gaza. James 
Naughtie simply asked Mr Regev to respond to the broader concern 
about how this fatality might affect reporting of the situation in Gaza. 
It arose naturally out of the previous conversation and was in no sense 
‘throwing him a lifeline’ as the complainant suggests.” 

The Committee, in coming to its finding, said that the Today listeners would 
have been left in no doubt about the circumstances of the journalist’s death 
as this had clearly been set out earlier in the discussion between the 
presenter and the Reuters representative. The Committee noted that the 
majority of the item went over the facts of the incident and questioned both 
contributors as to their views regarding the facts that were known. As such, 
the Committee was satisfied that the audience would not have been misled as 
to the circumstances of the journalist’s death. 



The Committee did not agree with the complainant that the presenter should 
have challenged the Israeli spokesperson’s “misleading statements”. The 
Committee considered that by allowing the Reuters representative to respond 
to the points made by Mr Regev the presenter had provided sufficient balance 
to ensure that the item was duly impartial. Challenge to the final statement 
by Mr Regev was not necessary to achieve impartiality. 

The Committee then turned to the issue of Mr Regev having the last word in 
the discussion. It noted the views of the complainant who said that this had 
given the Israeli spokesman a huge advantage. The complainant said: 

“An important aspect of Mark Regev’s strategy is to use ‘the last word’, 
as a way of deflecting attention away from what went before in the 
discussion so not only is it a significant advantage to Israeli public 
relations to have Mark Regev there at all but it is tantamount to bias to 
give him the last word.” 

The Committee also considered the counter argument by the Today team that 
there was an editorial logic to the Israeli spokesperson ending the item, and 
that it was an even-handed discussion. The complaints lead for Today said: 

“The Reuters bureau chief went first because the item was based on the 
death of his organisation’s cameraman and he was the one making the 
accusation. We also needed to hear his response to the Israeli military 
investigation into the death – which had just been published – before 
proceeding with the discussion. Mr Regev was there to answer on behalf 
of the Israeli authorities. Both sides were given reasonable opportunity to 
make their case – the questions were straightforward and largely designed 
to achieve that.” 

The Committee agreed that the discussion had been balanced and even 
handed. In coming to this view the Committee believed that the programme 
had met the requirement of due impartiality in that there was reasonable 
justification for providing Mr Regev with the last word given that the 
discussion had begun with Mr Macdonald of Reuters, and that he had had a 
larger share of the airtime and had had plenty of opportunity to set out his 
case in some detail. Also, the Committee did not agree with the complainant 
that the final word in a discussion necessarily gave the speaker an advantage 
as it depended on what was being said by whom and in what context. The 
Committee was satisfied that in this case the final word was immaterial to the 
substance of the discussion. 

The Committee then noted how the complaint was handled by the BBC 
Executive at stage 1 of the complaints process. The Committee noted that the 
complaint had suffered a considerable delay at the first stage of the process. 
The Committee recognised that there were mitigating circumstances for the 
delay in that BBC Information had had to deal with an extraordinarily large 



volume of complaints following a series of editorial issues in the autumn and 
early winter which had doubled their normal workload. Nevertheless, the 
Committee recognised that the delays to the replies, for whatever reason, 
were unacceptable. The Committee agreed that it would include in its finding 
letter an apology to the complainant for the delays suffered to his complaint. 

Finding: Not upheld 



Rejected Appeals 


Appeals rejected by the ESC as being out of remit or because the complaint 
had not raised a matter of substance and there was no reasonable prospect 
of success. 

• 
Lack of impartiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change 
The appellant wrote to the Chairman of the ESC challenging the Trust Unit’s 
decision not to proceed with his appeal on the BBC’s coverage of climate 
change due to it being submitted outside of the 20 working days that an 
appeal should be requested following the final substantive reply from the BBC 
Executive. The complainant explained that the lateness of the request had 
been down to him being unwell and taking time to recover. 

The Committee’s decision 

The Committee began by considering the question of whether the appeal 
itself was made out of time. 

