Programme Complaints 
Appeals to the Governors 
January to March 2006 
Issued June 2006 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 2 
The Board of Governors is responsible for overseeing the running of the BBC, to ensure that the BBC 
serves the public interest. We do this in a range of ways, such as setting key objectives and 
approving strategy and policy. Most importantly for this bulletin, we are responsible for monitoring the 
effectiveness of complaints handling by the BBC, including hearing appeals from complainants who 
are not happy with the responses they have received from management to serious programme 
complaints. 
The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee is a subcommittee of five members drawn from 
the full Board of Governors. For a full account of our remit, please see the last page of this bulletin. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 3 
Foreword by the Chairman of the 
Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 
I
t is the job of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) to ensure that 
complaints are properly handled by the BBC. This includes taking appeals from people who are not 
satisfied with management’s response to serious editorial complaints. We review the programme 
or online content against the BBC’s editorial values and guidelines, and make a judgement on 
whether or not the content concerned has breached the standards set out. 
This bulletin provides a summary of 14 findings published by the GPCC between January and 
March 2006. This includes four appeals that were originally considered in March and April 2005, for 
which the findings were held back while the Committee reviewed its processes. Of the findings 
published, none were upheld. 
During this quarter the Committee received a wide variety of complaints on a range of editorial 
issues. Though none were upheld, the Committee identified a number of learning points and 
management actions. For example: 
· We asked that the ‘disclaimer’ following certain dramas be shown for an adequate time (see 
page 25). 
· We felt it needed to be more prominent that the pages on the website describing different 
religions were written from an insider perspective (see complaint about the Religion & Ethics 
website, page 37). 
· While we did not uphold a complaint on the contemporary use of the word “gay” to mean 
“rubbish”, we have counselled caution in its use, given its potential to offend gay and lesbian 
audiences (see page 41). 
While we believe complaints handling in BBC management generally to be good, we also noted 
that in a number of cases appealed to the GPCC, less than perfect complaints handling contributed 
to the overall feeling of dissatisfaction. 
Richard Tait 
Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 4 
Contents 
Page 
Summary of findings (January–March 2006) 
Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 1 August 2005 5 
Today, Radio 4, 17 March 2005, 1 April 2005, 7 April 2005 7 
Israeli tried for killing UK man, bbc.co.uk, 24 June 2004 10 
Ten O’Clock News (biography of Yasser Arafat), BBC One, 11 November 2004 12 
News bulletins (9am and others), Radio 4, 18 April 2004 16 
Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 10 June 2004 18 
Britain Goes Wild with Bill Oddie, BBC Two, 7 June 2004 20 
Medium, BBC One, 6 September 2005 23 
Regional News – South Today, BBC One (South), 29 June 2005 25 
Wimbledon, BBC One, 23 June 2005 27 
Richard the Lionheart and Saladin: Holy Warriors, BBC Two, 25 March 2005 30 
Woman’s Hour drama: Passover, Radio 4, 25–29 April 2005 
10.45am and repeated at 7.45pm 34 
Islam pages, BBC Religion & Ethics website, bbc.co.uk 35 
The Chris Moyles Show, Radio 1, 25 July 2005; Jo Whiley, Radio 1, 29 July 2005; 
The Catherine Tate Show, BBC Two, 21 July 2005 and 4 August 2005 38 
Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 43 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 5 
Summary of findings (January–March 2006) 
Ten O’Clock News 
BBC One, 1 August 2005 
a) The GPCC appeal 
The appellant made a complaint about racism and bias in the Ten O’Clock News coverage of two 
killings. After a response from stage 1, the complaint was escalated to the Editorial Complaints 
Unit (ECU). The ECU concluded that the complaint fell outside its remit and declined to investigate. 
b) The complaint 
This complaint concerned the treatment in the Ten O’Clock News of two killings. The murder of 
Anthony Walker was the second news item on the Ten O’Clock News on 1 August 2005, while the 
killing of Richard Whelan was given no national air time. The complainant stated that the two 
should have been given the same amount of time. 
The complainant maintained that this was evidence of “racist and biased news coverage”. He felt 
that the murder of Anthony Walker was featured because it was alleged that the black man was 
killed by white men, while the man charged with the murder of Richard Whelan was black. 
The Editor of the Ten O’Clock News replied to the initial complaint. This letter was based on the 
response published on the BBC Complaints website. 
The complainant escalated the complaint to the ECU, which declined to investigate. The ECU 
explained that matters of news judgement such as this did not fall within the remit of the ECU. The 
Head of Editorial Complaints added that, even were he to investigate the complaint, he would not 
be able to add materially to the Editor’s response. 
c) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee first reviewed the ECU’s decision not to investigate the complaint. It noted that the 
ECU remit says: 
The ECU does not investigate matters of legitimate editorial discretion (for example, the news 
judgement about which stories to cover and what prominence to give them) unless the complaint 
gave reason to believe that the exercise of discretion had given rise to a breach of editorial 
standards. 
The Committee concluded that the ECU’s decision was not justified. This complaint had clearly 
alleged that the decision not to include the killing of Richard Whelan amounted to bias, and 
therefore warranted investigation under the ECU remit. As a general principle, the Committee said 
that the ECU should investigate allegations of bias, including allegations of “bias by omission”, 
particularly where the allegation related to a specific instance. 
Update 
Since the GPCC concluded its finding on this complaint, it has had further discussions with 
management about how to deal with complaints on bias by omission. It has been agreed that the 
ECU is entitled to decline to entertain such complaints, on the basis that in practice it would 
amount to the ECU deciding on running orders in bulletins, and this would interfere with legitimate 
editorial discretion. The GPCC will continue to consider such complaints, but only where the 
allegation of omission could amount to a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines, and is neither 
trivial nor vexatious. As part of this, it will receive a briefing on the complaint from the ECU. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 6 
d) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
The Committee went on to consider the substance of the complainant’s concerns against the 
requirements of the BBC’s editorial standards. It referred, in particular, to the following 
requirements. 
MATTERS OF LAW – RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 
Section 70 of the Race Relations Act, 1976, makes it “an offence to publish or distribute written 
matter which is, or to use in any public place words which are, threatening, abusive, or insulting in 
a case where hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group”. 
I
MPARTIALITY IN GENERAL 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is 
exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a 
respect for truth. 
The BBC is committed to providing programmes of great diversity which reflect the full range of 
audiences’ interests, beliefs and perspectives. 
I
n order to achieve that range, the BBC is free to make programmes about any subject it chooses, 
and to make programmes which explore, or are presented from, a particular point of view. 
I
n achieving due impartiality the term “due” is to be interpreted as meaning adequate or 
appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme. There are generally more than 
two sides to any issue and impartiality in factual programmes may not be achieved simply by 
mathematical balance in which each view is complemented by an equal and opposing one. 
News programmes 
The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. 
Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well-informed. In reporting matters of 
industrial or political controversy the main differing views should be given due weight in the period 
during which the controversy is active. News judgements will take account of events as well as 
arguments, and editorial discretion must determine whether it is appropriate for a range of views to 
be included within a single programme or item. 
e) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee felt that both the killings of Anthony Walker and of Richard Whelan were appalling 
events. 
The question for the Committee was whether there was editorial justification for the decision to 
report on Anthony Walker in the national news bulletin, and on Richard Whelan only in the regional 
bulletin. 
I
t concluded that Anthony Walker’s murder raised issues of national significance, which made the 
incident particularly newsworthy. The murder was identified by the police as being clearly racially 
motivated. This meant that news reporting could immediately and accurately disclose the police’s 
interpretation of motive for the crime. It also led to discussion about how the police had handled the 
case in contrast to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. These factors meant there was a particular 
national spotlight on the murder of Anthony Walker, which was also reflected in national 
newspaper coverage. 
The Committee was satisfied that the killing of Richard Whelan – while an equally appalling act of 
violence and of equal significance to his family and friends – had not raised equivalent issues of 
national significance. It concluded that the decision not to report on this in the national bulletin had 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 7 
been editorially justified, while its inclusion in the regional bulletin reflected the horror felt by fellow 
Londoners. Nevertheless, it agreed with BBC News that the bulletin could have briefly mentioned 
Richard Whelan, as a linking item to the Walker murder. 
The Committee concluded that the reporting on the two deaths had been appropriate within the 
requirements of the BBC’s editorial standards. 
The Committee noted that BBC News had responded on NewsWatch (bbc.co.uk/newswatch) to 
audience comments on its coverage and asked that this be drawn to the complainant’s attention. 
Finding: not upheld. 
Today 
Radio 4, 17 March 2005, 1 April 2005, 7 April 2005 
a) The items 
The complaint referred to three separate interviews with the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, on the 
Today programme. These interviews focused on the national Budget and future spending plans. 
· Interview 1 with Ed Stourton, 17 March 2005 – Chancellor Gordon Brown reflects on his Budget. 
· Interview 2 with James Naughtie, 1 April 2005 – Gordon Brown explains the role of the 
economy in Labour’s election campaign. 
· Interview 3 with John Humphrys, 7 April 2005 – discussion based on the issue of spending in 
the election campaign. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt that Gordon Brown was not challenged sufficiently during these interviews, in 
particular on allegations he made about the Conservative spending plans. 
The complainant made the following points: 
· Gordon Brown proceeded to deliver a “self-congratulatory monologue on his magnificent 
performance as Chancellor”. 
· He was not asked enough questions by the interviewers, with the content controlled by Gordon 
Brown. 
· The BBC showed partiality by supplying Gordon Brown with three propaganda interviews at 
peak times, in the immediate run-up to the elections. 
The complainant also expressed dissatisfaction with the way his complaint was handled at stage 1. 
The Head of the ECU did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the GPCC. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
BBC EDITORIAL VALUES 
Impartiality... 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC programmes and services should be openminded, 
fair and show a respect for truth. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or 
under-represented on the BBC. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 8 
OUR JOURNALISTIC VALUES 
Accurate, robust, independent, and impartial, journalism is the DNA of the BBC. ...the BBC must 
continue to stand out as a place where people feel they are being told openly and honestly about 
what is happening in the world; where they can rely on unbiased and impartial reporting and 
analysis to help them make sense of events; and where a debate can take place in which relevant 
and significant voices are heard, including those who have uncomfortable questions to ask. 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements 
where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of 
mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. We will strive to be fair and open 
minded by reflecting all significant strands of opinion, and by exploring the range and conflict of 
views. Testing a wide range of views with the evidence is essential if we are to give our audiences 
the greatest possible opportunity to decide for themselves on the issues of the day. 
I
ndependence 
The BBC is independent of both state and partisan interest and will strive to be an independent 
monitor of powerful institutions and individuals. We will make our journalistic judgments for sound 
editorial reasons, not as the result of improper political or commercial pressure, or personal 
prejudice. We will always resist undue pressure from all vested interests, and will jealously protect 
the independence of our editorial judgments on behalf of our audiences. Whatever groups or 
individuals may wish us to say or do, we will make all decisions based on the BBC’s editorial 
values. 
ELECTION GUIDELINES 
The BBC has guidelines which apply during the run-up to a General Election in the UK which state: 
News judgements at election time are made within a framework of democratic debate which 
ensures that due weight is given to hearing the views and examining and challenging the policies 
of all parties. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee decided to consider the complaints about these three interviews at the same time 
as they raised common issues and the complainant had referred to them together. The Committee 
reviewed the interviews, measuring them against the relevant guidelines. 
