Response to complaint re H.M.Queen

[charmbrights]

Here is a transcript of my correspondence with the BBC on the topic of F. Gardner's disregard of protocol.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

25.ix.12 CAS-1696546-QCM37K

Complaint Summary: Insolence to the Queen.

Full Complaint: After the gaffe of Frank Gardner in the morning, the BBC saw fit, quite rightly, to apologise to H.M the Queen for betraying her confidence. In the PM programme someone authorised a long item gloating over the facts, even repeating the original gaffe. Whoever authorised this programme's implied repudiation of the BBC's previous apology should be sacked forthwith. I assume that Frank Gardiner will be permitted to take immediate retirement.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

3.x.12

Complaint Response CAS-1696546-QCM37K
[e-mail]

Dear Mr. Roberts

Thanks for contacting BBC News.

We understand you were unhappy with BBC News continuing to report on the fact The Queen had raised concerns regarding the activities of Abu Hamza al-Masri after an apology was made.

The BBC agrees that this private conversation should not have been revealed in this manner and we have apologised for this.

BBC News strives to be an impartial broadcaster; this includes reporting on stories which involve BBC News. This story was widely covered throughout the UK media and we believe it was a subject worth covering.

We hope this allays your concerns, and can assure you your complaint has been registered on our audience log, an internal document of all audience feedback and made available throughout the BBC including to senior management.

The audience logs are important documents that help shape future decisions at the BBC.

Thanks for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

3.x.12

Complaint Summary BBC not reading my original complaint

Full Complaint: My original complaint (CAS-1696546-QCM37K) was that he BBC first apologised and then compounded the insult by gratuitously repeating the offence in every news bulletin all day, even REPEATING THE ITEM in the 13:00 news. Clearly nobody had bothered to read my complaint properly as the response merely reiterated that the BBC had apologised. There was no explanation of the decision apologise and then to repeat the offence many times the same day. Has the fool who decided to do this been sacked yet?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[Teddy Bear]

I can well understand your frustration Charm. Not enough that they shit on you while pretending otherwise, but they treat you like you're stupid to boot, just because they can.

It's great we've got evidence of your complaint and response to it, especially as this was quite a major story. it highlights the contempt that the BBC hold for their public, and their belief that they will never be held truly accountable. At times like this I like to recall this image of somebody else who thought the same:

[charmbrights]

The latest "Sod you" reads:

Your Reference CAS-1708325-P2FNCF

Thank you for taking time to contact us again. We are sorry that you were not satisfied with our earlier response to your complaint and appreciate that you felt strongly enough to contact us again about the matter.

In these circumstances we do not undertake to reply within 10 days although we will of course respond further to you as soon as we can. The time taken depends on the nature of the issue, how many other complaints we have to investigate and it can also be affected by practical issues, such as whether a production team is available or away on location.

For these reasons we ask you not to contact us further in the meantime and apologise if you experience any delay. This is an automatic email sent from an account which is not monitored so you cannot reply to this address. ...

[Teddy Bear]

No doubt they will justify their output by claiming 'since it was already public knowledge by that time, they saw nothing wrong with repeating it'.
I've no doubt the whole 'betrayal' was premeditated by them. We'll see if they run similar scams in the future with the same pretext.

[charmbrights]

Oct 12, 2012 20:35:37 GMT Teddy Bear said:

No doubt they will justify their output by claiming 'since it was already public knowledge by that time, they saw nothing wrong with repeating it'. ...

So utterly predictable. here is their reply:-

Dear Mr Roberts

Reference CAS-1708325-P2FNCF

Thanks for contacting us again regarding Radio on 25 September.

We’re sorry you were unhappy with our previous response and please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and are sorry you've had to wait on this occasion.

We acknowledge your concerns; however, this was also a news story and we had no reason to believe that the conversation wasn’t true - it was also widely reported elsewhere in the media. We therefore felt it was appropriate to report on the matter in our later bulletins.

The BBC complaints procedures explain that, in order to use licence fee resources appropriately, we will normally investigate where evidence is provided to suggest a possible breach of Editorial Guidelines but otherwise we will not normally investigate further. For the same reason we note observations or expressions of opinion but cannot reply to them in detail. Full information about the BBC’s complaints procedures is available at www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/.

We appreciate that you felt strongly enough to contact us again and have noted your points. We feel that we responded as fully as we could, given the nature of your complaint, and do not have more to add. This reply is therefore to explain that we do not consider the points you raised suggested a possible breach of standards. We reported them to the BBC staff responsible but are not able to engage in more correspondence or address new complaints and questions at this stage of the BBC’s complaints procedures.

You may request a review by writing to the BBC Trust within 20 working days, explaining why you believe this decision is inconsistent with the BBC’s complaints procedures. You can contact the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ, or by emailing [e-mail]. Please include any case number reference which you may have been given.

Thanks again for contacting us.

As you can see, all they leave open is that they may not have followed their complaints procedure properly. There is NO recourse to the BBC Trust about the substantive complaint.

[Teddy Bear]

If it's any consolation, the person who responded to your complaints may be going through the job ads in prospect that he may need a new job shortly, in light of recent developments within the corporation. Judging by the qualities he displays. probably as a second-hand car dealer

[charmbrights]

Nov 10, 2012 21:39:03 GMT Teddy Bear said:

If it's any consolation, the person who responded to your complaints may be going through the job ads in prospect that he may need a new job shortly, in light of recent developments within the corporation. Judging by the qualities he displays. probably as a second-hand car dealer

Yes, (s)he will be looking where to apply for the D.G. job!

[Teddy Bear]

By BBC standards, they couldn't do much worse than the preceding.