Programme Complaints 
Appeals to the Governors 
October to December 2005 
Issued February 2006 
Reissued March 2006 (amended) 

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. 
March 2006 
This bulletin has been republished because a finding was mistakenly omitted. The finding relates to 
A History of Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians – The 1967 War on bbc.co.uk/news, and can be 
found on page 10. Note that this appeal was upheld. 
We have also taken the opportunity to correct a mistake in the previous bulletin published in 
November 2005, in the finding on Ten O’Clock News on BBC One, 18 May 2004, and Today BBC 
Radio 4, 19 May 2004 and 21 May 2004. The correction appears on page 29. 
We apologise for both errors. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 3 
Foreword by the Chairman of the 
Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 
It 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 breaches the standards set out. 
This bulletin provides a summary of the ten findings published by the GPCC between October and 
December 2005. Of the findings published, two appeals were upheld in full and one was upheld in 
part. 
In this period the GPCC considered a range of appeals which looked at many of the BBC’s editorial 
guidelines. In the run-up to last year’s General Election, it was to be expected that the BBC’s 
political coverage would come in for very close scrutiny. This is reflected in the two appeals 
considered by the GPCC concerning party political bias. Impartiality in political coverage is 
monitored continuously by both the BBC Governors and BBC management. This is done using 
feedback from viewers and listeners regularly sought through impartiality surveys which are carried 
out amongst the general adult population and twice yearly amongst MPs. 
The Committee also continued to receive a number of appeals about alleged breaches of taste and 
decency, once again demonstrating that this is a key concern for some members of the public. 
Richard Tait 
Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 4 
Contents 
Page 
Summary of findings (October–December 2005) 
Appeals upheld or upheld in part 
Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 28 April 2005 5 
Hard Graft: the Story of a 1930s Work Camp, Radio 4, 4 May 2005 6 
A History of Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians – The 1967 War, bbc.co.uk/news 10 
Appeals not upheld 
Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, BBC One, 15 April 2005 12 
Blue Peter, BBC One, 25 February 2005 14 
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, BBC One, 30 May 2005 16 
Analysis, BBC World Service, 8 June 2005 17 
Bring Your Husband to Heel, BBC Two, 22 August 2005 20 
Thought for the Day, Radio 4, 26 May 2005 22 
Today, Radio 4, 4 May 2005 25 
Correction 
Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 18 May 2004, and Today, Radio 4, 
19 May 2004 and 21 May 2004 29 
Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 30 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 5 
Summary of findings (October–December 2005) 
Appeals upheld or upheld in part 
Ten O’Clock News 
BBC One, 28 April 2005 
a) The item 
The subject of this complaint was a news report by Guto Hari in the Ten O’Clock News about an 
edition of Question Time, broadcast at 8.30–10pm on the same evening. Question Time featured 
interviews with leaders of the main political parties. In turn, Charles Kennedy, Michael Howard and 
Tony Blair came on stage to face questions from a studio audience. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant said that, whilst Guto Hari pointed out that Michael Howard was greeted by boos 
when he entered, he neglected to say that Tony Blair was also greeted by boos. He also 
complained that the volume of the boos in the news report on Tony Blair appeared quieter than 
during Question Time. The complainant alleged that this was evidence of political bias. 
The complaint was handled initially by BBC Information. The Head of Television News and the 
Head of Political Programmes agreed that it would have been better if reference had been made to 
the boos which Mr Blair faced as he walked on the stage. The complaint was then referred to the 
Editorial Complaints Unit. The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint and 
the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant programme standards 
Impartiality – 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. 
Impartiality – 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... Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC 
programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters on controversial issues of public 
policy. 
Broadcasting during elections – General: 
There is no area of broadcasting where the BBC’s commitment to impartiality is more closely 
scrutinised than in reporting election campaigns. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 6 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee recognised that the news report had been compiled by a very experienced reporter 
working under significant time pressure. It considered that, overall, the report had been a good 
piece of journalism that gave a fair and balanced account of the event. This had included 
highlighting a challenging situation that faced each of the party leaders. 
