Introduction and Links to other pages Request for information to assist Appeal In order to prepare for the appeal to the Board of Governors, I felt a challenge was needed to the claims by the Information Unit and Editorial Complaints Unit that complaints against bad or sexual language in Dr Who were a "minority opinion". To counter this, I thought it would be relevant to establish the number of complaints the BBC had received regarding the lack of bad language in the original series. If the answer was 'none', the central basis of the ECU's rejection of the complaint would be neutralised. However, I had not reckoned on lack of co-operation ... 27 January 2006 Dear Mr Cuthbertson We exchanged correspondence last year on Dr Who. I would be grateful if you would supply the following two pieces of information. 1. During Dr Who's original run (1963-1989), how many viewers' complaints did the BBC receive regarding the absence of bad language in the programme? 2. When it was announced in 2003 that Dr Who would be returning to television, how many viewers' letters did the BBC receive asking that bad language be introduced to it? Thank you for your assistance. A month went by with no reply. I sent an email to BBC Information on 4 March, reiterating the above questions and asking for an acknowledgement. A week went by with no reply. On 13 March, a further email was sent, again requesting urgent acknowledgement. Two days passed with no reply. I was beginning to get a little concerned. Two weeks remained before the appeal's deadline, yet relevant information had not been produced by the Information Unit. A further copy of the 27 January questions was sent by recorded delivery, together with the following note, on 15 March: 15 March 2006 Dear Sirs I sent the attached letter to BBC Information on 27 January 2006. Normally, BBC Information responds to letters very quickly. However, by early March, I had received no reply. Accordingly, I sent an email requesting an acknowledgement on 4 March. By 13 March, I had received no response to this email and sent a further email that morning. However, as of 3.0pm this afternoon, I have still no indication of receipt. Although I have no reason to suppose that my original letter of 27 January was not received, I attach the further copy which details the information requested. I am under a time limit and would be grateful for the information by Friday 24 March (or Monday 27 March at the latest). Please feel free to use my email address. Thank you for your assistance. Ten days later, on 25 March, the following letter was received from the Information Unit, sent by second class mail. The following letter was sent to Divisional Advisor, Mr Briggs, the same day. 25 March 2006 Dear Mr Briggs I would like to make a complaint regarding John Maguire, a member of BBC Information. I am writing to you in the first instance as you seem to be senior but, if you are not the person to whom this complaint should be addressed, I would be grateful if you could pass the matter to the appropriate person. You may recall that, in August 2005, we exchanged correspondence regarding bad language in Dr Who. As you did not resolve the matter for me, I exercised my entitlement under the BBC's complaints process to take the matter further. My complaint was heard by the ECU in November 2005 and must be delivered to the GPCC by the end of this month. To assist my appeal, I requested information from BBC Information. My original request of 27 January 2006 was not replied to and so I sent emails on 4 and 13 March. When these were not replied to, I sent a further letter, together with another copy of my original request, by recorded delivery on 15 March 2006. Mr Maguire replied on 22 March, and I make the following three complaints: 1. Mr Maguire does not acknowledge my request for information. He does not provide the information sought, nor does he provide any reason for not providing it. 2. Mr Maguire states "you continue to be disappointed … our policy has not changed". Such comments are irrelevant; my letters of 27 January and 15 March 2006 do not seek to discuss the matter further; I merely seek information of a factual nature. It is not Mr Maguire's place to make these remarks. 3. In view of the nature of Mr Maguire reply, I am given to wonder whether my emails of 4 and 13 March were deliberately ignored. Mr Maguire makes no reference to them in his reply. I attach my letters of 27 January and 15 March, and Mr Maguire's reply (I have not included the emails, as they cover the same ground as my 15 March letter). I look forward to hearing from you. Several weeks pass with no response, so a reminder was sent on 18 April 2006: 18 April 2006 Dear Mr Briggs I don't like to push, but over three weeks have passed since my complaint regarding John Maguire. I would greatly appreciate an indication as to who is dealing with the complaint and when I can expect a response. Also, I still would like the information requested originally in my letter of 27 January 2006. I look forward to hearing from you. I received the following letter on 25 April, not from Mr Briggs in Glasgow, but one Sarah Ewen on London: Back goes the following letter: 30 April 2006 Dear Ms Ewen Thank you for your letter of 25 April 2006, reference 12859716. My complaint against John Maguire remains outstanding. The complaint was explained in my letter to Mr Briggs of 18 April, and a copy of all relevant correspondence enclosed, including the letter for which you are requesting a reference. For the avoidance of doubt, the reference of that letter is 12737852. As requested in my 18 April letter, I would like an indication as to who is dealing with the complaint against John Maguire and when I can expect a response. With reference to the request for information relating to complaints that your department has received, BBC Information can and does provide such information, since Mr Briggs provided similar such information to me in a previous letter. If you and Mr Briggs are unwilling to provide the information requested in my letter of 27 January 2006, please explain why. In view of the fact that this has a bearing on my appeal, I would be grateful for an early response. I look forward to hearing from you. Ms Ewen replies on 4 May 2006: Ms Ewen's comment that, "To the best of my knowledge, BBC Information has not received a complaint of this nature..." is inconsistent with the fact that the letter regarding Mr Maguire's reply was recorded as delivered on 28 March 2006 (click here and insert reference DK277991276GB). Nevertheless, I took Ms Ewen's advice and resubmitted the complaint: 9 May 2006 Dear Mr Briggs For reasons that will be known to your office, my reminder letter to you of 18 April 2006 was sent to Sarah Ewen in London for a response. Unfortunately, your office did not send with it copies of my earlier letters, meaning that my letter of 18 April meant nothing to Sarah Ewen. Consequently, my complaint