BBC Trust

British Broadcasting Corporation

180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ

T. 020 3214 4994

bbc.co.uk/bbctrust

Our Ref: 3344867

13 July 2015
Dear Mr Plosker
BBC News Channel 11 February 2015
Thank you for writing to the BBC Trust. I am responding to your appeal of 20 May
2015. You appealed to the Trust about an aspect of the BBCs live coverage of the
demonstration in Paris following the killings at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and at a
kosher supermarket. Your complaint concerned an exchange between a BBC
reporter and his interviewee, an Israeli-born Jewish woman.
I should highlight that the Trust has received a number of appeals regarding the
coverage, raising similar substantives issues to the allegations in your complaint.
The BBC's editorial complaints and appeals procedure1 states:
2.11 If the BBC receives a number of complaints about the same issue, it may
2.11.1 compile a summary of the range of issues raised;
2.11.2 consider them together across the full range of issues identified;
2.11.3 send the same response to everyone and/or it may publish it on
the BBCs complaints website.
These steps may be applied by the BBC at each stage of the
Procedure.
5.6 If the Trust receives a number of appeals about the same issue, it may
apply the steps as set out in paragraph 2.11 above.
In order to ensure administrative and cost efficiency, I am therefore sending this
consolidated response to all of the complainants whose complaints have been
received by the Trust, covering all the substantive issues that have been raised. This
response is intended to ensure that the key reasons for the decision on the issues
raised in the various complaints are communicated to complainants in an efficient
manner.
1

See
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2014/complaints_fr_work_
ed_complaints.pdf

As this appeal is consolidated, this letter is designed to respond to the main points of
each appeal, and may address issues in addition to those that you have raised,
which I hope you will find of interest.
I have read each appeal and considered their respective merits individually, in
deciding whether each qualifies for consideration by the Trust. Following my
review, I do not consider any of the appeals submitted to the Trust, arising from this
matter, to have a reasonable prospect of success and have decided that they should
not therefore proceed to the ESC.
The detailed reasons for my decision are in the following annex. In the second
annex are relevant sections of the BBCs complaints procedures and the Charter and
Agreements which you may find helpful.
If you disagree with my decision, you can ask the Trustees to review it by contacting
the Complaints Adviser, at trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk or at the above address, by 28
July 2015. Your request must be in one document and in fewer than a thousand
words. Trustees will only exceptionally give more time, so if you do need longer,
please reply giving the reasons why you need an extension as soon as possible.
If you do ask the Trustees to review this decision, that request as well as your
original appeal letter and this letter will be put before Trustees. Your previous
correspondence will be available to them. They will consider it in their September
meeting there is no meeting in August. Their decision is likely to be finalised the
following month and will then be given to you.
If the Trustees agree that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then it
will not be taken further as their decision is final. The decision will be published in
the next complaints bulletin. If the Trustees disagree with my decision, then your
complaint will be passed to an Independent Editorial Adviser to prepare appeal
paperwork and you will be informed of the new time scale for your appeal.
Yours sincerely