The Committee noted, however, that Tony Blair’s Question Time entrance was greeted by 
pronounced booing and this did not come across in the subsequent news report. Given that the 
report referred to booing during Michael Howard’s entrance, it ought also to have referred to 
booing during Tony Blair’s entrance. Failure to do so gave an inaccurate and partial impression of 
the reception Tony Blair received. 
The Committee concluded therefore that, in the context of the report, the failure to refer to booing 
at Tony Blair’s entrance had been unfortunate and breached the guidelines on accuracy and 
impartiality. This element of the complaint was upheld. The Committee did not uphold the broader 
complaint of political manipulation. It welcomed the prompt acknowledgement by senior BBC 
managers that the item was flawed. The Committee required no further action to be taken. 
Finding: upheld (no further action required). 
Hard Graft: the Story of a 1930s Work Camp 
Radio 4, 4 May 2005 
a) The programme 
This radio documentary told the story of how unemployed men from the north of England worked in 
labour camps in the 1930s, planting Thetford Forest. It drew on information from academics, 
archive material, past witnesses and contemporary sources. The Radio Times billing asked: “But 
did the camps make a useful contribution or were they no more than slave camps?” 
The documentary was made by the independent production company Pier Productions. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant was a contributor to the documentary. The programme also drew on extracts from 
letters written by her father. He was employed by the Ministry of Labour, and his letters described 
the day-to-day running of the camps in the 1930s. The complainant says she has subsequently 
undertaken “considerable research” into the role of the scheme in “expanding our forests”. 
The complainant stated that, overall, Pier Productions misled her regarding the programme’s 
agenda. In particular that: 
i) Pier Productions told her initially: “The programme will tell the history of Thetford Forest and, 
in particular, the role of the camps. A mix of social and natural history.” In fact, the 
documentary had been a generalised account of “such camps”. 
ii) Pier Productions told her initially that its intention was “to structure much of the programme 
around your father’s letters”. In fact, the programme only included his letters amongst a 
range of other sources. 
iii) Extracts from two “letters” quoted in the programme were in fact “concocted” from a 
newspaper article, and a third was entirely “fictitious”. 
iv) The programme inaccurately stated that “no traces of the camps remain”. In fact, West Tofts 
is still in use and remains basically unchanged since the 1930s. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 7 
v) She only agreed to be interviewed, and to provide copies of her father’s letters, on the 
condition that “adverse political commentary be avoided”, as this was not relevant to the 
Thetford Forest history, and particularly that the programme would not refer to the camps as 
“slave camps”. In fact, pre-transmission publicity included references to “slave camps”. The 
programme also gave a misleading impression of the level of contemporary opposition to 
such camps. In particular, it did not make clear that the only real opposition came from the 
Communist Party. 
vi) The programme’s producer was changed mid-production without the complainant’s 
knowledge, resulting in confidential material being passed to a third party unknowingly. 
vii) After confronting Pier Productions about her concerns, the response was “abrupt and 
downright rude”. 
viii) The programme did not credit her copyright of the letters. 
ix) The idea for the programme came from her initial research for which she received no credit. 
After an initial response from BBC Information, the complaint was referred for investigation by the 
Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). 
The ECU’s Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant 
appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant programme standards 
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. 
Fairness and straight dealing 
General: 
Programmes should be based on fairness, openness and straight dealing. This is important to 
everyone involved. It reflects concern for the interests of the programme, the interests of the 
people who appear in it and the interests of the audience. All these interests are important, 
although none of them is automatically more important than the others. 
Dealing with contributors: 
From the start, programme makers should be as clear as they can be about the nature of the 
programme and its purpose. Unless there are special and legitimate considerations of 
confidentiality they should be open about their plans, and honest with anyone taking part in a 
programme. 
Contributors may be unfamiliar with broadcasting. Processes and assumptions that a professional 
may regard as obvious may not be shared by a layperson. 
Whether they are public figures or ordinary citizens, contributors ought to be able to assume that 
they will be dealt with in a fair way. They should not feel misled, deceived or misrepresented 
before, during or after the programme, unless there is a clear public interest, when dealing with 
criminal or antisocial activity. Contributors have a right to know: 
· What a programme is about 
· What kind of contribution they are expected to make – an interview or a part in a discussion, for 
example. If invited to take part in a debate or a discussion they should be told in advance about 
the range of views being represented, and wherever possible, who the other participants will be. 