The Committee agreed that there were valid reasons for featuring an interview with the Chancellor 
on each of the three occasions highlighted (the morning after the Budget; the day after the last 
Cabinet meeting before the election; and the day after confirmation from the Prime Minister that, if 
Labour won the election, Gordon Brown would remain Chancellor). Therefore, these were not 
“peak-time propaganda interviews”, but appropriate days on which to examine the Chancellor’s 
policies and arguments and subject them to high-profile scrutiny. 
The Committee agreed that the Chancellor was at times able to give answers of some length, in 
particular in the interview conducted by Ed Stourton. However, it noted that in this interview, as in 
the other two, there was a series of searching and piercing questions asked of the Chancellor. For 
instance, Ed Stourton challenged the Chancellor on: the affordability of the Government’s spending 
plans; Treasury forecasts of corporate tax revenue; whether the upward turn in the economy began 
under the Conservatives; the number and nature of public sector jobs; and whether this would be 
Brown’s last Budget. The Committee agreed that it was reasonable for there to be a range of 
interview styles amongst a programme’s presenters. 
The Committee also believed it was reasonable to allow the Chancellor time to respond to 
questions and lay out his policies at a time when there was intense scrutiny of the Budget and 
economic policy was being hotly debated. They did not agree with the complainant that the 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 9 
Chancellor was allowed to control the content of the interviews; this was done by the interviewers 
through the questions they asked. 
The Committee did not believe that the Chancellor had been allowed to deliver a “selfcongratulatory 
monologue”. Indeed, in the interviews with James Naughtie and John Humphrys he 
was interrupted on a number of occasions. 
The Committee noted that the Ed Stourton interview was followed by a discussion between the 
presenter, the Economics Editor and the then Political Editor, in which criticism of the Chancellor’s 
handling of the economy was discussed at length. 
The Committee also noted that the interviews took place in the run-up to the election and therefore 
at a time when senior politicians from all parties were appearing on Today on a regular basis. 
These included the then Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin, who was interviewed on five occasions 
over the same period as the Chancellor’s three interviews. 
The Committee agreed that the interviews did not breach the required editorial standards. 
Finding: not upheld. 
e) Handling of the complaint 
The complainant had expressed dissatisfaction at the handling of his complaint at stage 1, citing 
delays in getting responses and incorrect information about whether he could escalate his 
complaint to stage 2. 
The Committee agreed that it should have been made clearer to the complainant at an earlier 
stage that he could take the complaint to stage 2. It was unfortunate that the nature of his 
complaint had been misunderstood at one point and he was informed that he could not take it to 
the ECU, only to be told later that he could do so. 
The Committee asked that the Chairman apologise to the complainant about the delay and 
confusion when he wrote to him with his finding. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 10 
Appeals submitted for reconsideration 
The following four appeals were submitted to the Committee for reconsideration. 
Prior to reconsidering these four appeals, the Committee members confirmed that they were 
certain they could and would approach matters impartially and with an open mind. They also 
confirmed that they would be able to uphold any of the complaints if they thought it justified and 
would not feel bound by their previous decisions. 
Israeli tried for killing UK man 
bbc.co.uk, 24 June 2004 
a) The article 
The article reported on the trial of an Israeli soldier charged with the killing of the British student 
Tom Hurndall. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt that the article was biased and misleading in stating: “The BBC’s Middle East 
correspondent James Reynolds says there is an inescapable feeling among many that this trial is 
going ahead because the victim was British, not Palestinian.” 
I
n particular, he complained that: 
· Included as it was in isolation, this statement falsely implied that no Israeli soldier had ever been 
– or would be – charged in connection with the death of a Palestinian. 
· In fact, prior to this trial another Israeli army officer had been convicted of the death of a 
Palestinian teenager in the West Bank, as reported on bbc.co.uk in the article ‘Israeli army 
conviction praised’. Other cases were also being investigated. 
· The language used in the article indicated that there had been and would be no prosecutions 
where the victims were Palestinians. 
· The article expressed this viewpoint without expressing alternative viewpoints, and without 
giving the Israeli authorities an opportunity to reply to the allegation made against them. 
The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed 
to the GPCC. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
OUR JOURNALISTIC VALUES 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements 
where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of 
mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. 
I
MPARTIALITY IN GENERAL 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is 
exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a 
respect for truth. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 11 
The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter specifies that the Corporation should treat 
controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality both in news programmes and other 
programmes that deal with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It states 
that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from 
fundamental democratic principles. The BBC is explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own 
opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, except broadcasting issues. 
FACTUAL PROGRAMMES 
News programmes 
The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. 
Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well-informed. 
News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues 
that enables them to form their own views. 
ACCURACY 
The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared 
to check, cross-check and seek advice, to ensure this. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the required editorial standards. The Committee 
agreed that the key issue was whether or not James Reynolds’ observation, as referred to in the 
article, had, as the complainant stated, implied that there had never been nor ever would be a 
prosecution in connection with the death of a Palestinian. There was also a further issue of 
whether the Israeli authorities should have had a right to reply within the article. The Committee 
noted that the complainant’s claim that the comment implied there never “would be” a prosecution 
was a new element to the complaint, introduced by the complainant following his review of the 
additional material supplied to him. 
The Committee concluded that James Reynolds’ observation did not imply what the complainant 
alleged. James Reynolds was commenting on public feeling regarding a specific case, not 
prosecution rates in general. Given the available statistics on deaths and prosecutions, his 
comment was not unreasonable. Further, the use of the phrase “there is an inescapable feeling 
among many that the trial is going ahead because the victim was British, not Palestinian” is not an 
absolute; it does not state that it is the case that the trial is going ahead “because the victim is 
British”; nor does it state that everyone believes this to be the case. 
The Committee did feel that the use of the word “many” was imprecise but, it concluded, this did 
not alter the fact that the sentence did not imply that which the complainant alleged. 
The Committee also noted that the fourth sentence of the article (“In recent years, hundreds of 
civilians have been killed in the conflict but few cases have been investigated.”) makes it clear that 
there have been investigations into previous deaths. 
The Committee went on to agree that, given that the piece did not imply what the complainant 
alleged, there was no need for an Israeli government point of view, as there was no BBC assertion 
that there had never been nor ever would be prosecutions in connection with the death of a 
Palestinian for the Government to answer. The Committee noted that the article did refer to the 
denial of guilt and the fact that the defence lawyers said that a signed confession had been forced 
under duress. This demonstrated an appropriate acknowledgement of the position of the soldiers in 
the context of an article focused on this specific case. 
Having reviewed all the material, the Committee was satisfied that the article had met the required 
editorial standards. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 12 
Ten O’Clock News (biography of Yasser Arafat) 
BBC One, 11 November 2004 
a) The item 
This bulletin contained several items about the death of Yasser Arafat. The specific item 
complained about was an obituary package by Gavin Hewitt. The full transcript is reproduced 
below, but most of the complaint focuses on a particular sentence, which the complainant argued 
was inaccurate and led to bias: 
“Yasser Arafat grew up in Jerusalem and when the state of Israel was formed, he joined the 
exodus of Palestinian refugees and never forgot it.” 
b) The complaint 
The complainant maintained that the piece by Gavin Hewitt contained a serious inaccuracy in the 
account of Yasser Arafat’s early years. In particular, he complained that: 
· The item suggested that Yasser Arafat lived in Jerusalem until the independence of Israel and 
joined the refugee exodus when it was formed. In fact he had already returned to Egypt before 
Israel was formed. 
· Furthermore there was no exodus of Arab refugees from Jerusalem in 1948. In fact the Arabs 
made territorial gains in Jerusalem, forcing the Jews out of significant parts of the city. 
· This part of the account was supported by an archive still of refugees which was misleading. 
The complainant suspected the refugees shown were not Arab refugees from Jerusalem. 
· This part of the account of Arafat’s life contributed to a myth that Jerusalem was an Arab town 
prior to the formation of Israel. On the contrary, Jews have constituted the largest group of 
inhabitants since at least 1840 and a majority since the 1890s. 
The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint. The complainant appealed to 
the GPCC. 
c) Full transcript 
HUW EDWARDS: President Arafat had dominated his people’s struggle for an independent state. 
He was revered by Palestinians as the father of their nation and his efforts were rewarded when he 
shared the Nobel Peace Prize. He took the Palestinian people to the edge of a momentous peace 
deal but his refusal to grasp the opportunity caused deep anger and disappointment in many parts 
of the world. Gavin Hewitt looks back on an extraordinary life. 
GAVIN HEWITT: For nearly four decades this man in his trade-mark black and white keffiyeh was 
the symbol of Palestinian struggle. To some, he was a freedom fighter, to others a terrorist: 
revered and reviled. Yasser Arafat grew up in Jerusalem and when the state of Israel was formed, 
he joined the exodus of Palestinian refugees and never forgot it. 
YASSER ARAFAT: I saw the tragedy of our refugees leaving everything behind them. 
HEWITT: Tent cities sprung up and from exile Yasser Arafat created the Fatah movement. In 1964 
they launched a first minor raid against Israel. Three years later, further humiliation. The Arab 
armies were destroyed by Israel in the six-day war. The West Bank was seized. More Palestinian 
territory lost. More refugees. The Palestinian cause seemed hopeless. But by 1969, Yasser Arafat 
had helped form the Palestine Liberation Organisation and was building a guerrilla force in Jordan. 
YASSER ARAFAT: We are fighting because we want to live in peace, but we want to live in a just 
peace. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 13 
HEWITT: Terror became a tactic to draw attention to their cause. In 1970, three airlines were 
seized and blown up at Dawson’s Field in Jordan, where the PLO had its base. King Hussein was 
furious and decided to drive out the Palestinians. 3,000 died. The Palestinians called it Black 
September. In 1972, a group using that name seized 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics 
and murdered them. Arafat’s direct responsibility was unclear. The Israelis blamed him. But terror 
was raising the profile of the Palestinian cause. Arafat was invited to the United Nations, wearing 
fatigues he told the world that he was bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun. The 
PLO’s new base was Lebanon. Yasser Arafat was enjoying the recognition of being the Palestinian 
leader. He was trying to build support for a Palestinian state, but he was also building up his 
forces. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the aim of destroying the PLO. The Palestinians 
fought back. But eventually the Israelis had Arafat in their sights and his life was only spared on the 
insistence of the United States, but the Palestinians were forced out and Yasser Arafat was 
marginalised in his new base in Tunis. By the late ’80s he was showing a more moderate face. He 
recognised Israel’s right to exist and rejected terrorism. Washington started a dialogue with him, 
but he made a disastrous misjudgement by backing Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. But 
there was an underlying momentum towards peace. In 1993 Arafat was on the White House lawn 
for a historic handshake with the Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin. The Palestinians were granted 
limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza, and Arafat, after all the years in exile, was able to 
return to his homeland. For almost seven years the Israelis thought they might be able to work with 
Arafat, although his administration was notoriously corrupt, but in 2000 talks to negotiate a 
Palestinian state collapsed. Both sides blamed each other, but Arafat’s response was to encourage 
a new wave of militancy. There followed a cycle of suicide bombings and Israeli reprisals. The 
violence has left Palestinians and Israelis further apart than ever, separated by fear and mistrust. 
The Israelis confined Arafat humiliatingly to his headquarters in Ramallah. 
YASSER ARAFAT: Is this acceptable? That I can’t go outside from the door. Is this acceptable? 
HEWITT: So he remained until his final days isolated and powerless. Many say this man lacked the 
courage to take the risks for peace when it was on offer, but he more than any other came to 
symbolise the hope and grievances of a wounded people. 
d) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
OUR JOURNALISTIC VALUES 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements 
where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of 
mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. 