Leanne Buckle
Senior Editorial Adviser

Annex 1 BBC News Channel 11 January 2015

Background and relevant context
The complaint concerned the BBCs coverage of the demonstration in Paris following
the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices and at a kosher supermarket. A number of
complainants contacted the BBC saying that a live interview with an Israeli-born,
Jewish woman was anti-Semitic.
The interview that prompted the complaint was conducted from the balcony of a
caf which overlooked the main route of the march. The reporter introduced two
friends: Chava, an Israeli-born Jew who had been living in France since 1995 and
had just received her French citizenship; and Aziz, a Frenchman of Algerian descent
who described himself as coming from a Muslim background. Aziz explained that he
and Chava took classes together in Hebrew and Arabic.
The reporter asked them:
How important is today for people from both your backgrounds to show the
world, to show extremists, that actually two cultures, two religions, live side
by side happily?
The interview went on to explore with Aziz why the Muslim community in France
might feel alienated and why some Muslims might take offence at cartoons depicting
Mohammed. The reporter turned to his female guest:
Reporter: Chava, do you ever feel threatened or frightened by the Muslim
community here? Because if you look at the figures, more Jews in France
seem to be leaving France than in other European countries and yet France
has the biggest population of Jews as it does indeed of Muslims, in Europe, as
well. Do you feel that fear?
Chava:
I didnt feel that fear until last days. I have to say. Its not the
same for Jews whove been born here and Israelis coming to here. This is
two different populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have
something already inside them. They are not, we are not afraid. We know
that every moment we can go somewhere else. We have like a back, very
strong. The Jews which were born here they are coming from another
culture. So its completely different. But I can tell that since a few days I feel
again not secure. And something which is very and I was talking to Aziz
also, I feel that now its like in 1930s. We are, the community, the situation
is going back to these days of 1930 in Europe.
Reporter: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach,
with a more inclusive society, addressing the problems that people have?
Chava:

I didnt understand completely your

Reporter:
late?

Do you think that can be resolved though now before its too

Chava:
Yes of course, we have to, we have to not to be afraid, to say
that the Jews are, being the, they are the target now. Its not only the er
Reporter: Many critics though of Israels policy would suggest that the
Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well
Chava:

We cannot do amalgam between

Reporter: But you understand everything is seen from different

perspectives
Chava:
Reporter:

Of course, but this is not my..

No I understand (He gently puts his hand on Chavas shoulder)

The interview ended a minute and a half later, after a few more questions to Aziz.
The following day the reporter posted an apology on his personal BBC Twitter feed.
It followed criticism on social media of his comment to Chava that many critics
though of Israels policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish
hands as well. The reporter tweeted:
Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live
interview in Paris yesterday - it was entirely unintentional.
The complaint
A number of complainants contacted the BBC direct. This is a summary of the main
points raised:

the words were anti-Semitic, suggesting that all Jews should be held
responsible for Israeli government policy

at such a difficult time for Jews, to suggest that in some way the supermarket
killings could be justified because of Israels actions in Gaza was particularly
insensitive

Jews and Israel should not be conflated, and the phrase "Jewish hands" was
unhelpful in this context

suggesting that ordinary Jews in France are responsible for Israeli policy in
Gaza, or that they support it, was offensive

the comment was biased and mis-characterised Middle Eastern affairs (by
suggesting Palestinians were only victims)

the reporter was expressing a personal opinion, contrary to BBC Guidelines

the reporter and/or the BBC were promoting anti-Semitic views and violence

the reporter had been insensitive and unwise in his treatment of Chava, and
she had appeared bewildered

the reporters apology via Twitter had been inadequate, it was the BBC who
should be apologising.

Complainants received responses from BBC Audience Services at Stage 1 of the

complaints process and from the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at Stage 2. The
complaints were not upheld. The Complaints Director, ECU said:

while the reporter's words could suggest a link in a broader sense between
perceptions of Palestinian suffering and the incident of anti-Semitic incidents;
this didnt constitute a breach of editorial standards: Jewish organisations had
observed a correlation between anti-Semitic incidents and Israeli actions
which impacted adversely on Palestinians

while the comment was poorly-phrased (it was inept to use a form of words
which was even open to the suggestion of collective guilt), the comment was
not an indication of anti-Semitism, rather of poor sentence construction

there was no basis for regarding the reporters words as an expression of

personal opinion or as biased against Israel; he did not endorse the view, he
attributed it to critics of Israels policy

the apology via Twitter was adequate as the content was not in breach of
editorial standards.