It noted that the Complaints and Appeals Procedures stated that: 

“...you can request an appeal to the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards 
Committee (ESC) within 20 working days of the date of the final Stage 2 
response (or exceptionally the Trust may allow longer if the Trust decides 
there is a good reason for the delay).” 

The Committee noted that the final substantive response to the complainant 
on the issue of BBC bias when reporting climate change was dated 5 
December 2008 and that the request for an appeal had been dated 26 
February 2009. 

As the complainant had appealed some 5 to 6 weeks after this period, he had 
failed to comply with the relevant procedural rules. 

The Committee agreed that it had discretion to consider appeals even though 
the complainant had failed to comply with the correct procedural rules. 
However, the procedural rules were there for a good reason, and were 
intended to be observed by all. The Trust would therefore exercise its 
discretion only if there were “exceptional circumstances”. 

In considering whether there were exceptional circumstances in this case, the 
Committee had regard to the complainant’s explanation that the delay had 
been caused by him suffering from ill health for three weeks after Christmas. 



The Committee noted that the complainant had not been initially informed of 
the fact that his appeal was out of time. However, the Committee was of the 
view that it is important to enforce the proper procedural rules unless there 
are exceptional circumstances. The Committee did not consider that the 
explanation put forward by the complainant met the necessary threshold. The 
Committee therefore decided that the decision to not proceed with this appeal 
was correct. 

The Committee concluded that this appeal was out of time and 
inadmissible. 

• 
9/11: The Conspiracy Files 
The complainant requested that the ESC consider his challenge to the Trust 
Unit’s decision not to proceed with his appeal against the BBC’s decision not 
to consider his complaint regarding the programme 9/11: The Conspiracy 
Files. The BBC rejected the complaint on the grounds that it was made 
outside the required time period. The complainant explained that the 
lateness of his complaint had been due to the fact that the documentary had 
been “so poorly researched” it had taken him a year to “deconstruct” the 
programme and consider the BBC’s “flouting of the obligations enshrined in 
the Royal Charter”. 

The Committee’s decision 

The Committee considered whether the complaint had been made within the 
published time for lodging a complaint with the BBC at the first stage of the 
process. 

The Committee noted that the BBC’s complaints policy states: 

“You should normally make your complaint within 30 working days of 
the transmission or event and our aim is to respond within 10 working 
days.” 

The Committee noted that the programme was broadcast on 18 February 
2007, with a further programme made on the conspiracy theories surrounding 
the collapse of the third tower in July 2008, but the initial letter from the 
complainant was not sent to BBC Information until 5 January 2009. 

As the complainant had made his complaint over a year after the original 
broadcast and several months after a further programme on the conspiracy 
theories surrounding the incidents of 9/11, the Committee agreed that the 
complainant had failed to comply with the BBC complaints policy. 

The Committee agreed that it had discretion to consider whether the 
complainant had a case for having his complaint considered by BBC 



Information even though the complainant had failed to comply with the 
correct procedure. However, the Committee noted that the procedural rules 
were there for a good reason, and were intended to be observed by all. The 
Committee would therefore exercise its discretion only if there were 
“exceptional circumstances”. 

In considering whether there were exceptional circumstances in this case, the 
Committee had regard to the complainant’s explanation that the delay had 
been caused by him having to “deconstruct” the documentary and consider 
whether the BBC had flouted its obligations with regard to the Royal Charter. 

The Committee was satisfied that the complainant had had sufficient time to 
lodge his complaint within the 30 working days following the transmission of 
the programme(s). The Committee recognised that the complainant felt 
strongly about these issues, but was of the view that it is important to 
enforce the proper procedural rules unless there are exceptional 
circumstances. The Committee did not consider that the explanation put 
forward by the complainant met the necessary threshold. The Committee 
therefore decided that the decision to not proceed with this appeal was 
correct. 

The Committee concluded that this appeal was out of time and 
inadmissible. 