· Whether their contribution will be live or recorded and whether it will be edited. They should not 
be given a guarantee that their contribution will be broadcast, but nor should we normally record 
a substantial contribution unless we expect to use it. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 8 
d) Email from programme producer 
The programme producer described the proposed programme in the following email of 
14 September 2004: 
In it we will tell the story of the early years of Thetford Forest (Britain’s largest lowland forest) and 
in particular the role of the camps. Essentially a mix of social and natural history. My intention, with 
your permission, is to structure much of the programme around your father’s diaries. These would 
be read by an actor. 
I am lining up several academics ... to contribute to the programme and I will also put out a call for 
any senior citizen who might remember the camps. And I am also keen, naturally, to record an 
interview with you ... I think the exciting thing about this programme is that it could draw out more 
people with primary sources such as your own and this will add to our knowledge on an institution 
that we really, collectively, know so little about... 
e) The Committee’s decision 
i) The overall description of the programme 
The Committee noted that, in an email of 14 September 2004, the original producer said: “The 
programme will tell the history of Thetford Forest ... and, in particular, the role of the camps. ... a 
mix of social and natural history.” 
The Committee considered that this description accurately described the transmitted programme, 
and that the complainant had not been misled about the overall approach to be taken. 
ii) How the complainant’s father’s letters were used 
The Committee noted that the programme makers initially told the complainant that their intention 
was “to structure much of the programme around your father’s letters” and that, in fact, the 
programme had included his letters amongst a range of other sources. 
The Committee understood that the initial proposal was made before the programme team had 
seen the letters. The Committee took the view that the programme team should have been more 
careful and open about how programme ideas evolve, and should have qualified their initial 
proposal as subject to reading the letters themselves. The Committee recognised that, elsewhere 
in the email, the producer had referred to a range of other sources he would draw on. It concluded 
therefore that, although the initial proposition was not ideally framed, it did not mislead, deceive or 
misrepresent the position. 
iii) The use of the letters as source materials 
The Committee noted that, overall, the extracts of the letters had been clearly signposted as 
originating from the same source: they were voiced by the same actor, and were introduced as 
letters written by the complainant’s father. 
This complaint referred to two “extracts” which were voiced in the same way but were, in fact, 
extracts from a local newspaper article. A third sentence was inserted and apparently made up. 
The Committee took the view that the letters should be regarded as source material drawn on in 
the making of the programme. It concluded, therefore, that it was inaccurate to represent other 
material as coming from this source. 
This element of the complaint was upheld. 
iv) What remains of the camp(s) 
The Committee noted that the ECU had already accepted that a small number of buildings dating 
from the 1920s and 1930s still remain at West Tofts. The programme maker had also apologised 
for stating that “no trace” of the camp existed, and the programme should have stated that “little 
trace” remained. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 9 
The Committee considered that the programme reference had been inaccurate. It upheld this 
element of the complaint, but considered that it had already been appropriately acknowledged, and 
constituted a technical breach of the guidelines. 
v) and vi) The terms of the complainant’s consent 
The Committee understood that the complainant believed the programme makers had made 
undertakings that “adverse political commentary” would be avoided in the documentary and, in 
particular, that the term “slave camps” would not be used. 
The Committee regretted that the complainant had formed the impression that the programme 
team had made such undertakings. 
The Committee noted that it was told at the outset that the documentary would be “essentially a 
mix of social and natural history”. This suggested a broad approach to the story of the camps. The 
Committee considered that, although it was unable to find conclusively on these matters without 
evidence either way, it did not have reason to believe the guidelines had been breached. 
vii) The impression given of contemporary opposition to the camps 
The Committee noted that a representative of the National Unemployed Workers’ Unit was 
interviewed on the programme, and was clearly labelled as a communist. 
This had been counterpointed by one of the former camp inmates who extolled the modern layout, 
the comforts of hot and cold water, showers, and four shillings a week pocket money. The 
programme also gave descriptions of how well they ate in the camps and of sports days. 