The appeals to the BBC Trust

Seven complainants wrote to the BBC Trust requesting that it review the ECU finding
and take their complaint to appeal. As all of the complainants raised similar
substantive issues, their appeals were consolidated in accordance with paragraph
5.6 of the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocol
s/2012/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf
The Senior Editorial Adviser (the Adviser) read each appeal and considered their
respective merits individually before reaching a decision on whether the points

raised would have a reasonable prospect of success were the complaint to proceed
to appeal. Her consolidated decision below dealt with all the substantive issues that
had been raised and was intended to ensure that the key reasons for the decisions
were communicated to complainants in an efficient manner.
Relevant guidelines considered by the Senior Editorial Adviser
The Adviser noted that all BBC output was required to meet the standard of due
accuracy/impartiality which, under the Editorial Guidelines, was defined as follows:
The term 'due' means that the accuracy/impartiality must be adequate and
appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the
content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may
influence that expectation.
The Adviser noted the relevant section from the guidelines on Accuracy:
Principles (relevant clauses only)
3.2.2
All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well
sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear,
precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know
and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and
other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.
3.2.3
The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should
not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise
undermine our audiences' trust in our content.
The Adviser noted the relevant section from the guidelines on Impartiality:
News, Current Affairs and Factual Output
4.4.12
News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due
weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and
tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our
commitment to impartiality.
4.4.13
Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the
BBC - they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due
impartiality has been achieved. Our audiences should not be able to tell from
BBC output the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current
affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial
controversy, or on 'controversial subjects' in any other area. They may

provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but may not express

personal views in BBC output, including online, on such matters.
The Adviser noted the relevant section from the guidelines on Harm and Offence:
Harm and Offence
Introduction
The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human
experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our
right to broadcast innovative and challenging content, appropriate to each of
our services, with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable and avoid
unjustifiable offence.
Creative risk-taking is a vital part of the BBC's mission. However, in all our
output, the greater the risk, the greater the thought, care and planning
required to bring creative content to fruition. We must be sensitive to, and
keep in touch with, generally accepted standards as well as our audiences'
expectations of our content, particularly in relation to the protection of
children. Audience expectations of our content usually vary according to the
service on which it appears.
When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of
our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial
purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is
clearly signposted. Such challenging material may include, but is not limited
to, strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress,
violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language.
Portrayal
5.4.38
We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdoms people and
cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage
which exist in societies worldwide but we should not perpetuate it. In some
instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, faith, race, etc.
may be relevant to portrayal. However, we should avoid careless or offensive
stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in such terms
when editorially justified.

Decision of the Senior Editorial Adviser

The Adviser decided that the appeals did not have a reasonable prospect of success.
She noted the following extract from a complainants appeal letter, which was
representative of the key point made across the range of appeals to the Trust:

This argument that murderous antisemitism in France could somehow be

justified because of Middle Eastern events is crude and offensive. His
reasoning invokes a pernicious imputation of collective Jewish guilt for the
perceived crimes of Jews elsewhere: that suffering at Jewish hands at one
end of the globe justifies murder of Jews at the other end.
She noted the following extracts from the appeal letters of two other complainants:
(the words would) encourage those who seek to use what they perceive to
be ill-treatment of Palestinians as an excuse for committing anti-Semitic acts
against the Jews of Europe.
Given the upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents and rhetoric in Britain and
everywhere else, the use of an inflammatory description like "Jewish hands"
has a damaging impact and enables and abets anti-Semitism. This
is hardly responsible journalism.
A transcript of the full interview is attached. The Trust Adviser noted the relevant
section:
Chava:
Yes of course, we have to, we have to not to be afraid, to say
that the Jews are, being the, they are the target now. Its not only the er
Reporter: Many critics though of Israels policy would suggest that the
Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well
Chava:

We cannot do amalgam between

Reporter: But you understand everything is seen from different

perspectives
The Adviser considered what editorial justification there might be for the words used
by the reporter and concluded:

taken together with Chavas previous comment, the reporter's intention

appeared to be to include a relevant perspective (a correlation observed by
some Jewish organisations between anti-Semitic attacks and Israeli actions
which impacted adversely on Palestinians) in a conversation with a woman
who had acknowledged that Jews had become targets

the reporter did not at any point suggest that events in the Middle East
justified anti-Semitic attacks - he appeared to be trying to use the perspective
to prompt discussion

the reporter did not express a personal opinion on events in the Middle East,
or suggest Palestinians were the only victims; he clearly attributed what he

was saying to critics of Israel's policy, allowing viewers to understand it in

that context

the reporter's use of the phrase "Jewish hands" (which many complainants
considered a general conflation of Jews and Israel) was also attributed to
critics of Israel's policy - the Adviser considered that the use of the phrase
was reasonable in that context, given that such a conflation is widespread
amongst critics of the Jewish state, particularly those who oppose Israeli
policy with violence as noted in the ECU finding. The Adviser did not consider
the reporter had personally conflated all Jews, French Jews included, with
Israel or Israeli policy.

there was a reason for the reporter to assume that Chava could handle a
question which acknowledged that Israels policy in Gaza attracted
controversy - whilst the interview was taking place in France, Chava had
introduced herself as Israeli born and had made the distinction in her
previous answer between French Jews who had been born in the country and
Israeli Jews who had moved there, like herself.

The Adviser considered the complainants concerns that the content was antiSemitic, offensive and insensitive.
She decided that Trustees would be likely to conclude the content had met the
requirements of the Editorial Guidelines she noted that the introduction to the
Guidelines on Harm and Offence stated: The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is
and that the section Portrayal noted that content could reflect prejudice in societies
worldwide but that careless stereotypical assumptions should be avoided.
She noted that there was no requirement not to cause offence which would be an
impossible demand but that where there was a risk of causing offence, there had
to be editorial justification. She considered there was strong editorial justification for
exploring the relationships between Jewish and Muslim people in France in the
immediate aftermath of the attack on Charlie Hebdo offices and on a Kosher
supermarket and in exploring their responses to the attack. She considered that the
reporter had intended to bring in an extra discussion point into this debate, by
referring to a perceived link between Israeli actions which impacted adversely on
Palestinians and anti-Semitic attacks. While the question had been somewhat
clumsy, and might not have been chosen in a scripted context, it seemed to the
Adviser that the implication was that Israeli actions which impacted adversely on
Palestinians might be a motivating factor for some anti-Semitic attackers. The
reporter had not intended to suggest that this was reasonable, and certainly had not
sought to justify the attacks. The question rather seemed designed to bring out a
discussion about the motivations and reasons for terrorism (similar to the discussion
with Aziz that had gone before), not to endorse them.
The Adviser noted the requirement in the Editorial Guidelines that output producers
should take account of audience expectations.

She considered the context of the broadcast - she considered the audience would
have been aware this was a live, unscripted interview and that English was not the
first language of either interviewee. She noted that the two interviewees, a Muslim
man and a Jewish women, were introduced as friends, they were interviewed
against a backdrop of Frances Unity March, and that the onscreen strap line was
reporting that one and a half million people were reported to have taken to the
streets of Paris. She noted that while the Muslim man had referred to the degree of
poverty and alienation experienced by some Muslims living on the outskirts of Paris,
and while the Jewish woman had said she had concerns that anti-Semitic tension
was reminiscent of the 1930s, they nonetheless agreed that they were proud to be
French and were proud of the unity that was being demonstrated through the
march.
She considered that in this context, audiences generally would have understood the
interview was intended to explore how individuals from different religious
backgrounds had many shared opinions while also exploring the responses and
views that reflected their own communitys perspectives. She considered audiences
would also understand that the overwhelming message from the two interviewees
was of the value and importance of being able to live side by side in the same
community.
She noted the reference by some complainants to a recent Trust finding2 in which
Trustees reminded BBC journalists of the requirement to make a clear distinction
between Israeli and Jewish. She noted complainants contention that the
content on this occasion fell foul of that. She did not agree, but noted, as set out
above, the reporter had intentionally made the connection, attributed to others, to
illustrate their perspective: he was not confusing the two, rather he was illuminating
how others did.
The Adviser did however agree with the ECU that the content in that section of the
interview was poorly phrased; for such a delicate and sensitive point it would have
been helpful if the sentence had been constructed more carefully to avoid any
suggestion of ambiguity. However, she considered the question was not asked in a
way that was combative or accusatory, she noted the interviewee had not appeared
to be offended by it and had sought to respond to it. Subsequently, the interviewee
appeared to have told the BBC she had not been offended by the question.
The Adviser noted the speed with which the reporter had apologised, unequivocally,
on his personal BBC Twitter feed and accepted it had been a poorly phrased
question. She noted too that the BBC Press Office had disseminated the same
statement.
Given that she did not think there had been a breach of the BBC's guidelines in this
case, the Adviser thought that the reporter's apology was adequate. No formal
2