I
MPARTIALITY IN GENERAL 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is 
exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a 
respect for truth. 
The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter specifies that the Corporation should treat 
controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality both in news programmes and other 
programmes that deal with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It states 
that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from 
fundamental democratic principles. The BBC is explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own 
opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, except broadcasting issues. 
FACTUAL PROGRAMMES 
News programmes 
The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. 
Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well-informed. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 14 
News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues 
that enables them to form their own views. 
ACCURACY 
The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared 
to check, cross-check and seek advice, to ensure this. 
e) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee identified four main elements to the complaint. 
i) The complainant said that the obituary inaccurately stated that Arafat lived in Jerusalem until 
the independence of Israel and joined the refugee exodus when it was formed. In fact, Arafat 
had already returned to Egypt before Israel was formed. 
ii) The complainant maintained that the broadcast suggested incorrectly that there had been an 
exodus of Arab refugees from Jerusalem in 1948. On the contrary, he argued that the Arabs 
made territorial gains in Jerusalem, forcing the Jews out of significant parts of the city, 
although the Jews were able to hang [on] to the western part of the city. 
iii) The complainant suspected that the black and white photograph used in the script line “...and 
when the state of Israel was formed, he joined the exodus of Palestinian refugees and never 
forgot it” was not of refugees leaving Jerusalem. 
iv) The complainant suggested that this part of the account of Arafat’s life contributed to a myth 
that Jerusalem was an Arab town prior to the formation of Israel. On the contrary, he stated, 
Jews have constituted the largest group of inhabitants since at least 1840 and a majority 
since the 1890s. 
The Committee agreed with the complainant’s view that a key line of script from Gavin Hewitt was: 
“Yasser Arafat grew up in Jerusalem and when the state of Israel was formed, he joined the 
exodus of Palestinian refugees and never forgot it.” 
The Committee thought that this sentence, and the Yasser Arafat clip that followed, were there to 
underline the effect that the exodus had on Yasser Arafat, rather than to provide a detailed account 
of his early life. 
The Committee acknowledged that there was potentially more than one way of understanding the 
sentence. This script line could have been clearer. 
The Committee noted that the complainant had interpreted the narrative to mean that Arafat had 
lived in Jerusalem until the independence of Israel and joined the exodus of Palestinian refugees 
from Jerusalem in 1948. The Committee thought that the passage meant that when Israel was 
formed, Arafat had joined the exodus of Palestinian refugees. The Committee did not think that the 
sentence was specific about Arafat’s whereabouts at that time and thought it was referring to a 
general exodus, not specifically from Jerusalem. The Committee noted that the quote from Mr 
Arafat immediately afterwards – “I saw the tragedy of our refugees leaving everything behind them” 
– made no reference to Jerusalem, and again appeared to be a reference to an exodus generally 
and not to one specifically from Jerusalem. 
There was a dispute about how many Palestinians had left Jerusalem. The Committee did not think 
it necessary to consider in detail what the precise scale had been of any such exodus as it did not 
think that this is what the programme said. The Committee considered the dispute between Israeli 
and Palestinian sources over the number of Palestinian refugees from Jerusalem and the villages 
in the immediate vicinity in 1948. The Israelis argued that the true figure was 10,000, the 
Palestinians said 64,000–80,000. The Committee considered that, whatever the true figure, it was 
clearly a substantial enough group of people to justify the use of the term “exodus” and would have 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 15 
been adequate even if the reporter had, as the complainant claimed, referred only to the exodus 
from Jerusalem. 
I
f a viewer had thought the passage referred to Jerusalem, the Committee did not think there was 
any implication that the Palestinians leaving Jerusalem had been the majority population. There 
was no discussion of any sort in the report about the actual population of Jerusalem in 1948 and 
which community was in the majority. 
On whether Arafat had been part of an exodus, the Committee noted that many facts about Yasser 
Arafat’s life are bitterly disputed and there is very little undisputed historical evidence about his 
childhood and early life. The short summary of his early life in the report was based largely on 
Yasser Arafat’s own version of his childhood and youth, as the Arafat interview that followed 
illustrated. The Committee thought that it would have been better for the report to have made 
clearer that the account was based on Arafat’s own account. 
The Committee was not in a position to reach a definitive view on whether Arafat had been part of 
any exodus. It noted carefully that one view was that Arafat had already returned to Cairo but that 
Arafat himself said that he had been in Gaza. The Committee noted that an independent, nonpartisan 
source (the Nobel Prize website) also suggested that Arafat had been in Gaza, which was 
broadly consistent with Arafat’s own account. On balance, taking the substance of the report as a 
whole, the Committee concluded that the report reflected a reasonable interpretation of a very 
disputed history and did not breach the required standard of due accuracy. 
I
n relation to the photograph, the Committee noted that it was in the BBC archive as a picture 
illustrating the general exodus of Palestinian refugees in 1948. There was no indication that it was 
of the exodus from Jerusalem specifically and it had been chosen to illustrate the general exodus 
rather than to show refugees leaving Jerusalem. The Committee agreed that this was consistent 
with its view that the script was not referring to an exodus from Jerusalem specifically either. The 
Committee did not think that the use of this picture would have in any way misled viewers as it 
appeared to depict what was being described in the narrative, and did not think that required 
standards had been breached. 
On a general note, the Committee expressed concern that programme makers were using archive 
photographs (albeit of events nearly 60 years ago) that had no clear provenance and questioned 
whether material should be held in BBC archives where there was only vague information about its 
background. 
Taking the item as a whole, the Committee did not think that the report breached the required 
standards of due accuracy and impartiality. Whilst some aspects of the report could have been 
clearer, given the bitter controversies surrounding Arafat’s life, the Committee was not satisfied 
that the report contained material inaccuracies, nor that it demonstrated bias or was in any way 
partial. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 16 
News bulletins (9am and others) 
Radio 4, 18 April 2004 
a) The items 
The items complained of reported on the funeral of Abdel Aziz Rantissi, leader of Hamas, killed in 
an Israeli missile attack on the Gaza Strip the previous night. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt that the reports used biased terminology. In particular, he complained that: 
· These bulletins repeatedly described the killing of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi by Israeli 
forces as “murder”. 
· The Israeli Government and military had not been given an opportunity to respond to the charge 
that Rantissi had been “murdered”. 
· Rantissi was described as a “militant leader” or “leader of the militant organisation Hamas” 
rather than a terrorist. 
· The reports said that Mr Sharon congratulated the Israeli forces on killing “what he described as 
a terrorist”. 
The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed 
to the GPCC. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
OUR JOURNALISTIC VALUES 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements 
where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of 
mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. 
I
MPARTIALITY IN GENERAL 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is 
exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a 
respect for truth. 
The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter specifies that the Corporation should treat 
controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality both in news programmes and other 
programmes that deal with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It states 
that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from 
fundamental democratic principles. The BBC is explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own 
opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, except broadcasting issues. 
FACTUAL PROGRAMMES 
News programmes 
The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. 
Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well-informed. In reporting matters of 
industrial or political controversy the main differing views should be given due weight in the period 
during which the controversy is active. News judgements will take account of events as well as 
arguments, and editorial discretion must determine whether it is appropriate for a range of views to 
be included within a single programme or item. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 17 
News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues 
that enables them to form their own views. A reporter may express a professional, journalistic 
judgement but not a personal opinion. Judgement must be recognised as perceptive and fair. 
Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters 
and reporters on controversial issues of public policy. 
ACCURACY – ACCURATE LANGUAGE 
It is not sufficient that we get our facts right. We must use language fairly. That means avoiding 
exaggeration. We must not use language inadvertently so as to suggest value judgements, 
commitment or lack of objectivity. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee measured the elements of the complaint against the relevant editorial standards. 
The Committee examined the six uses of the word “murder” in the bulletins cited in the complaint. It 
noted that “murder” was one of a range of words used to describe the death of Rantissi. The 
Committee also noted that in four cases the word was used in the context of describing Hamas’s 
reaction to the killing. The Committee’s view was that, in these instances, the word was used as 
part of a quote from Hamas – for example, in the 8am bulletin: “The Palestinian militant group 
Hamas says it will avenge the murder, by Israel, of another of its leaders.” The use of the word was 
appropriate and within the guidelines in this attributed context. In two other instances – “The White 
House has refused to condemn his murder…” (6am bulletin) and “The United Nations, the 
European Union and Britain condemned the murder…” (9am bulletin) – there was no sense of 
attribution. The Committee agreed that it would have been preferable not to use this word on these 
two occasions, as it is an emotive one. Words such as “assassination” or “killing” might have been 
better. However, the term “murder” was acceptable, if used sparingly and therefore within the 
guidelines. 
The Committee discussed the use of the word “militant” rather than “terrorist” in the reports. It 
noted that this issue had been discussed by the Committee in March 2003, when considering 
another complaint by the same complainant. At that time, they had met Mark Damazer (then 
Deputy Head of News) who explained that BBC editorial policy was to use the word “militant” rather 
than “terrorist” because the latter ran the risk, in some circumstances, of appearing partial. 
Although use of the word when reporting the views and comments of third parties was acceptable, 
BBC management has taken the view that non-attributed use of the word “terrorist”, although not 
banned, was generally to be avoided. The Committee concurred with this view now as it had done 
in March 2003, agreeing that use of the word “militant” rather than “terrorist” demonstrated greater 
impartiality. As such, the reports met the required editorial standards. 
The Committee recognised that not everyone would be satisfied with the agreed approach to 
terminology adopted by BBC News when reporting the Middle East, but agreed that it was satisfied 
with the decisions that had been made. The Committee noted that the BBC has since issued 
further guidance on use of the word “terrorist” as part of its continual review of the guidelines. 
The Committee noted that none of the bulletins had stated that Mr Sharon had congratulated the 
army on killing “what he described as a terrorist”, as the complainant originally alleged. The 
complainant had later pointed out that the 8am bulletin stated: “The Israeli Prime Minister Ariel 
Sharon is reported to have praised the army for the attack.” However, the Committee agreed that 
this sentence was substantially different to what was recalled by the complainant. It also took the 
view that the sentence showed no bias: it simply relayed the reported response of the Israeli Prime 
Minister to the attack. 
The Committee concluded that all the bulletins were balanced and adhered to the relevant editorial 
guidelines. The Committee noted that the Israeli government’s viewpoint was clearly and fully 
represented in each bulletin, including clips of Israeli government representatives in two bulletins. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 18 
e) Handling of the complaint 
The Committee took the view that it was unfortunate and regrettable that incorrect transcripts had 
been provided to the complainant in December 2005. Although this error had been rectified a 
month later, the Committee agreed that it was imperative that accurate information was provided to 
complainants. The Committee was also of the view that correspondence between the ECU and the 
complainant had become caught up in unnecessary detail rather than addressing the basic 
allegations of bias. 
Ten O’Clock News 
BBC One, 10 June 2004 
a) The item 
This complaint concerns a report by Jeremy Bowen about Operation Rainbow and its aftermath. 
Operation Rainbow was an Israeli military action in Rafah in the Gaza Strip in May 2004. The 
action was aimed at stopping weapons being smuggled into Gaza via tunnels from Egypt. It 
included bulldozing Palestinian houses in the search for the tunnels. The focus of the report was 
on the impact of Operation Rainbow on the Palestinian residents of Rafah. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt that the report was biased because it did not contain sufficient balance of 
views from the Israeli perspective. In particular, he complained that: 
· The only pictures shown were of the suffering of Palestinian residents. The weapons-smuggling 
tunnels were mentioned in the commentary but there were no pictures of them. Nor were there 
pictures of the suffering of Israelis caused by the smuggled weapons. 
