Samira Ahmed on a “bizarre BBC statement”

Samira Ahmed, host of the BBC's right-to-reply programme Newswatch, has been having her say on the Westwood Scandal:

I see it’s thanks to BBC News challenging the BBC over its FOI response that we learned the truth about previous Tim Westwood Complaints. (Guardian today).

She could have read that very sentiment here at Is the BBC biased yesterday, but these BBC types love their Guardian. 

Whatever, she continued:

Bizarre BBC statement. And sterling work by @blondeafro.

The “bizarre BBC statement” in question runs as follows:

This is an historic case that the BBC has found in its files. We are establishing the facts around it. It did not relate to conduct at the BBC, BBC premises, or conduct towards a BBC staff member, nor was it an accusation of physical assault.

That is pretty bizarre.

@blondeafro, if you were wondering, is BBC journalist Chi Chi Izundu, who fired off those FOI queries which so discombobulated another part of the BBC.  

Wonder if any BBC high-ups will want to come on Newswatch this week? I'm guessing not.

'Why is "BBC Bitesize" Promoting Gender Ideology to Children?'

(h/t Stew Green)

Here's a well-presented video from Caroline ffiske concerning the BBC's reaction to criticism over its promotion of a particular ideology:

In response to her complaint about a BBC Bitesize feature pushing new gender pronouns like 'nem'. 'nir', 'viva', 'sphere', 'z', 'zamzia', etc, among school children, the BBC said, "As we have with Stonewall on this article, we have worked with experts to ensure that our content is factually accurate." But are Stonewall "experts"?

On which topic, here's a Twitter thread I was reading this morning which begins:

ripx4nutmeg: The BBC has refused to answer an FOI request about its work with Stonewall (but admitted it gives them thousands of pounds). Reason: 'The public interest is not served by [other] public bodies being less willing to engage in programmes which help them improve LGBTQ+ inclusivity'. 

Solange: The BBC really, really doesn’t want to spill the beans about its relationship with this political lobbying group. 

C Isaksson: Are you appealing? 

ripx4nutmeg: It wasn't me that asked for the FOI but is there even an appeal process? If there is, it probably isn't necessary - the 'impartial' BBC has now effectively admitted it is terrified of doing anything that will risk its project of disseminating Stonewall's gender identity propaganda.

Here is the BBC's response under discussion:

Update

The world turns topsy-turvy and, because of the viciousness of the transgender debate, the Guardian's previously ultra-Guardianista Suzanne Moore left the paper and transitioned to being something I'd never have expected her to be in several months of Sundays: a Daily Telegraph columnist. (What's next? Polly Toynbee writing for The Conservative Woman?)

Today she asks "a few little questions", one of which is: "Why can't the BBC talk about Stonewall funding?"

The same tweeter featured in the post above replied, saying "The BBC's argument seems to be that if they talk about their association with Stonewall this could have a detrimental effect on Stonewall's aims. But they don't explain why this would be the case or why that's any of the BBC's business when they're meant to be impartial."

Further Update:

And The Times's Janice Turner crystallises the argument further here: 

Here the BBC refuses to answer a Freedom of Information request about what advice it pays Stonewall £6k a year to give it. Because its reply might jeopardise the commercial interests of Stonewall. Amazing.

The BBC turns down a 'Times' FOI request

 

More BBC-related Freedom of Information (FoI) news tonight, courtesy of Matthew Moore of The Times...

The Times has had an FoI request rejected by the BBC - personally, by the outgoing BBC chairman no less: 

Sir David Clementi has blocked the release of the BBC’s licence fee collection strategy in one of his final acts as chairman. 

The document, understood to set out plans for maximising revenues from the compulsory levy, was approved by the BBC board last year. In response to a freedom of information request from The Times, the broadcaster confirmed that it held the paper. However, it declined to disclose it on the ground that publication would “prejudice the conduct of public affairs” and “inhibit the free and frank exchange of views”.

The BBC, despite being "free and frank", turns down an awful lot of FoI requests.