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/may_jun.pdf

pp31

remedy from the BBC was required, given there had been no breach. The Adviser
concluded that the Trustees would likely reach the same conclusion as had the ECU,
that the apology was sufficient given that the content did not appear to have
breached BBC guidelines.
Taking this into account the Adviser considered Trustees would be likely
to conclude that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.
She therefore did not consider it was appropriate, proportionate or costeffective to proceed with the appeal and did not propose to put it before
Trustees.

Full transcript
Reporter: You join me live on the Boulevard Voltaire about half a mile down from
La Place de la Republique. The numbers here truly staggering. Hundreds of
thousands. Some estimates of 1.3 to 1.6 million people. This never-ending sea from
the Place de la Republique making their way down towards La Place de la Nation. La
Place de la Nation very close to La Porte de Vincennes, which is very close to where
that kosher supermarket siege ended so bloodily on Friday night.
Incidentally where I am now Im on the top of a caf here because this is the only
place we can get some wifi through. Were about 100 metres away from the Charlie
Hebdo offices and you might see all these crowds below cheering and thats because
just in the twilight if you look at the rooftop here you can see a policeman
acknowledging them and the crowds below cheering them and shouting out, Merci
Monsieur Policier, thank you Mr Policeman. And that is quite rare in Paris for crowds
of this size and this sort of variety. From such a different background: Jewish
communities, Muslim communities. Flags from all around the world. I can see a
Spanish flag there, an Israeli flag aswell. All acknowledging the risks that the police
have taken in the last week aswell for the worst terrorist act on French soil in some
50 years. With me actually on the balcony, two friends from different communities
but both French: Aziz and Chava.
Reporter: Just come this way if you will. A bit of a squeeze on the ..
Chava: Actually Im very fresh French, from only one month. But I live in France for
20 years already
Reporter: But you come from a Jewish background?
Chava: Im coming from Israel and my parents are from Poland. They came to
Israel after the war, the second world war, then I was living in Israel, then I came
back. I came to France at 1995.
Reporter: And like any European citizen now you are good friends with people from
different cultures and different backgrounds..
Chava: Yes, yes
Reporter: Aziz you are Algerian by ethnicity?
Chava: Exactly we met together. Now you can tell
Aziz: So Im French born and my parents are from Algeria. So I am French and
Algerian, from a Muslim background. And we met in an association where we learn
Hebrew and Arabic all together