· The mention of the arms-smuggling tunnels was prefaced by the phrase “the Israelis say” – as if 
to imply it might not be true. 
· There was no mention of the fact that the smuggled weapons are used in attacks on Israelis 
inside the pre-1967 borders. Viewers may therefore assume that the Israeli army action is solely 
to protect the Gaza Atrip settlements, which they may think unjustified. 
· The report showed a Palestinian woman who could not understand why her house had been 
destroyed a mile from the Egyptian border. The report failed to mention that very long tunnels 
had been found in Rafah. Nor did it mention other possible reasons for its destruction. 
· The report did not include any response by the Israeli government or army to the criticisms. 
The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed 
to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements 
where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of 
mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 19 
IMPARTIALITY IN GENERAL 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is 
exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a 
respect for truth. 
The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter specifies that the Corporation should treat 
controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality both in news programmes and other 
programmes that deal with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It states 
that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from 
fundamental democratic principles. The BBC is explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own 
opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, except broadcasting issues. 
The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter specifies that the Corporation should treat 
controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality both in news programmes and other 
programmes that deal with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It states 
that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from 
fundamental democratic principles. The BBC is explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own 
opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, except broadcasting issues. 
News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues 
that enables them to form their own views. A reporter may express a professional, journalistic 
judgement but not a personal opinion. Judgement must be recognised as perceptive and fair. 
Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters 
and reporters on controversial issues of public policy. 
Right of reply (section cited by the complainant) 
Where a programme reveals evidence of iniquity or incompetence, or where a strong, damaging 
critique of an individual or institution is laid out, there is a presumption that those criticised be given 
a fair opportunity to respond. There may be occasions when this is inappropriate (usually for legal 
or overriding ethical reasons) in which case the Head of Department should be consulted. It may 
then be appropriate to consider whether an alternative opportunity should be offered for reply at a 
subsequent date. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee discussed the selection of images in the report. It agreed that it was appropriate to 
show pictures of the effect of the Israelis’ Operation Rainbow attack on Palestinians given that this 
was clearly signposted in the cue as a location report from Rafah, the affected area. Again, 
because this was a location report related to a specific event, it was not appropriate to include 
pictures of separate attacks on Israeli citizens. Although there were no images of tunnels used in 
the piece, they were mentioned in the report and in the introduction to the package. 
The Committee agreed that the phrase “The Israelis say...” was simply signposting the Israeli point 
of view: there was no evidence that this phrase was deliberately used to cast doubt on Israeli 
statements, nor any evidence that that is what viewers would have taken away from it. It was 
stating a point of fact: that the Israelis say that the operation was vital to stop weapons smuggling. 
The Committee also agreed that it was highly unlikely that viewers would conclude that any 
smuggled weapons were used only for attacks in the Gaza Strip. The report did not state this and 
the Committee concluded that there was nothing in the report that would have influenced viewers 
in the manner alleged. 
The Committee also agreed that it was entirely proper not to include any speculation as to why the 
house of the Palestinian woman cited by the complainant had been destroyed. It would have been 
inappropriate to speculate about the reasons for an attack on one particular house, without any 
knowledge of the background to that specific attack. Further, the Israeli justification for the attacks 
as a whole was clearly laid out in the presenter’s introduction and the package itself. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 20 
The Committee agreed that the report was balanced and complied with all the relevant editorial 
guidelines. The Israeli viewpoint was fairly represented, both in the cue and in the package itself. 
The Committee noted that the complainant had referred to the series provision in Chapter 2 of the 
Producers’ Guidelines. It noted that this provision actually applied to non-news programmes. The 
section of the Guidelines that dealt with news provided that “In reporting matters of industrial or 
political controversy the main differing views should be given due weight in the period during which 
the controversy is active” and that “editorial discretion must determine whether it is appropriate for 
a range of views to be included within a single programme or item”. 
The Committee decided that as a location report, investigating the aftermath of a specific incident 
on a specific set of people, the report was balanced by other reports from other locations and 
viewpoints shown on the BBC at the same time. The Committee decided to consider the Ten 
O’Clock News programmes around this time as well as any reports on Newsnight (a lengthy 
Newsnight package on 3 May 2004 reported the experience of Israeli soldiers involved in the 
attacks). The Committee noted that there is significant viewer switchover from the Ten O’Clock 
News on BBC One to Newsnight on BBC Two and agreed that a fair analysis of whether coverage 
was balanced should take into account reporting in both programmes. The Committee agreed that, 
looking at the coverage of Operation Rainbow on both the Ten O’Clock News and Newsnight, the 
guidelines on impartiality had been met. Looking across the range of news programmes covering 
Operation Rainbow, both sides had been fully and fairly represented. 
Finding: not upheld. 
Britain Goes Wild with Bill Oddie 
BBC Two, 7 June 2004 
a) The programme 
Britain Goes Wild with Bill Oddie was a series in which the presenter travelled the length of the 
country examining the best of British wildlife and the state of nature today. This episode looked at a 
family of peregrine falcons. 
b) The complaint 
The complaint related to a specific sequence of a peregrine chasing and catching a pigeon. The 
complainant stated that: 
· He believed that the pigeon that was killed was a homing pigeon, not a wild creature. It was 
inappropriate to show the killing of a domestic bird. 
· The chase footage shown was pure falconry and deeply offensive. 
· The clip was preceded by misinformation about persecution of peregrines causing numbers to 
decline. 
· This misinformation would encourage the audience to favour the peregrine over the pigeon. 
Indeed, Bill Oddie described the TV crew cheering the peregrine on, as the footage was played. 
In contrast the pigeon was portrayed as “worthless”. 
· Only one professional body (the RSPB) appeared in the programme and was subsequently 
quoted in BBC responses. 
· There was a possible conflict of interest as, he said, the RSPB commissions wildlife 
programmes from the BBC. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 21 
The Head of the then Programme Complaints Unit (PCU) rejected the complaint and the 
complainant appealed to the GPCC. 
The complainant also objected to the response he received from the PCU, stating that the 
reference to fox hunting included in the letter was distasteful, as essentially he believed this implied 
that there was a great deal of support for hunting, so many people would not object to the pigeon 
killing. This illustrated “duplicity and bias” he claimed. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
BBC EDITORIAL VALUES 
Impartiality... 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC programmes and services should be openminded, 
fair and show a respect for truth. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or 
under-represented on the BBC. 
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – GENERAL 
The BBC’s reputation for impartiality and objectivity is crucial. The public must be able to trust the 
integrity of BBC programmes and services. Our audiences need to be confident that the outside 
activities of our programme makers or presenters do not undermine the BBC’s impartiality and that 
editorial decisions are not influenced by any commercial or personal interests. 
ACCURACY 
The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared 
to check, cross-check and seek advice, to ensure this. Wherever possible we should gather 
information first-hand by being there ourselves or, where that is not possible, by talking to those 
who were. 
Sources: Programmes should be reluctant to rely on a single source. 
Weighing the facts: Accuracy is often more than a question of getting the facts right. All relevant 
information should be weighed to get at the truth of what is reported or described. If an issue is 
controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. 
BBC EDITORIAL VALUES 
Respect for Standards of Taste and Decency 
Programme makers should be aware of and respect their audiences’ often diverse views on what 
will and will not cause offence. The right to challenge audience expectations in creative and 
surprising ways must be safeguarded but audiences should not be needlessly offended by what we 
broadcast and publish. It is vital to consider the expectations that audiences have of particular 
programmes, service and time slots. 
RECORDING THE NATURAL WORLD – GENERAL 
Natural History programmes have a duty to uphold the same values of truth and accuracy that 
apply to all factual output. Audiences should never be deceived or misled by what they hear. 
VIOLENCE 
Violence Involving Animals 
Audiences may be sensitive to violence involving animals. Such violent scenes must have a 
justified editorial purpose. 
However, there is a distinction in the animal world between aggressive behaviour among the same 
species and predatory attacks, by one species on a different species. Both types of violence are 
fundamental to animal behaviour. The evidence is that audiences have less objection to displays of 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 22 
aggression between animals of the same species, such as conflicts between males for dominance. 
Scenes of predatory behaviour that are likely to cause distress need to be handled with care and 
without unnecessary detail. 
VIOLENCE – SCHEDULING, WARNINGS AND THE WATERSHED 
When factual programmes or drama are to include violent scenes, consider issuing warnings to 
prevent the audience from being taken unawares. This is a key to avoiding widespread offence. 
Remember that the nature of the programme may be signposted through trails, publicity, 
promotional material and listings. These are not however, a substitute for clear and unambiguous 
on-air warnings. If a programme is tough to watch, viewers should be told. Programme 
departments should alert the channel controllers and presentation departments in advance when 
they judge a warning is required so that the overall amount of violence in the schedule can be kept 
under review. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Chairman requested that the Committee take into account all the documentation provided to 
them by the complainant. 
The Committee took the view that people who watch natural history programmes are aware that 
they will see nature in the raw. Natural history programmes regularly contain footage of killing in 
the wild or other challenging images, and audiences take account of this when framing their 
expectations of such programmes. It is reasonable to expect audiences to take such precedents 
into account. The Committee noted that the footage of the killing was shot from some distance 
away. 
There was no evidence that the killing of the pigeon was staged. The Committee noted that this 
was a serious allegation to make against the Natural History Unit, yet there was no evidence to 
support it. The chase was well shot and a compelling piece of television. It demonstrated a central 
fact of the natural world: that some creatures kill in order to survive. There was also no evidence 
that this was a homing pigeon. However, the Committee concluded that whether or not the bird 
was a homing pigeon was immaterial; even if it were, many such birds find themselves lost in the 
wild, having been released by their owners. There was no reason to suppose that if the pigeon 
were a homing pigeon the killing had been staged. 
The Committee agreed that Bill Oddie’s account of the reaction behind the scenes as the footage 
was shown might have been regarded as distasteful to some viewers. However, it took the view 
that his appeal as a presenter is due to his exuberance and enthusiasm, of which this part of the 
programme was an example. It was to be expected that his commentary would include lighthearted 
references to what was being shown. His style of presentation would be known to the audience. 
The Committee was of the view that overall the programme was sensitively presented. 
The Committee also noted that the complainant offered no evidence of an improper relationship 
between the RSPB and the programme makers, to support that claim in his complaint. The 
comment in the programme that peregrines had faced “persecution” was supported by RSPB 
research. The RSPB was judged an independent, valid and respectable source of information 
regarding the survival of peregrines. As such, due impartiality was shown. 
Overall, the Committee took the view that the programme was made with professionalism and 
integrity, and the footage was well shot and sensitively presented. The content and presentation 
fell within the boundaries of audience expectations. The Committee agreed that it complied with 
the relevant editorial standards. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 23 
e) Handing of the complaint 
The Committee agreed with the complainant that the reference to fox hunting in the stage 2 
response to the complaint was inappropriate and irrelevant. 
Medium 
BBC One, 6 September 2005 
a) The programme 
Medium was an American drama series based on the real-life self-proclaimed spiritualist Allison 
DuBois, who claims to use her psychic gifts to solve crimes. Its scheduling was 11.05pm on 
Tuesday nights. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant stated that the programme was presented as based on fact rather than fiction and 
so constituted promotion of paranormal beliefs, which is contrary to the BBC’s Charter requirement 
and breaches editorial guidelines. Further, disclaimers should have been used to distance the BBC 
from the claims made by Allison DuBois. 
The Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) rejected the complaint and the complainant appealed to the 
GPCC. 
c) Relevant Editorial Guidelines (post July 2005) 
HARM & OFFENCE 
Exorcism, the occult and the paranormal 
We must act responsibly when including material looking at any aspect of exorcism, the occult, the 
paranormal, divination or any related practices, particularly in pre-Watershed programmes, on 
radio when children are particularly likely to be listening or in online content likely to appeal to a 
high proportion of children. 
Demonstrations of such practices in factual programmes must be treated with due objectivity and 
in entertainment programmes they must be clearly labelled. Also they should not normally contain 
advice about health, finance, employment or relationships which could encourage people to make 
life changing decisions. 
Television & the watershed 
The 21.00 television Watershed is used to distinguish between programmes intended mainly for 
family viewing and those programmes intended for an adult audience. However, the BBC expects 
parents and carers to share in the responsibility for assessing whether programme content is 
suitable for their children. 
After 21.00 the post-Watershed transition to more adult material should not be abrupt and should 
reflect the nature of the channel and viewer expectations. The strongest material should appear 
later in the schedule. 
Acquired programmes 
Acquired programmes must comply with our Editorial Guidelines on harm and offence. We should 
check them prior to broadcast to ensure the content is suitable for the proposed slot. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 24 
IMPARTIALITY 
Impartiality & drama 
When drama realistically portrays living people or contemporary situations in a controversial way it 
has an obligation to be accurate and to do justice to the main facts. If the drama is accurate but is 
a partisan or partial portrayal of a controversial subject we should normally only proceed if we 
believe that its insight and excellence justify the platform offered. Even so we must ensure that its 
nature is clearly signposted to our audience. When a drama is likely to prove particularly 
controversial we must consider whether to offer an alternative view in other output on the same 
service. 
FAIRNESS, CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSENT 
Portrayal of real people in drama 
Whenever appropriate, and where their role is significant, living people portrayed in a drama or 
their surviving near relatives should be notified in advance and, where possible, their co-operation 
secured. 
Fair portrayal in drama 
When our drama realistically portrays living people in contemporary situations, particularly a 
controversial or sensitive event, the same standards of fairness which apply to factual programmes 
should generally be observed. It is inevitable that the creative realisation of some dramatic 
elements such as characterisation, dialogue and atmosphere, will introduce a fictional dimension, 
but we have an obligation to be accurate and to ensure the drama does not unduly distort the 
known facts and thus become unfair. It is important to explain the nature of the content to our 
audiences by clearly signposting the output. 
RELEVANT SECTION FROM THE BBC CHARTER 
The objects of the Corporation are as follows:- 
(a) To provide, as public services, sound and television broadcasting services (whether by 
analogue or digital means) and to provide sound and television programmes of information, 
education and entertainment [our bold] for general reception in Our United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters 
thereof, and on board ships and aircraft (such services being hereinafter referred to as “the Home 
Services”) and for reception elsewhere within the Commonwealth and in other countries and 
places overseas (such services being hereinafter referred to as “the World Service”) the Home 
Services and the World Service together being hereinafter referred to as “the Public Services”. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Chairman requested that the Committee take into account all the information provided to them 
by the complainant. The Committee agreed that they, and the great majority of viewers, would 
understand that this was a drama rather than factual programming. The presentation 
announcement before the beginning of the programme stated clearly that Medium was “new 
drama”. In both the opening and closing announcements the name of the lead actress – Patricia 
Arquette – was used, rather than references to Allison DuBois herself. 
The Committee did not agree with the complainant that the programme was “straightforward 
propaganda” which “promoted” the paranormal. The Committee noted that the definition of 
“promote” is “to further, encourage, advance, or urge the adoption of beliefs”. There was nothing in 
the programme that actively promoted the paranormal. 
The Committee was of the view that the vast majority of viewers would have been either 
incredulous or agnostic about the supposed “powers” shown in the programme. Given this, and the 
late hour at which the programme was transmitted, it did not feel that there was a risk that the 
programme would have preyed on the young, suggestible and vulnerable. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 25 
Overall, the Committee agreed that the programme met the required editorial standards. However, 
the Committee did take the view that the disclaimer shown at the end of the programme was of 
little use given that it was not on screen long enough to be read. Although this did not constitute a 
breach of the guidelines, as it was made clear that this was drama elsewhere, the Committee felt 
that disclaimers should be on screen long enough to be read. 
Action: The Committee asked the Chairman to write to the Director of Television requesting that, 
in future, disclaimers be shown on screen for an adequate amount of time. 
Finding: not upheld. 
Regional news – South Today 
BBC One (South), 29 June 2005 
a) The programme 
South Today is a regional news programme. This edition included an interview by presenter Sally 
Taylor with the local MP, Mike Hancock, about reported problems experienced by people returning 
to a park and ride site following a fireworks display. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant was offended by the interview style and attitude of the presenter, specifically that 
the presenter repeatedly interrupted Mr Hancock and raised her voice, which meant that he was 
not able to answer the questions put to him; and that there was a lack of balance between the two, 
with far too much interviewer time. 
The complaint was not upheld by the ECU and the complainant appealed to the GPCC. 
The complainant also complained to the GPCC about the “cavalier” handling of the case to date. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
BBC EDITORIAL VALUES 
Fairness... 
BBC programmes should be based on fairness, openness and straight dealing. Contributors 
should be treated honestly and with respect. They have a right to know what a programme is 
about, what kind of contribution they are expected to make, whether it will be live or recorded and 
whether it is to be edited. 
I
NTERVIEWING – GENERAL 
BBC interviews should be well mannered and courteous. They may be searching, sharp, sceptical, 
informed and to the point – but not partial, discourteous or emotionally attached to one side of an 
argument. They should not be aggressive, hectoring or rude, whatever the provocation. 
Interviewees should be given a fair chance to set out their full response to the questions 
IMPARTIALITY & ACCURACY – OUR JOURNALISTIC VALUES 
Accurate, robust, independent, and impartial, journalism is the DNA of the BBC. Audiences should 
always feel they can trust our words and our deeds. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 26 
Serving the Public Interest 
We will be robust, but fair and open-minded, in asking searching questions of those who hold 
public office and in reporting that which it is in the public interest to reveal. 
IMPARTIALITY IN GENERAL 
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is 
exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a 
respect for truth. 
Presenters 
Presenters are the public face and voice of the BBC’s journalism. The tone and approach that they 
take to stories has a significant impact on the perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Their 
presentation needs at all time to embody the core editorial values of the BBC. 
I
NTERVIEWING 
General 
Interviews are a vital tool of journalism and programme making. 
Where interviewees are to be questioned or tested on matters of controversy it is important for 
editors, researchers and interviewers to think through the editorial issues and structure the 
interview accordingly. 
BBC interviews should be well mannered and courteous. They may be searching, sharp, sceptical, 
informed and to the point – but not partial, discourteous or emotionally attached to one side of an 
argument. Interviewees should be given a fair chance to set out their full response to the 
questions. 
Purpose of interviews 
The purposes of a live interview must be realisable in the time available. We should try not to leave 
the audience suspended and frustrated in mid-argument, or irritated by references to running out of 
time. A good interview comes to an orderly conclusion. 
Tone and tactics 
Interviews should be searching and to the point, well-mannered and courteous. They may be 
challenging but not aggressive, hectoring or rude, whatever the provocation. In a well-conducted 
interview, listeners and viewers regard the interviewer as working on their behalf. 
Fairness to the interviewee and dealing with evasion 
Interviewees should be given a fair chance to set out their full response to the questions. However, 
interviewers have to contend increasingly with interviewees who are skilled at filibustering, using 
an interview as a platform and avoiding its proper purpose. 
I
nterruption may be justified but it needs to be well timed and not too frequent. It is less likely to 
discomfort the audience if it comes naturally and after the interviewee has made his or her main 
point – or has manifestly failed to make it. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Chairman requested that the Committee take into account all the information provided to it by 
the complainant. The Committee noted that this interview had taken place within the context of a 
number of viewers contacting the programme to protest against the interviewee’s response on the 
lunchtime bulletin to concerns about park and ride arrangements in Portsmouth following the 
Trafalgar 200 event. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 27 
The Committee felt that it was appropriate for the interviewer to convey the strength of viewers’ 
feeling to the interviewee, Mr Hancock. The interviewer was questioning the interviewee on an 
issue of concern to many viewers. 
Although the interviewer repeatedly challenged Mr Hancock, her interview manner was within the 
range allowed by the guidelines and her line of inquiry was a valid one. Although the tone was 
heated at times, the Committee did not share the complainant’s view that the interviewee was 
“repeatedly shouted down”, that the interviewer acted “like a football hooligan” and in a manner 
that “would make a fish wife cringe.” 
The Committee agreed that Mr Hancock was given sufficient time to answer the points put by the 
interviewer. In particular, at the beginning of the interview he laid out his position at some length. 
The Committee noted that Mr Hancock was not ruffled by the interview. 
The Committee felt that it would have been helpful to have informed viewers in greater detail about 
the content of the lunchtime bulletin earlier that day, so that the context was clearer. However, 
looking at the interview as a whole, there was no breach of the guidelines, and the manner in 
which the interview was conducted met the required standards. 
Finding: not upheld. 
e) Handling of the complaint 
The Committee noted that the programme team had been assiduous in replying to the 
complainant, writing to him four times in total. The Editorial Complaints Unit also considered the 
complaint in good time, carried out an independent inquiry and provided an in-depth response. 
Wimbledon 
BBC One, 23 June 2005 
a) The programme 
The complaint concerned a tennis match between Tim Henman and the Russian Dmitry Tursunov, 
which was featured during BBC One’s Wimbledon 2005 coverage. 
b) The complaint 
The complaint referred to the broadcast of swearing during the match by Tim Henman. The 
appellant complained that the programme was broadcast before the watershed and during 
“afternoon family teatime viewing”, when children were likely to be watching. This showed a 
“serious disregard for broadcasting rules and regulations”. 
The ECU did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the GPCC. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
BBC EDITORIAL VALUES 
Respect for Standards of Taste and Decency... 
Programme makers should be aware of and respect their audiences’ often diverse views on what 
will and will not cause offence. The right to challenge audience expectations in creative and 
surprising ways must be safeguarded but audiences should not be needlessly offended by what we 
broadcast and publish. It is vital to consider the expectations that audiences’ have of particular 
programmes, service and time slots. 
BBC television schedules must respect the 9 p.m. Watershed. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 28 
REFERRALS 
Strong language – the use of the most offensive four letter words must be approved by the 
relevant Channel Controller, in the case of the World Service language sections, the Head of 
Region, and for online services the Director of BBC ONLINE. 
TASTE AND DECENCY 
General 
The BBC is required in the Agreement associated with its Charter not to broadcast programmes 
which “include anything which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or 
incite to crime or lead to disorder, or be offensive to public feeling”. The BBC seeks to apply this 
requirement to all its broadcasting, programmes and services, whether for domestic or international 
audiences. 
Parents with children in the home are likely to be particularly concerned about what appears on 
television. This applies especially when families are watching before the Watershed. Most people 
expect to be given clear signals about what they will see and hear, especially when new series or 
formats appear. 