• 
BBC News coverage of the al-Kurd family eviction 
The complainant sought specific reasons for the “non-coverage of the al-Kurd 
family’s campaign against eviction from their home in the Sheik Jarrah area of 
East Jerusalem”. The complainant noted that the story had been reported 
after the family had been evicted but considered the failure to report the 
story beforehand, was “symptomatic of … institutional bias within the BBC’s 
Jerusalem operation”. 

The Committee’s decision 

The Committee noted that the complainant believed the BBC had breached it 
guidelines on impartiality by omitting to present the al-Kurd family’s campaign 
against eviction. 

The Committee also noted the responses of the BBC Executive in which it was 
stated that the decision not to cover the al-Kurds’ eviction was based on the 
editorial merit of the story and the resources available at the time. 

The Committee also noted that regarding the different functions of the BBC 
Trust and Executive it was the responsibility of the Executive to handle the 
day-to-day running of the BBC and, therefore, to manage the BBC’s creative 
and editorial output. 



As such, it was left to the Executive to decide what to include and what not to 
include within BBC output, unless there was evidence that the BBC’s Editorial 
Guidelines had been breached. The Committee noted that the story of the al-
Kurds had been carried by BBC News in various outlets and, while it 
recognised that the coverage had occurred after the eviction had happened, 
the Committee was satisfied that a case had not been made that there had 
been a breach of the impartiality guidelines with regard to the omission of the 
item. The Committee concluded that it was not appropriate to take this 
matter on appeal. 

The Committee therefore decided that the decision to not proceed 
with this appeal was correct. 

• 
Loose Ends, BBC Radio 4, 20 December 2008 (Anti-English 
remarks) 
The complaint concerned remarks made by the presenter of the programme 
Clive Anderson. The complainant believed remarks made by Mr Anderson 
during a discussion about England and the English were offensive and 
“blatantly racist, anti-English”. The complainant believed the remarks 
exemplified the “deep-seated antipathy of the BBC towards England and the 
English” and were inciting racial hatred and possibly breaching the Race 
Relations Act. 

The Committee’s decision 

The Committee noted what was said by Mr Anderson and his guest, Sarah 
Miles: 

Sarah Miles: Actually I’m in praise of England, actually. I’ve suddenly 
decided we’re not allowed to be English. People sort of … (makes 
disgusted noise) … She’s English! You can be Scots, you can be Welsh, 
you can be Irish, but it ain’t cool to be English. So I think, what’s 
wrong with us? Do we smell, or are we… 

Clive Anderson: I think it’s a few hundred years of imperialism have 
made England unpopular … 

The Committee also noted that in response to the complaint at stage 1 of the 
BBC’s complaints process BBC Information had stated that the comments 
were not intended as a serious analysis of the subject of England and the 
Empire, and were not racist. The reply also noted that Ms Miles did not take 
offence at the comment. 

The Committee then considered what was said by the Editorial Complaints 
Unit (ECU) at stage 2 of the complaints process in response to the complaint. 



The Committee noted that the ECU believed the remarks were “no more than 
a reference to the periods in history when Ireland, Scotland and Wales were 
ruled by the English…”. The Committee also noted that the ECU believed it 
saw no evidence that Clive Anderson was referring to the legacy of the British 
Empire, but that the comments were “historically justified” and part of a 
good-natured conversation. 

The Committee when coming to its decision also noted that an appeal must 
raise a matter of substance in that there should be sufficient evidence to 
suggest an appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case 
for the BBC Executive to answer. 

The Committee concluded that the audience listening to Loose Ends expect 
the presenter to engage in light-hearted discussion with the guests and that 
upon occasion it will be edgy. 

The Committee was satisfied that in a free-flowing conversation there was not 
a requirement for a detailed interpretation of imperialism. The comparison 
being made was between being proud to be Irish, Scottish or Welsh as 
opposed to English and the implication was that England as the majority 
nation imposed its will upon the other nations. The remark was an off-thecuff 
comment in an entertainment programme and, as such, was not a breach 
of either the accuracy or portrayal editorial standards. The Committee also 
believed that the comment would not have offended the majority of listeners. 

The Committee was satisfied that this did not raise a matter of 
substance and concluded that it was not appropriate to take this 
matter on appeal.