Computer Says No (again)

  

We wondered, a day or so ago, how Panorama would get on with their Freedom of Information requests to the BBC regarding the Martin Bashir/Princess Diana affair. 

It would be truly extraordinary if the BBC turned down its own current affairs flagship, but then the BBC is a strange beast. 

The Scotsman newspaper reports today that their own FoI request to the BBC - asking the BBC to provide a breakdown of the number of complaints received by the corporation for each broadcast of Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government’s daily televised briefings - has been refused. 

The broadcaster gave The Scotsman the usual response, that the information has to be kept secret for the purposes of “journalism, art of literature”.

Here's a bigger slice of the BBC's waffle:

“Editorial complaints form part of the ongoing review of the standards and quality of particular areas of programme making with a view to further enhancing these standards; the complaints themselves and the information associated with them plays a significant role in helping to inform editorial discussion and decisions going forward.

"In this way, information relating to editorial complaints is used to inform future content and improve the quality of journalistic output. This is an important part of the BBC’s process of creating and improving programmes.

"The BBC, as a media organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest and the importance of this function has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.

"Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in enabling the media to fulfil this function.”

Well might The Scotsman feeling aggrieved. All they were asking for were the numbers. 

I'm guessing that the BBC finds them embarrassing.

Just one more thing...

"We can advise you that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion…"

This is a good point from BBC Waste:

One of the cleverest things Oliver Dowden  and John Whittingdale could do is relax the FOI derogation the BBC is afforded and abuses. This would shine a spotlight on the BBC no amount of DCMS select committees or ministerial enquires could.

Accountability, BBC-style

Computer says no. **COUGH**

Talking about John Sweeney...

From DB:

With BBC Panorama in the spotlight here's an interesting Freedom of Information request from 2012.  A BBC Panorama producer got hold of someone's mobile number. That person wanted to know how. The BBC refused to say, playing the "journalism" clause.  

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/121495/response/300718/attach/html/3/RFI20120732%20Final%20Response.pdf.html 

That very long 'no' from the BBC begins:

Dear Mr Kerrigan,   

Freedom of Information request – RFI20120732  

Thank you for your request to the BBC of 09 July 2012, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’): 

“My name is Chris Kerrigan and I was called by Andrew Head of the BBC programme Panorama. Can you tell me how my private mobile number was acquired.”  

We can advise you that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’  The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion…

In the circumstances, the job title of the BBC lady who wrote that long refusal made me laugh:

Stephanie Harris 

Head of Accountability, BBC News 

Ah yes. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And continually refusing FoI requests is accountability at the BBC. 

Held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature’

Regular readers of this blog may recall the occasional grumble about James Naughtie's accumulation of air miles, courtesy of the BBC licence payer:

Air stewards and stewardesses probably get to see less of the world than Today's globe-trotting James Naughtie. 

Recently back from Egypt - from where he filed a few award-seeking reports for a few days before returning to Blighty again - Today has now seen fit to dispatch its favourite frequent flyer to the United States, from where he can pontificate (for a few days) about Washington's response to the Syrian crisis, and then win an award for it (fingers crossed).

This sort of thing usually provokes a few complaints from never-satisfied listeners about BBC's profligacy, not that that ever seems to stop the BBC from doing it again.

 Well, the Telegraph's Tim Walker has clearly noticed the same thing:

No global conflict — no matter how ferocious — is deemed to be important at the BBC until Jim Naughtie has hot-footed it to the scene to pontificate upon it at length in one of his signature essays for the Today programme.

So he decided to ask the BBC how much Today spends each year on sending its presenters on these types of foreign expedition. 

Inevitably, the BBC refuses to oblige, citing (as ever) the Freedom of Information Act:

"The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature’. The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion."

Tim describes that reply as "tart" but - as many of us Beeb watchers are well aware - this is in fact a standard form of words which the BBC invariably uses in these kinds of circumstance to whoever makes the inquiry.