An item which might be interpreted by some viewers or listeners as being in bad taste should only 
be broadcast after careful consideration, not carelessly or by mistake. It must be justified by its 
purpose, and by the overall quality of the programme. 
Context is everything: scheduling can be vital to audiences accepting difficult material. It is vital to 
consider the expectations that audiences have of particular programmes and timeslots. 
Programme makers should remember they are a minority, but one with considerable influence; 
they should be aware of and respect their audiences’ diverse views on what causes offence 
Television: The Watershed 
The BBC has a well-established policy of making 9pm the pivotal point of the evening’s television, 
a Watershed before which, except in exceptional circumstances, all programmes on our domestic 
channels should be suitable for a general audience including children. The earlier in the evening a 
programme is placed, the more suitable it is likely to be for children to watch on their own. 
However, the BBC expects parents to share the responsibility for assessing whether or not 
individual programmes should be seen by younger viewers. 
The Watershed reminds broadcasters that particular care should be taken over inclusion of explicit 
scenes of sex and violence, and the use of strong language. 
However, seventy per cent of homes do not contain children and many viewers expect a full range 
of subject matter throughout the day. 
Scheduling can be vital to public acceptance of challenging material. Whether or not scenes of 
violence, sex, great distress or strong language cause offence to an audience can depend not just 
on editorial or dramatic context, but on sensitive scheduling decisions. A good rule of thumb is to 
avoid taking the audience by surprise. Announcements and warnings can play an important part in 
this. 
Material within programmes has to be judged in relation to its place in the schedule and the likely 
expectation of the audience at that time of day or night. 
Language 
Strong language is a subject of deep concern to many people and is one of the most frequent 
causes of complaint. Offence is more likely to be caused if audiences are taken by surprise when 
strong language occurs without warning, is contrary to the expectations of the programme’s 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 29 
audience or feels gratuitous. In the right context strong language may cause little offence and in 
some situations it may be wholly justified in the interests of authenticity. 
Common sense should enable producers to identify which words are questionable and when the 
use of them might be warranted. Programme makers should be aware that terms of racist abuse 
are now considered to be offensive by all sections of the audience. Sexual swearwords and 
abusive names relating to disabilities can also cause great offence. They should ask themselves 
constantly whether the use of strong language will simply alienate a large part of the audience. 
Offence is often caused by the casual use of names considered holy by believers, for example the 
use of ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘God’, or of the names held holy by other faiths. In particular, the use of 
these names as expletives in drama or light entertainment causes distress far beyond their 
dramatic or humorous value. While there is a wide range of attitudes to the use of these words, it is 
important for programme makers to be satisfied that their inclusion can be justified despite the 
distress that may be caused. 
The inclusion of strong language is a matter for judgement by individual producers, in consultation 
with Heads of Department or Commissioning Executives when necessary. The most offensive 
language should not be used on television before 9pm, and if used thereafter it should be only after 
due consideration. 
Certain, mainly four-letter, words must not be used on television, radio or online without advance 
reference to and approval from Channel and Network Controllers of the domestic services, in the 
World Service the relevant Regional Head, or in Worldwide Television, the Director of 
Broadcasting. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into 
consideration all the information about the complaint. The Committee noted that, of four possible 
instances of offensive language during the match, two were impossible to decipher and may not in 
fact have been swear words; one was a clear use of the word “fuck”, and the other a use of the 
word “arse”. The Committee agreed that there had been no reason to suppose beforehand that 
Tim Henman would use offensive language during this live broadcast. Therefore it was the right 
decision to go ahead with a live broadcast. Moreover, the Committee believed that most members 
of the audience would rather see a match live, as it unfolded, rather than edited and/or shown with 
a time delay – even if that led to the occasional broadcast of offensive language. Viewers 
understood that the match was being televised live and that therefore anything could happen: this 
was part of the attraction for many of those watching. The Committee acknowledged that the one 
use of the word “fuck” would have offended some viewers, particularly as it occurred well before 
the watershed. But it was important to convey the tension of this crucial moment in the match, and 
to show how Henman reacted under pressure. Overall, the Committee believed that it was right to 
show the match live, albeit with unexpected expletives, because this allowed the drama of the 
match to be fully conveyed, which is what most viewers want from the BBC’s sports coverage. 
The Committee did have concerns about the reaction of the commentators to Henman’s swearing 
and agreed that a swift apology should have been issued to viewers, or at least an 
acknowledgement that some might have found the language offensive. 
Action: The Committee asked the Chairman to recommend to management that they consider 
drawing up a guideline on dealing with offensive language in live broadcasts. 
Finding: not upheld. 
Further note: Since the meeting and ratification of the minutes, the Chairman has been made 
aware that Editorial Policy published new guidelines for live programming in April 2006. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 30 
Richard the Lionheart and Saladin: Holy Warriors 
BBC Two, 25 March 2005 
a) The programme 
This was a drama-documentary that was described as follows: “Provides new insights into the epic 
and bloody 12th-century fight for control of the holy city of Jerusalem between Crusader and 
English king Richard the Lionheart and Muslim leader Saladin. Based on the latest research into 
the original Christian and Muslim sources, it traces the contrasting origins of both men and 
challenges contemporary judgements about their characters.” (Radio Times for 26 March 2005). 
b) The complaint 
The complainant maintained that the programme demonstrated the “BBC’s Islamophilia” by 
producing a “partial”, “distorted” and “inaccurate” version of history. In particular: 
· The programme was inaccurate because, in contrast to the impression given, Muslims had no 
right to be in the Holy Land in the first place and it is not more sacred to Muslims than 
Christians. 
And: 
· One of the programme’s “experts” asserted the “superiority of Islam” despite historic and 
ongoing Muslim aggression, conquest and jihad. 
The complainant also drew attention to a phrase in the stage 1 response to his complaint: 
“Atrocities [at the time] were committed by both Christians and Arabs.” The complainant asked: “Is 
it BBC policy – either stated or understood – not to use the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in any 
negative context?” 
The Head of ECU did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to GPCC. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
OUR JOURNALISTIC VALUES 
Truth and Accuracy 
We will always strive to establish the truth of what has happened as best we can. 
We aim for the highest possible levels of accuracy and precision of language. Our journalism will 
be well sourced, based on sound evidence, and thoroughly tested. It will rely on fact rather than 
opinion, and be set in context. We will be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid 
unfounded speculation. 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 
We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements 
where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of 
mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. We will strive to be fair and open 
minded by reflecting all significant strands of opinion, and by exploring the range and conflict of 
views. Testing a wide range of views with the evidence is essential if we are to give our audiences 
the greatest possible opportunity to decide for themselves on the issues of the day. 
I
ndependence 
The BBC is independent of both state and partisan interest and will strive to be an independent 
monitor of powerful institutions and individuals. We will make our journalistic judgments for sound 
editorial reasons, not as the result of improper political or commercial pressure, or personal 
prejudice. We will always resist undue pressure from all vested interests, and will jealously protect 
the independence of our editorial judgments on behalf of our audiences. Whatever groups or 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 31 
individuals may wish us to say or do, we will make all decisions based on the BBC’s editorial 
values. 
NON FACTUAL AND ARTS PROGRAMMES 
Drama Portraying Contemporary Situations & Drama-Documentaries 
A clear distinction should be drawn between plays based broadly on fact or real characters and 
dramatised documentaries which seek to reconstruct actual events. Audiences should be clear as 
to whether they are watching fact or fiction. 
Any dramatised reconstruction of a controversial current event should observe the standards of 
fairness which apply to factual programmes dealing with such issues. It is inevitable that the 
creative realisation of some elements, such as characterisation, dialogue and atmosphere, will 
introduce a fictional dimension, but this should not be allowed to distort the known facts. 
History in Drama 
Questions of accuracy, impartiality and fairness also arise in historical drama. Drama should 
normally aim to give a fair account of historical events. But there are differing views about history 
and producers should be aware of the likely critical reaction when they diverge from received 
opinion. Portrayals of recent history may be particularly sensitive and controversy often arises 
when drama questions the British role in an historical event. 
If a drama of artistic merit is written from an obviously partial standpoint, the producer must 
consider how to label and publicise it in order to make its nature clear. When a powerful drama of 
this kind is likely to prove particularly controversial, the BBC will need to consider whether to offer 
an alternative viewpoint in other types of programmes. 
Problems can arise when drama combines fictional characters with historical figures. Producers 
should be certain that they are clearly aware of what is established fact and what is fiction and that 
the public is not confused by the mixture. 
Fact, Fiction and Labelling 
Great care must be taken in continuity announcements, trails and promotional material to ensure 
that the audience is aware of the nature of the drama. Where fact and fiction are mixed the public 
should be made aware of this. It must be made clear that the drama is only an interpretation of a 
current or historical situation. 
ACCURACY 
Accurate language 
It is not sufficient that we get our facts right. We must use language fairly. That means avoiding 
exaggeration. We must not use language inadvertently so as to suggest value judgements, 
commitment or lack of objectivity. 
Staging and re-staging events 
Factual programmes should always present a fair and accurate picture of the situations they 
portray. Audiences should never be misled by what they see or hear in a programme. However, 
there are few factual films which do not involve some intervention from the director, even those 
which are commonly described as “fly on the wall” or observational documentaries. 
The use of reconstruction, ... where all events are quite explicitly re-staged for the camera or 
microphone and where the programme team was never present when the events first happened, is 
a separate technique and must be labelled as such. 
Commentary must always respect the truth and should never be used to give the audience a 
dishonest impression of events. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 32 
In judging what is acceptable and unacceptable practice in factual programmes, programmemakers 
must ensure that: 
· programmes truthfully and fairly depict what has happened 
· programmes never do anything to mislead audiences 
· while it may, on occasions, be legitimate to re-shoot something that is a routine and insignificant 
action, it is not legitimate to stage or re-stage action which is significant to the development of 
the action or narrative, without clearly signalling this to the audience 
· contributors should not be asked to re-enact significant events, without this being made clear in 
the film. (This does not preclude programme-makers arranging to record sequences at a 
particular time to fit in with the timetable of a shoot) 
· if significant events have been arranged for the cameras (including the recruitment of 
contributors) that would not have taken place at all without the intervention of the programmemakers, 
then this must be made clear to the audience 
· shots and sequences should never be inter-cut to suggest that they were happening at the 
same time if the resulting juxtaposition of material leads to a distorted and misleading 
impression of events 
TASTE AND DECENCY – RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES 
Programme makers dealing with religious themes should be aware of what may cause offence. 
Programme makers and schedulers of international services should consider carefully the varying 
sensitivities of audiences in different parts of the world. What may be unexceptional in a U.K. 
programme may raise strong feelings elsewhere. Advice can often be given by the departments 
dealing with religious programmes in both domestic and international services, or by the relevant 
World Service language sections. 
Deep offence will also be caused by profane references or disrespect, whether verbal or visual, 
directed at deities, scriptures, holy days and rituals which are at the heart of various religions – for 
example, the Crucifixion, the Gospels, the Koran and the Jewish Sabbath. It is against the Muslim 
religion to represent the Prophet Mohammed in any shape or form. Language must be used 
sensitively and accurately and be consistent in our description of different religions. Use of a term 
such as “Islamic Fundamentalist” has to pass the test of whether we would talk about Christian or 
Hindu Fundamentalism. 
PORTRAYAL – PORTRAYAL OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS 
People and countries should not be defined by their religions unless it is strictly relevant. Particular 
religious groups or factions should not be portrayed as speaking for their faith as a whole. 