The Committee concluded that, overall, the programme gave a reasonably balanced picture both 
of life inside the camps at the time and of how they are viewed in retrospect through the historian 
and academics interviewed. 
viii) The transfer of materials from the original to the new programme producer 
The Committee took the view that the transfer of materials was unproblematic, and did not raise 
material issues for its consideration. 
i
x) The response to the complaint about the Radio Times billing 
The Committee noted that the complainant maintained that the latter programme producer had 
been “rude and abrupt” in their conversation following the publication of the Radio Times, and that 
the producer denied he had been rude. 
The Committee concluded that it was unable to find on this matter, as it had no evidence either way. 
x) Credits 
The Committee reviewed the complaints that the complainant had not been credited either for her 
copyright of the letters, or for the idea for the programme coming from her initial research. 
The Committee took the view that the onus had been on the complainant to secure mention of 
copyright of the letters. The Committee concluded that the complainant had no claim to on-air 
credits, but noted that she had received a fee for the use of the letters. 
The Committee noted that the origin of the programme idea was disputed, in that the programme 
team maintained it had come from a local newspaper cutting. The Committee concluded that it was 
unable to find conclusively on this matter, as it had no evidence to support either party. 
f) Overall conclusion 
Finding: upheld in part. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 10 
The following finding was mistakenly omitted when the bulletin was originally published. 
We apologise for this error. The complainant and BBC management were notified of the 
upheld finding at the time, but an administrative error meant it was not included in the 
published bulletin. 
A History of Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians – The 1967 War 
bbc.co.uk/news 
a) The online article 
The article was an account of the 1967 War in a ‘timeline’ summarising Middle East history. It 
described the Israeli action and territorial gains. It then summarised UN Security Council 
Resolution 242. 
It said: 
“The UN issued Security Council Resolution 242, stressing ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of 
territory by war’ and calling for ‘withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 
recent conflict’.” 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt that the item misrepresented UN Resolution 242. In his view, the item took the 
two quotations out of context, suggesting that the Resolution condemned Israel for having acquired 
territory by force and instructed her to withdraw unilaterally. He maintained that, in fact, Resolution 
242 condemned no one and called for a negotiated settlement based on the principle of 
exchanging land for peace. 
The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to 
the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant editorial standards 
The Committee considered the complaint against the required broadcast standards, including the 
following parts of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines (in effect until 25 July 2005). 
Impartiality – 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. 
Journalistic values – Truth and accuracy: 
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. 
d) Full text of UN Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) 
The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East; 
Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just 
and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security; 
Emphasising further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United 
Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter; 
Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting 
peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 11 
· Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 
· Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the 
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their 
right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 
Affirms further the necessity, 
· For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; 
· For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; 
· For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, 
through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones; 
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle 
East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement 
and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions 
and principles in this resolution; 
Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of 
the Special Representative as soon as possible. 
e) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee noted that the full text of UN Resolution 242 gave balanced emphasis to principles 
to be applied both to Israel and to “every State in the area”. 
The Committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the online article did not 
accurately reflect this balance, and gave a biased impression. It therefore breached editorial 
standards on both accuracy and impartiality. 
The appeal was upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 12 
Appeals not upheld 
Friday Night with Jonathan Ross 
BBC One, 15 April 2005 
a) The programme 
This edition of Friday Night with Jonathan Ross included an interview with the actress Nicole 
Kidman, who joined Jonathan Ross as her latest movie The Interpreter opened in Britain. 
The programme was transmitted at 10.35–11.35pm on BBC One. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant was in the studio audience for the recording of the programme. He complained 
about the use of strong language both before and during the show, and complained that Jonathan 
Ross was insultingly rude in his interview with Nicole Kidman. 
The complainant received initial responses from the Head of Production at Open Mike and from 
BBC Information. The complaint was then referred for investigation by the Editorial Complaints Unit 
(ECU). The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant 
appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant programme standards 
BBC 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. 
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’s responsibility is to remain in touch with the views of its diverse audiences. These views 
will differ both domestically and internationally. People of different ages, convictions and cultures 
may have sharply differing expectations. 
The right to challenge audience expectations in surprising and innovative ways, when 
circumstances justify, must also be safeguarded. Comedy, drama, and the arts will sometimes 
seek to question existing assumptions about taste. 