against Mr Maguire now returns to your own department. In case it is practical assistance to you, or whomever this matter is more appropriately passed, I attach all correspondence in chronological order: i) My original request of 27 Jan 2006 to Mr Cuthbertson (not replied to) ii) My email reminder of 4 March (not replied to) iii) Another email reminder of 13 March (not replied to) iv) My letter of 15 March (sent by recorded delivery) v) Mr Maguire's reply of 22 March (which provoked my complaint) vi) My complaint of 25 March vii) My reminder to you of 18 April viii) Sarah Ewen's letter of 25 April ix) My reply to Sarah Ewen of 30 April x) Sarah Ewen's further letter of 4 May I think my questions of 27 January are perfectly valid and I do not understand the reluctance of the Information Unit to co-operate. If I may correct the final paragraph of Ms Ewen's letter of 4 May, I have not asked that the GPCC provides the information requested in my 27 January letter, so no conflict arises between the GPCC and the Information Unit in this regard. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, etc On 19 May, Gary Briggs responded: I almost went into an apoplexy on reading the above letter. Back goes the following letter to his boss, Lee Roberts: 3 June 2006 Dear Mr Rogers I write to protest in the strongest possible terms concerning the enclosed letter from Mr Gary Briggs, dated 19 May 2006 ... 1) In his second paragraph, Mr Briggs expresses regret that I "felt" Mr Maguire did not acknowledge my questions. I enclose my questions of 27 January and Mr Maguire's response for your inspection. I would suggest that Mr Maguire's failure to acknowledge the questions is patently obvious; how I "felt" has nothing to do with it. I am not asking that Mr Maguire be fired or flung from the roof of Media Centre, but that he is educated that ignoring questions is not an acceptable option. I am disappointed that Mr Briggs did not acknowledge that Mr Maguire acted wrongly. 2) Turning to Mr Briggs' third and fourth paragraphs, I draw attention to the phrases "rhetorical" and "highly rhetorical". Such statements are not fact but Mr Briggs' opinion. Given that the information requested was intended for the GPCC, I do not see the relevance of Mr Briggs' viewpoints or those of the Information Unit. Mr Briggs appears to be imprinting his opinions over the requested information in order to discredit it. 3) Mr Briggs engages in trying to win an argument; for instance, he restates the Information Unit's viewpoint that swearing is justified because it is "modern", etc. However, Mr Briggs is aware that this matter was subject to the BBC's complaints process. For Mr Briggs to assert the opinions of the Information Unit outside of that process is misguided and could be construed as intimidation. 4) Finally, Mr Briggs says, "I appreciate you may continue to feel strongly however I would ask that we draw a line under this matter". Draw a line under what, precisely? My sole purpose in approaching the Information Unit on 27 January was to request information. I did not seek to continue correspondence in any other regard. The only reason why a large amount of correspondence followed is because of the failure, or negligence, of Mr Briggs and staff to respond promptly and appropriately to my request. Moreover, Mr Briggs response on 19 May is precisely one day after the date of the Appeal hearing, thereby rendering it pointless. In such circumstances, I find the middle sentence of Mr Briggs' final paragraph offensive in the extreme. I am drawn to the conclusion that the Information Unit has serious difficulties accepting where it lies within the BBC's complaint process, and particularly with the concept that programme managers are not the final arbiters of their decisions. I think the following action is necessary to resolve this matter: i) First, the Information Unit should write a letter of apology to the GPCC for its failure to provide the information requested in time for the appeal. I would like to be copied in on this letter. ii) Second, what reforms do you propose to correct the Information Unit's understanding of its position within the BBC's complaints process? I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, etc Lee Rogers responded on 11 August 2006: Incidentally, I was not sure whether Lee Rogers was a he or a she, so I phoned the BBC to ask. The telephone operator appeared surprised that I knew him, saying that Mr Rogers did not normally answer letters from the public. So, evidently, I had penetrated some sort of inner sanctum. 11 August 2006 Dear Mr Rogers Thank you for your letter of 24 July 2006. The second sentence of your third paragraph represents another example of how your department is failing in its duty to act impartially. It is not for yourself as the Senior Complaints Coordinator to decide whether any information requested is relevant - that is for me to decide and to argue elsewhere. Whether you disagree with it is immaterial. Like Mr Briggs, you are trying to deliver judgments on matters that are not your responsibility. The impression that I have built up over the past 12 months is that BBC Information is halfway between an (independent) civil service role and a (biased) public relations role; consequently, it has difficulty in acting impartially while representing programme management. The solution is quite simple; act as the name of the department implies. Although representing management views means 'bias', such representation is 'factual' in that it is a true reflection of BBC managers' opinion. Problems arise because BBC Information goes beyond its remit; for example, by describing viewer opinion as 'subjective' and 'highly subjective' - or 'rhetorical' and 'highly rhetorical'. This is not information or representation but an attempt to belittle people. It crosses the line between Information Unit and Propaganda Unit. You acknowledge that some mistakes were made, but unless it is also acknowledged that these mistakes affected only replies that would have been helpful to me, correct conclusions cannot be drawn. Providing an information service is not just about answering letters within ten days; it is about retaining the viewer's confidence. In my case, I exercised an entitlement to use the full complaints process, yet the reaction by Information staff suggested that they had no expectation that such an entitlement might be taken seriously and so did not know how to respond. The internal audit has no value if it did not pick up on these and other points. Yours sincerely, etc Unless I get another reply, the above letter wraps up this particular thread of correspondence. Amazing - all I did was to ask two simple questions on 27 January 2006, and it results in all the above. The BBC failed to a co-operate because they thought the questions would not be pursued. The moral of this story is don't ever let go. Go to the Appeal to the Board of Governors, 18 May 2006.