Thoughtless portrayal can be offensive, especially if it implies that a particular faith is hostile or 
alien to all outside it. For example, footage of chanting crowds of Islamic activists should not be 
used to illustrate the whole Muslim world. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant guidelines, taking into account all 
the information relating to this case. 
The Committee considered the complaint in two parts. 
i) The programme was inaccurate because, in contrast to the impression given, Muslims had 
no right to be in the Holy Land in the first place and it is not more sacred to Muslims than 
Christians. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 33 
The Committee felt that the style of commentary was key to considering this aspect of the 
complaint. The commentary technique used in this programme described the battle between 
Saladin and Richard the Lionheart from the perspectives of the two men involved, rather than from 
a position of neutrality. Thus, the Committee felt, the claims on Jerusalem and the Holy Land made 
in the programme were made from the perspective of the two men involved; they were not the 
programme makers’ opinions. Moreover, even in using this technique, the programme made it 
clear that both men thought that they had the legitimate claim to the land and that it was sacred to 
them. The Committee agreed that the programme was at pains to present the thinking on both 
sides of the battle. There was no bias or inaccuracy on the part of the programme makers, as the 
complainant alleged. The Committee noted that the guidelines stated that historical dramas should 
“aim to give a fair account of historical events”. Given that the perspectives of both sides were 
represented in this programme the Committee agreed that the drama met these guidelines. 
ii) One of the programme’s “experts” asserted the “superiority of Islam” despite historic and 
ongoing Muslim aggression, conquest and jihad. 
The Committee agreed that the key section of the programme to examine in considering this 
element of the complaint was that which detailed Saladin’s sparing of the Christian population in 
Jerusalem in 1187 in order to gain moral superiority. The Committee examined the commentary 
and expert contribution to this section of the programme. The Committee agreed that achieving 
moral superiority by sparing blood was clearly represented as Saladin’s aim rather than what the 
programme makers believed he actually achieved. The commentary stated: “Salah al-Din aimed to 
show that Islam was militarily and morally superior to the Christian faith.” The Committee then 
examined the words of Professor Carole Hillenbrand, the expert interviewed about this episode, 
and concluded that she was also explaining the motivation behind Saladin’s actions – to assert 
moral superiority – rather than actually claiming that Saladin achieved that. (“Salah al-Din decided 
to teach the crusaders a lesson. That was that when you conquer a city you show mercy and you 
show the values of your faith as being superior to those of the enemy, and that was the lesson of 
Jerusalem in 1187.”) As such, it was appropriate for Professor Hillenbrand’s interpretation of 
events to be broadcast. The Committee also agreed that – whatever the view of the complainant 
about aggression in the name of Islam – this was irrelevant to their consideration as the 
programme was not making any claims about the moral superiority of Islam, either in this specific 
instance or in general. 
Overall, the Committee thought the programme to be a “fair account” of the battle between Saladin 
and Richard the Lionheart, when considered against the guidelines, and agreed that it therefore 
met the required standards. 
The Committee also considered the complainant’s question of whether it was BBC policy not to 
use the words “Islam” or “Muslim” in a negative context. The Committee noted that, rightly, this was 
not BBC policy and observed that a range of words – including “Arab” and “Muslim” – were used to 
describe figures depicted in the programme. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 34 
Woman’s Hour drama: Passover 
BBC Radio 4, 25–29 April 2005 
10.45am and repeated at 7.45pm 
a) The programme 
Passover was a Woman’s Hour comedy drama about a family gathering for Passover dinner in 
New York City in 1960. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant claimed that the programme “engendered” anti-Semitism by: 
· disguising Nazi behaviour as humour 
· using “ridiculous” caricatures 
The complainant also stated that the drama reinforced the BBC’s “strong left wing fascist 
inclinations, whose ultimate goal is the elimination of Israel”. 
The complainant requested the opportunity to speak to the person responsible for airing the 
programme and to question the writer. 
The complaint was not upheld by the ECU and the complainant appealed to the GPCC. 
c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines (pre July 2005) 
TASTE AND DECENCY – RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES 
[This guideline applies overall and with “full force “ in comedy.] 
Programme makers dealing with religious themes should be aware of what may cause offence. 
Programme makers and schedulers of international services should consider carefully the varying 
sensitivities of audiences in different parts of the world. What may be unexceptional in a U.K. 
programme may raise strong feelings elsewhere. Advice can often be given by the departments 
dealing with religious programmes in both domestic and international services, or by the relevant 
World Service language sections. 
Deep offence will also be caused by profane references or disrespect, whether verbal or visual, 
directed at deities, scriptures, holy days and rituals which are at the heart of various religions – for 
example, the Crucifixion, the Gospels, the Koran and the Jewish Sabbath. It is against the Muslim 
religion to represent the Prophet Mohammed in any shape or form. Language must be used 
sensitively and accurately and be consistent in our description of different religions. Use of a term 
such as “Islamic Fundamentalist” has to pass the test of whether we would talk about Christian or 
Hindu Fundamentalism. 
Particular care should be taken with programmes to be broadcast on the principal holy days of the 
main religions to ensure that unnecessary offence is not caused by material that might be more 
acceptable at other times. 
What constitutes blasphemy and how seriously it is viewed, varies within and between different 
religions and cultures. Blasphemy is a criminal offence in the UK and advice should be sought, 
through Heads of Department or Commissioning Executives, from Editorial Policy and lawyers in 
any instance where the possibility of blasphemy may arise. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 35 
TASTE AND DECENCY – COMEDY AND ENTERTAINMENT 
Comedy enjoys special licence. It flourishes on departure from the norm and exploiting people’s 
misfortunes. Even so it must be well judged, not gratuitous unnecessarily cruel or designed to 
harm or humiliate a person or group. 
PORTRAYAL – PORTRAYAL OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS 
People and countries should not be defined by their religions unless it is strictly relevant. Particular 
religious groups or factions should not be portrayed as speaking for their faith as a whole. 
Thoughtless portrayal can be offensive, especially if it implies that a particular faith is hostile or 
alien to all outside it. For example, footage of chanting crowds of Islamic activists should not be 
used to illustrate the whole Muslim world. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into 
account all the material relating to the case. The Committee considered the drama to be a fair and 
inoffensive portrayal of a Jewish family in New York, their relationships and the traditions and 
customs they observed. The drama explained and detailed Jewish customs in some depth, 
demonstrating concern to portray these accurately and in a manner that would educate non-Jewish 
listeners about Judaism. The Committee took the view that the characters in the drama were 
somewhat exaggerated but that this is a common convention in drama and was within the 
boundaries of acceptable portrayal. The Committee concluded that was a slight work and mildly 
amusing. There was nothing in the drama to suggest anti-Semitism or “Nazi behaviour”, nor had 
the complainant substantiated these serious charges with specific evidence from the script, 
storylines or characterisation. Overall, the Committee took the view that the programme met the 
required guidelines. 
Finding: not upheld. 
Islam pages, BBC Religion & Ethics website 
bbc.co.uk 
a) The item 
The complaint concerned the Islam series by the BBC Religion & Ethics unit, as published on 
bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam. 
b) The complaint 
This related to the phrase “peace be upon him” or “pbuh”, which was used after the mention of 
Muhammad’s name in the Religion & Ethics web pages on Islam. 
The complainant objected to the use of “pbuh” on the grounds that in his view: 
· It is a prayer for the repose of the soul of Muhammad and represents an intrusion of the religion 
of the journalist into his/her public function. 
· This is a matter of courtesy and respect for the sensitivities of those addressed. 
· In which case, a parallel instance would be the polite avoidance of AD and BC, which carry 
Christian connotations, and the use instead of CE and BCE. 
· There should be neutral coverage of religions across the board. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 36 
The Head of the ECU did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the GPCC. 
c) Relevant Editorial Guidelines (post July 2005) 
IMPARTIALITY & DIVERSITY OF OPINION 
Introduction 
Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our 
services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our 
commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. 
The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, 
authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world 
to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial 
subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing 
with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is 
forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than 
broadcasting. 
Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections. 
Achieving impartiality 
Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to achieving it will 
therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience 
expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. 
I
mpartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open 
minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being 
objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of 
every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each 
view. 
News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 
RELIGION 
Introduction 
The BBC respects the fundamental human right to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and 
religion, this includes an individual’s freedom to worship, teach, practise and observe. At the same 
time, we recognise our duty to protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustified offence or likely harm. 
We aim to achieve this by ensuring our output is not used to denigrate the beliefs of others. 
Religion editorial principles 
· We will ensure that the beliefs and practices of the great world faiths are described accurately 
and impartially. 
· We will ensure the religious views and beliefs of an individual, a religion or religious 
denomination are not misrepresented, abused or discriminated against, as judged against 
generally accepted standards. 
· We will reflect an awareness of the religious sensitivity of references to, or uses of, names, 
images, the historic deities, rituals, scriptures and language at the heart of the different faiths 
and ensure that any use of, or verbal or visual reference to them are treated with care and 
editorially justified. Examples include the Crucifixion, Holy Communion, the Koran, and the 
Jewish Sabbath. 
· We will respect the religious sensitivity surrounding the observance of holy days and the 
principal festivals of the various faiths so that unnecessary offence is avoided by material that 
might be more acceptable at other times. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 37 
In output dealing with the religious views and/or beliefs of a religion or religious denomination as 
the central subject, we should make clear both the identity of the faith and the purpose of the 
output. It should not be used to recruit. Contributors should not be allowed to undermine or 
denigrate the religious beliefs of others. 
We should treat any claims made in our religious programmes for the special powers or abilities of 
a living person or group, with due objectivity. Such claims should not be made when significant 
numbers of children may be expected to be watching television or when children are particularly 
likely to be listening to the radio, or in online content likely to appeal to a high proportion of 
children. 
Comedy and satire always have the potential for offence. Specialist advice is available from the 
Religion and Ethics department and from colleagues in the World Service as well as Editorial 
Policy. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, taking into 
account all the information relating to this case. The Committee noted that, within the Religion & 
Ethics web pages, the pages on each of the specific religions were written from the perspective of 
a person who practised that religion. Thus, for example, the pages on Islam used the phrase 
“pbuh” after mention of Muhammad, as is the Islamic custom, but those on the Baha’i faith did not; 
the pages on the Christian religion had used the secular BCE and CE convention in the past – and 
at the time that the complainant had first made his complaint – but these pages now used BC and 
AD, as was the Christian convention. 
The Committee agreed that the practice of writing each of the religion sites from the perspective of 
someone who practised that religion was within the editorial guidelines, in that it demonstrated 
consistency across the board and was thus impartial. It also agreed that the site editor was correct 
to now use BC and AD on the Christianity pages, rather than BCE and CE, in order to maintain a 
consistency of approach between the sites. The statement on the Religion & Ethics website which 
explained why each religion’s pages had been written in the way they were was very clear. 
However, the Committee was of the opinion that this explanation should have been more 
prominent as it may have led some users of the site to conclude that disproportionate deference 
was being shown to Islam when they looked at those pages, and this was not the case. It was 
important to underline the site’s impartiality by making this explanation prominent as well as clear. 
The Committee was of the view that the site was impartial and unbiased, treating all the religions 
mentioned in the same way. The site met the required editorial standards. In order to make this 
clearer to users, the Committee agreed that the explanation as to why specific religious customs 
were observed in certain parts of the site should be made more prominent. 
