[Media-watch] Governors Progarmme complaints committee upheld my appeal

[Sigi D]

Dear MW friends,
in March 2004 I complained to Frazer Steel about a BBC
presenter who had said that the police should have
shot two peaceful Greenpeace protesters, who climbed
up Big Ben.
In July the BBC partly upheld my complaint.
I appealed against this decision.
Now the Governors' Programmes complaints Committee
upheld my appeal.
So if you feel passionately about something - please
don't give up! 
All the best
Sigi
PS I have to type the letters as I don't have a
working scanner 
21 October 2004
The Governors’ Programme complaints Committee, which I
chair has now considered your appeal. I enclose a copy
of its decision, which will be included in the next
edition of the quarterly bulletin “Programme
Complaints: appeals to the Governors.”
Sir Robert Smith, Chairman of the Governors’
Programmes Complaints Committee.

Findings by the Governors’ Programme Complaints
Committee

Jon Gaunt, BBC London, 22 March 2004, appeal by Dr S.
D.

Dr D complained to the Head of Programme Complaints
about the approach taken by the presenter Jon Gaunt to
a phone-in following an incident on 20 March 2004 in
which two Greenpeace protesters breached security at
the Houses of Parliament and scaled Big Ben.
This incident sparked concerns about policing and
security around the government. Opening the phone-in
on 22 March 2004, Jon Gaunt asked what action
listeners feel the police should have taken. He then
put forward the view that the intruders should have
been warned to come down and, if they ignored the
warnings, they should have been shot.

In writing to complain, Dr D expressed his “grave
concern” about Jon Gaunt’s opening comments. He
suggested the presenter’s behaviour was “incredibly
irresponsible” in suggesting that the police should
shoot first, and ask questions later. Dr D also
complained that a police officer from Bromley, a
subsequent caller, had been insulted by Jon Gaunt.

The Head of Programme Complaints upheld the element of
Dr D’s complain relating to Jon Gaunt’s handling of
the call from the police officer. He found that the
caller had not been given a fair hearing or an
adequate opportunity to respond to Jon Gaunts’
comments. He observed that the tone of the exchange,
together with the personal nature of some of the
presenter’s comments and the way the call was ended,
went beyond what was acceptable.

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the
element of Dr D’s complaint relating to Jon Gaunt’s
opening comments. He concluded that the comments were
designed to promote discussion by putting forward
views at one extreme of the debate. Callers to the
programme had shown that he was not alone in
criticising the police handling of the incident, and
had directly challenged his comments. The approach
taken had been in line with the expectations of
callers or regular listeners to the programme, who
were familiar with Jon Gaunt’s robust and forthright
manner.

Dr D appealed to the Governors’ Programme Committee.

The Committee's decision

In considering this complaint, the Committee noted
that the presenter, Jon Gaunt, had opened the phone-in
by criticising the actions of the Greenpeace
protesters. He then referred to comments by the police
who said that - once identified as “harmless
protesters” - the view had been taken that they should
be allowed to continue. Jon Gaunt then said:

“That’s not the right opinion - I’m sorry... We should
have shot them down ... These people should not have
been protesting in this way, this weekend. We are
under threat of terrorist attack. What signal does
this give? If two Greenpeace people can actually get
to climb two hundred feet of Big Ben and the police
say: “Oh, that's alright then.” ... This is just
nonsense - absolute nonsense. At seven foot they
should have started to drench them with fire hydrants.
They go any further, they should have been warned by
loud hailers then be shot. I’m deadly serious. This is
a farce.”


The Committee considered that the comments by Jon
Gaunt had been highly provocative, and inappropriate
in the current atmosphere and environment. It
understood that the role of the presenter was to
promote discussion, but judged that such extreme views
should have been posed as rhetorical questions to
provoke debate. It concluded it was unacceptable for a
BBC presenter to express the personal view that the
police should have shot at the protesters.

The appeal was upheld.






	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com