Reporter: And how important is today for people from both your backgrounds to
show the world, to show extremists, that actually two cultures, two religions, live
side by side happily.
Chava: There is no other possibility. Just to live together. There is no any other
possibility for us
Reporter: And what do you feel Aziz that several of these gunmen have come from
North Africa itself. Why do they feel so alienated from society that they carry out
something like this?
Aziz: I think that part of the Muslim community feel very excluded from the rest of
the population and from the nation
Reporter: Why is that?
Aziz: Ive worked in an association in the Paris suburbs and I saw people who were
starving, who were actually starving now. And they live in buildings and things like
that and they dont have enough money even to eat. And I saw small girls who were
prostitutes in order to eat. So this is a very difficult situation in the Paris suburbs and
we shouldnt leave that situation to foreign countries to give money to.
Reporter: You think its a social situation in France. But do you understand the
sensitivities of some devout Muslims. Im not sure, are you a practising Muslim now
or not?
Aziz: My parents are very practising.. Im not very practising
Reporter: Do you understand though the offence some Muslims feel about the
caricature of Mohamed?
Aziz: I do understand their feeling and I think that theres something to be
explained about freedom of speech in France and not in France but in general.
Freedom of speech and of saying things, funny things, you know
Reporter: Satire
Aziz: Satire, and for example its new in the Arab world this feeling that satire is
very important in for example, Egypt. We have Bassam Yusef. We have a feeling,
the people in the Arab world we have a feeling that this is very important. But here
in France the problem is some people are being manipulated because they are easy
prey for ..
Reporter: Fanatical imams or preachers?
Aziz: Yes

Reporter: Chava, do you ever feel threatened, frightened by the Muslim community
here? Because if you look at the figures, more Jews in France seem to be leaving
France than in other European countries. Yet France has the biggest population of
Jews as it does indeed of Muslims aswell. Do you feel that here?
Chava: I didnt feel that until the last days. I have to say. Its not the same for Jews
whove been born here and Israelis coming to here. This is two different
populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have something already inside
them. We are not afraid. We know that every moment we can go somewhere else.
We have like a very strong The Jews which were born here they are coming from
another culture. So its completely different. But I can tell that since a few days I
feel again not secure. And something which is very I was talking to Aziz also. I
feel that now its like in 1930s. The situation is going back to these days of 1930 in
Europe.
Reporter: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach, with a
more inclusive society, addressing the problems that people have?
Chava: I didnt understand completely your
Reporter: Do you think that can be resolved though now before its too late?
Chava: Yes of course, we have not to be afraid, to say that the Jews, they are the
target now
Reporter: Many critics though of Israels policy would suggest the Palestinians
suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well
Chava: We cannot do amalgam between..
Reporter: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives?
Chava: Of course, but this is not my..
Reporter: (puts his hand on her shoulder gently) No I understand. Aziz, what do
you think has been achieved by today just before we finish speaking. What do you
thinks been achieved by more than a million people being on the streets today. Do
you think it will make any difference?
Aziz: Yes I think so. I think that now today we are very very proud to be French.
We are very very proud of this society. Weve showed unity. We wont let our
freedom of speech go away and we wont let people make us afraid
Reporter: Is it important though that France bans the wearing of the veil in public?
Do you think perhaps France, society, should be more tolerant about how people
want to dress? How people want to observe their religious customs?

Aziz: About the veil. You know the veil in public. You can wear the veil but not in
public administrations. Its only the niqab which is forbidden in public places. But I
think that its also something that was not in you know for example in Maghreb
countries and culture. It was something that was important from abroad. Thats why
we have to stick to our republican values and our freedom values.
Reporter: Thats it. Thank you Chava and Aziz for joining us here on the balcony.
Chava and Aziz: (smiling both) Thank you
Reporter: Lets just show you one last look here in the fading light here. Its dark
now. Another policeman has come to the corner now. The flags. The young and old.
The different nationalities. The people in their hundreds of thousands. The people,
more than a million coming out this evening on this cold Paris night to show the
unity that they feel against extremism on all sides. And to express their shock to the
world of what this country has been through in the past few days. And from just
near the Charlie Hebdo offices Ill hand you back

