BBC complaints
Sir: The BBC Complaints Commission (Lord Parker, and Sir Edmund Compton) has, in its first two adjudications found that one of the two programmes in question was unfair as a whole to a major party therein, and that editing of the other programme amounted to unfairtreatment of a participant who had a 'prominent part' in the first part of the programme. But what good does such adjudication do for the aggrieved parties? Many more people saw the programmes than are likely to hear of the adjudications. Have they even been published with proper prominence in Radio Times? (See the Younger Commission's recommendations about press publication of Press Council rulings.) Current BBC intention is to use The
Listener, whose relatively small and limited circulation cn constiatute no appropriate publication.
What protection, moreover, does such adjudication gives us all against similar offences in future? Indeed do these adjudications even carry any specific guarantee that this particular film material, thus adjudged unfair, will not ever be used again, in any way, by BBC or any other company? It appears not. Must, then, the aggrieved parties take legal action for permanent injunction against such re-use (e.g. unadvertised, as part of other, later programmes)? Who shall pay the costs of such legal action? Mrs Leaning, one of the parties involved, was lucky — though it did her no good — to be allowed by the independent producer to see the film before it was publicly shown. This is not BBC practice. Indeed BBC practice tends to be to drop anyone who presses, before recording, a request to see or hear, before public broadcast, recordings which he or she is to make. In brief, BBC asserts an absolute ownership of all recordings made, without a single right granted to any participant. Is it not legitimate to suggest that a simple adjudication by the Complaints Commission is not adequate to deter such filmproducers — independent, BBC, or ITV — from similar highhanded treatment in future — high-handed in its refusal to yield an inch to the feeling (and logic) of parties filmed — feeling and logic subsequently upheld by the Commission?
Should there not be deterrent penalties?
Is it, moreover, enough that the exaction of these be left to private legal action taken by the parties aggrieved?
If so, should not funds be made available to such parties . . . who may well not be able to afford the initial legal costs: whether or not the adjudication of the Complaints Commission should appear to increase the chances of success in such subsequent legal action and of payment of costs by the offending corporation? G. H. Petch 13 Haslemere Road, Hornsey, London N8
Previous page