Action: The Chairman to write to the Editor, Religion & Ethics, asking that the explanation that 
pages about individual religions were written from the perspective of believers in that religion be 
placed more prominently on the site. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 38 
The Chris Moyles Show 
BBC Radio 1, 25 July 2005 
Jo Whiley 
BBC Radio 1, 29 July 2005 
The Catherine Tate Show 
BBC Two, 21 July 2005 and 4 August 2005 
a) The programmes 
Chris Moyles presents Radio 1’s flagship Breakfast Show. It begins at 6.55am and lasts just over 
three hours, with news and sport read half-hourly between 7am and 8.30am, and again at 9.30am. 
A typical half-hour segment will contain between 10 and 15 minutes of chat, discussing the team 
members’ lives, Radio 1’s features, music or popular culture. There are regular celebrity guests or 
interviews, with the occasional live music performance. 
Jo Whiley’s show (10am–1pm) is heavily music-based, including live guests and performances. 
The show also has regular weekly slots for film reviews and celebrity gossip. 
The Catherine Tate Show is a BBC Two comedy sketch show broadcast at 9.30pm in which 
Catherine Tate plays a variety of male and female characters of various ages. 
b) The complaints 
The complainant outlined a general complaint, using three instances from the programmes above 
as evidence. 
Overall complaint 
The complainant argued that the BBC had allowed homophobic material to be included in its 
transmissions, listing three specific examples. He believed the BBC was failing to protect lesbians 
and gay men in the same way it protected other minority groups from racist, sexist and stereotyped 
material. He felt that this was unfortunate in an environment where “casual homophobia” is 
common and goes unchallenged. 
Three programme complaints 
The Chris Moyles Show 
The complaint was about Chris Moyles dismissing a ring tune by saying “I don’t want that one, it’s 
gay.” 
The complainant argued that using the word “gay” in this context was clearly derogatory and that 
the presenter “unthinkingly” used a word in a way he should not have done. 
Jo Whiley 
The complaint concerned an interview with Jayceon Taylor (aka The Game) on the Jo Whiley 
show. Jayceon Taylor is a rap artist and described gay men as “faggots” and “not real men” during 
the interview. 
The complainant said that this was one of the most abusive terms someone could use about gay 
people and the BBC failed to take it seriously. Radio 1 should have broadcast the apology 
apparently offered by Taylor’s management. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 39 
The Catherine Tate Show 
The second series featured a character (Derek Faye) who is an overtly effeminate man constantly 
outraged at the widespread assumption that he is gay. The complainant took offence that the 
viewers were invited to laugh at the character’s campness and “obvious” gayness. 
The ECU did not uphold this complaint and the complainant appealed to the GPCC. In addition to 
his complaints about programme content outlined above, he also made a further complaint about 
the handling of his case. Specifically, the complainant was offended by a comment made in the 
finding letter by the Head of the ECU: 
“The fact that you, as a gay man, drew very different conclusions from the humour is much to be 
regretted, and I’m again sorry for the offence you were caused.” 
The complainant believed that this blamed members of minority groups for “not getting the joke” 
and failing to see things the way the majority do. The complainant asked the Committee to 
consider whether or not it felt this comment was appropriate. 
c) Relevant Editorial Guidelines (post July 2005) 
HARM & 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 and publish innovative 
and challenging content appropriate to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the 
vulnerable. 
When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending some of our audience we 
must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose. Such material may include, but is 
not limited to, offensive language, humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We 
must be sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of children, as 
well as clearly signposting the material. 
Audience expectations 
We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including children, in relation to the 
expectations of the likely audience at a particular time on a particular day, and in relation to the 
nature of the service as well as the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following 
questions: 
· what is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely number and age range of 
children in the audience taking into account school time, weekends and holidays? We should be 
aware that school holidays are different in different parts of the UK. 
· does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations which may be challenged 
by the content? 
· is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in the inclusion of difficult 
or challenging material? 
· has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted? 
· are there any special sensitivities surrounding the slot, for example religious festivals, and 
anniversaries of major events? 
· what is the likely “pull-through audience” i.e. what is the nature of the preceding content and 
what kind of audience is it likely to attract? 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 40 
Language 
Offensive language is one of the most frequent causes of complaint. It can be a particular source 
of offence in sub-titles or online. 
Judgements about its use are difficult because they depend on tone and context. There is no 
consensus about words that are acceptable, when, and by whom. Different words cause different 
degrees of offence in different parts of the world. So a person’s age, sex, education, employment, 
belief, nationality, and where they live, all impact on whether or not they might be offended. 
We do not include any offensive language in pre-school children’s programmes or websites (four 
years and under). 
We must not include offensive language in programmes or websites made for younger children 
except in the most exceptional circumstances. 
We must not include offensive language before the Watershed or on radio when children are 
particularly likely to be in our audience, or in online content likely to appeal to a high proportion of 
children, unless it is justified by the context and then its frequent use must be avoided. 
We must be able to justify the use of offensive language in challenging factual programmes, 
comedy and drama broadcast throughout the day on our speech radio stations. It will also 
generally require clear content information. 
We must not include the MOST offensive language before the Watershed, or on radio when 
children are particularly likely to be in our audience, or in online content likely to appeal to a high 
proportion of children. 
We must make careful judgements about the use of the MOST offensive language post-Watershed 
and ensure it is clearly signposted. 
Language that causes most offence includes: 
· sexual swearwords 
· terms of racist abuse 
· terms of sexual and sexist abuse or abuse referring to sexuality 
· pejorative terms relating to illness or disabilities 
· casual or derogatory use of holy names or religious words and especially in combination with 
other offensive language. 
Portrayal 
We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom’s people and cultures in our services. 
Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in our society but we should not 
perpetuate it. We should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be 
described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially 
justified. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee agreed that it should consider each of the specific programmes complained of in 
turn before turning its attention to the general complaint of homophobia. The Chairman requested 
that the Committee take into account all the information provided to them relating to this case in 
reaching its decision. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 41 
The Chris Moyles Show 
The Committee noted that the word “gay”, in addition to being used to mean “homosexual” or 
“carefree”, was often now used to mean “lame” or “rubbish”. This is a widespread current usage of 
the word amongst young people. The Committee was familiar with hearing this word in this context. 
In broadcasting to an audience of predominantly young people, it was to be expected that Chris 
Moyles would use expressions and words which the listeners used themselves. The Committee 
believed that, in describing a ring tone as “gay”, Chris Moyles was conveying that he thought it was 
“rubbish” rather than “homosexual”. The Committee acknowledged that this use of the word “gay” 
could cause offence to some listeners. However, the Committee believed that Chris Moyles, when 
using the word, had meant no offence to gay people. He was not being homophobic in his use of 
the word. The Committee was of the view that the vast majority of those listening to the programme 
would not have taken offence at the use of this word in this context and the use of the word would 
therefore have been in line with audience expectations for that particular programme. It did, 
however, feel that it would be advisable to think more carefully about using the word “gay” in its 
derogatory sense in the future, given the multiple meanings of the word in modern usage and the 
potential to cause unintended offence. Nevertheless, given the programme’s audience, the 
Committee considered the broadcast to be within the relevant editorial guidelines. 
Jo Whiley 
The Committee agreed with the complainant that The Game’s comments were very offensive, 
completely unacceptable and clearly homophobic. However, it also noted that the presenter, Jo 
Whiley, was swift to make a full apology for what had been said and to distance herself and the 
network from The Game’s comments, stating: “The Game said something which was really very 
offensive and... I couldn’t quite believe I was hearing what I was hearing as he said it... If it did 
cause offence for anyone listening at the moment, I’ll apologise on his behalf.” The Committee 
agreed that the presenter showed courage and presence of mind in making such a sincere, full and 
swift apology. The Committee agreed that this apology was an appropriate and proportionate 
response to what had occurred and meant that, taken as a whole, the programme did not breach 
required programme standards. 
The Committee also agreed that it had been appropriate for Radio 1 to cancel further interviews 
with The Game. It accepted Radio 1’s judgement that to no longer play The Game’s records on 
Radio 1, as the complainant wanted, would have drawn further attention to the episode. The swift 
response from presenter and station meant that the Committee considered that the matter had 
been appropriately dealt with at the time and as such, the required editorial standards had been 
met. 
The Catherine Tate Show 
The Committee noted that the complainant was complaining about the character of Derek 
throughout the second series of The Catherine Tate Show, his complaint prompted in particular by 
the editions of the programme broadcast on 21 July 2005 and 4 August 2005. The Committee 
agreed that the humour derived from the Derek sketches lay in the fact that he rejected the 
acceptance of those around him and refused to recognise himself as gay (homosexual), rather 
than in the fact of his being gay. Derek was an extreme stereotype of a gay man but humour is 
often based on stereotypes. The purpose of the sketches was to be funny, not realistic. The 
Committee noted that the series was dominated by a number of extreme, ridiculous characters 
who were not meant to be taken literally or too seriously. The Committee agreed that humour does 
and should challenge and push boundaries. The series was very well received and popular, 
demonstrating that its challenging material was acceptable to most people. In the light of this, the 
Committee agreed that the Derek sketches met the required editorial standards. 
The Committee also considered the overarching complaint that the BBC transmitted homophobic 
material. The Committee concluded that that the three broadcasts had met the required editorial 
standards and did not demonstrate homophobia – but did note that use of the word “gay” in the 
derogatory sense should be used with care given its potential to offend. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 42 
The Committee also discussed the complainant’s claim that the BBC does not treat sexuality with 
the same sensitivity as race. The Committee agreed that the same considerations – for example, 
weighing possible offence against editorial merits – would apply equally to both issues. 
Programmes dealing with either issue would apply the same editorial guidelines and the GPCC 
would judge complaints about portrayal of a racial group or of a particular sexual orientation 
against the same guidelines with equal rigour. 
The Committee asked the Chairman to apologise for any offence caused by the comments from 
the ECU in its finding letter to the complainant. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 43 
Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints 
Committee 
The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) consists of five Governors of the BBC, 
who are responsible to the full Board of Governors for ensuring that complaints made by viewers 
and listeners are “given due consideration by and are properly handled by” the Corporation, as 
required under the Charter. The activities and conclusions of the GPCC are reported to the full 
Board of Governors. The Committee members are Richard Tait (Chairman), Deborah Bull, 
Professor Fabian Monds, Angela Sarkis and Professor Merfyn Jones. 
I
n fulfilling this remit, the GPCC undertakes regular reviews of the BBC’s processes and 
performance in relation to complaints handling. In particular, the GPCC provides for the 
independent oversight of the BBC’s strategic approach to complaints handling, and for monitoring 
the effectiveness of its processes, to ensure that both serve the public interest and reflect best 
practice. 
I
n line with the GPCC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by 
BBC management, it is also the specific function of the GPCC to consider appeals against 
decisions and actions of the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) in dealing with serious editorial 
complaints, where complaints allege: 
· that the complainant has suffered unfair treatment in a transmitted item 
· that the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a programme or item as 
transmitted, or in the process of making the programme or item, or 
· that there has otherwise been a failure adequately to observe the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines 
I
n order to give full consideration to an appeal, the GPCC may make any further enquiries of the 
complainant, or of those responsible for making the programme, which it considers necessary to 
determine the appeal fairly. The GPCC aims to reach a final decision on an appeal within 12 weeks 
of receiving the request. 
The findings for all appeals are reported each quarter in this bulletin, Programme Complaints: 
Appeals to the Governors. The bulletin is available online at www.bbcgovernors.co.uk. 
For a copy of the full remit of the GPCC, please write to: 
The Secretary to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 
BBC 
Room 211 
35 Marylebone High Street 
London 
W1U 4AA