Annex 2
The Trust is the last stage of the complaints process and everyone who works within
the Trust Unit is outside the day-to-day operations of the BBC. We review the
complaints that come to us to assess whether they should be put before the BBCs
Trustees for them to reach a final decision. We read the correspondence in each
case and also review the relevant BBC content in order to make this assessment.
The Trust acts in the interests of all licence-fee payers and it would not be
proportionate, appropriate or cost-effective to spend a good deal of time and money
on cases that do not stand a realistic prospect of success.
For information about the complaints system and in particular about how the BBC
Trust fits in this is the web link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/
All BBC output is required to meet the standards set out in the BBCs Editorial
Guidelines. These are written by the BBC and are commissioned and approved by
the BBC Trust. They are publicly available and can be found through this link:
www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines. Where a complaint relates to a potential breach
of the Editorial Guidelines, we will refer to the relevant Guidelines in our response.
The Trusts Editorial Appeals procedure states that:

The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises a matter of substance.3

This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there is a reasonable
prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a breach of the
Editorial Guidelines. In deciding whether an appeal raises a matter of
substance, the Trust may consider (in fairness to the interests of all licence
fee payers in general) whether it is appropriate, proportionate and costeffective to consider the appeal.4
For non-editorial complaints, the relevant procedures can be found through the link
given above. However, in general, the Trust only considers appeals which raise a
matter of substance and for non-editorial complaints this means appeals will only
be considered which relate to significant issues of general importance.
Again, the Trust operates in the interests of all licence-fee payers and will bear in
mind whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective to consider the
appeal.

Under the Charter and Agreement, the Trust has a role as final arbiter in appropriate cases, and
must provide a right of appeal in cases that raise a matter of substance.
4
For example, if an appeal raises a relatively minor issue that would be complicated, time-consuming
or expensive to resolve, the Trust may decide that the appeal does not raise a matter of substance,
and decline to consider it.

The BBCs complaints system has three stages. Complaints are answered at stage
one by BBC Audience Services. Complainants who remain dissatisfied after this can
request a further response at stage one. If they are still dissatisfied they may be
able to escalate their complaint to stage two, where their complaint will either be
answered by the BBCs Editorial Complaints Unit or by a senior manager within the
relevant division. The third and final stage is an appeal to the Trust. Time frames
are set throughout the complaints process and complaints that are made outside
those limits will only exceptionally be considered.
Under the Complaints Framework, it is open to the BBC to decline to correspond
further about a complaint. The BBC can do this at any stage if it considers the
complaint is trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious. It
can also stop replying to an editorial complaint that does not raise an issue of a
breach of the Editorial Guidelines. The complainant can appeal to the Trust if they
consider the BBC is wrong to stop corresponding about their complaint.
Where a complainant appeals to the Trust in these circumstances, if Trustees agree
that the BBC was wrong to close down correspondence, the complaint will be sent
back to the BBC for a further response. It will remain open to the complainant to
appeal again to the Trust once the BBC has finished responding.
The Royal Charter and accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State
and the BBC draw a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the
BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. The direction of the BBCs
editorial and creative output and The operational management of the BBC are
defined as duties that are the responsibility of the Executive Board under paragraph
38, (1)(b) and (1)(c).
These are important because they are intended to protect the BBCs editorial
freedom and independence. They mean that the BBC is entitled to make editorial
decisions without the Trusts intervention and the Trust would only have a role if,
for example, a complaint raised a matter that was a potential breach of the BBCs
editorial standards (as set out in the Editorial Guidelines).
Similarly, the BBC is entitled to make operational decisions without interference and
the Trust would only have a role if the BBC was potentially in breach of any of its
other commitments for example, if one of the licence-fee funded services has not
operated within the terms set out in its Service Licence.
A high proportion of complaints that reach the Trust are either about editorial and
creative decisions or operational decisions. However, it is outside the remit of the
Trust to consider those complaints. Examples of the kind of complaints that
Trustees would not be able to consider are:

a
a
a
a

particular programme should not have been made

contributor was not a good guest for a programme
complainant disagreed with the line of questioning taken by an interviewer
complainant was upset that a scheduled programme was not broadcast