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. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 13 
Television – The Watershed: 
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 
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. 
Comedy and entertainment: 
Comedy enjoys special licence. It flourishes on departures 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. General relaxation about sexual matters does not justify 
crudity. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
i) Was there excessive bad language? 
The Committee noted one instance of potentially offensive language in the transmitted programme 
(the reference to the General Election campaign as “arse-achingly tedious”). It did not feel this was 
inappropriate language for transmission at 10.45pm. 
ii) Did the programme breach the guidelines on taste and decency? 
The Committee noted, in particular, Jonathan Ross’s description of a visit to a safari park. This 
included hoping that one of the monkeys would “masturbate near the car”, and to discovering 
“human poo”, people “popping one out” and “taking a dump”. 
The Committee concluded that such references did not cross the boundaries of audience 
expectations, given the combination of the time slot and the audience’s knowledge and expectation 
of the Ross style of humour. 
iii) Was the interview insulting to Nicole Kidman? 
The Committee reviewed the interview with Nicole Kidman, and the complaints about references to 
her mother and grandmother. 
I
t noted that Jonathan Ross’s approach would be well known to Kidman’s publicists, and that the 
interview had been accepted on that basis. It took the view that Nicole Kidman appeared to be 
coping well with the cut and thrust of the interview. It did not uphold the complaint of insulting 
behaviour. 
Finding: not upheld. 
e) Further comment 
i) Warm-up 
The Committee reviewed the complaint about strong language in the warm-up to the show. It noted 
that the BBC’s editorial standards did not apply to pre-recording content for studio audiences. This 
complaint therefore fell outside the formal GPCC remit on editorial standards. The Committee 
noted that the allegations included frequent use of the f-word (although did not know whether this 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 14 
was correct or not). It was concerned, however, that the BBC was responsible for the studio 
audience’s experience as well as for transmitted material. 
The Committee asked that the Director of Television consider what was appropriate during 
warm-up acts, and whether producers should be advised on the matter. 
The Committee asked that the finding letter from the Chairman should explain the action being 
taken. 
ii) Delays in complaints handling 
The Committee noted a further complaint about the delay in the ECU response to this complaint. It 
agreed that the delay had been unacceptable, and asked that the finding letter should apologise for 
this and say it had been brought to the attention of management. 
i
ii) Response from the independent production company 
In reviewing the correspondence to date, the Committee noted that the tone of Open Mike’s reply 
to the complainant had been inappropriate. It required that BBC management review the oversight 
of complaints handling by independent production companies to ensure that it was in line with BBC 
practice. 
Blue Peter 
BBC One, 25 February 2005 
a) The item 
This item showed a day in the life of Blue Peter presenter Liz Barker with her new baby, Dexter. It 
included a sequence showing Liz Barker preparing a bottle for Dexter, and then giving him the 
bottle. The film was in a sequence of items which had followed Liz Barker through her pregnancy. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant argued that it was unsuitable for Liz Barker to demonstrate bottle-feeding her 
baby without mentioning breastfeeding, as this went against the recommendations of the 
Government and the World Health Organisation. 
For example, the complainant maintained that: 
· It was irresponsible for the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, to show the baby being bottlefed, 
without providing information about breastfeeding. 
· Showing Liz Barker preparing and giving the feed represented a promotion of bottle-feeding. 
This should have been balanced by information or a debate about breastfeeding and artificial 
feeding. 
· Young mothers are greatly influenced by seeing how those with whom they identify feed their 
babies, citing research evidence from the British Medical Journal and MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 
· The reduction of artificial feeding would address a wide range of medical issues including 
childhood obesity and asthma, and coronary heart disease and cancer. There are also risks to 
babies from artificial feeding. 
· Would Blue Peter, as a parallel example, show a presenter smoking a cigarette without 
comment, and justify this on the grounds that you do not seek to impose lifestyle choices? 
The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed 
to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 15 
c) Relevant programme standards 
Impartiality – 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. 
In 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. 
Imitative and anti-social behaviour – Imitation and children: 
Children’s play is often influenced by what they see on television. In programmes made for children 
or likely to be popular with them, we need to avoid showing actions or techniques which could lead 
to dangerous imitation. 
Smoking and drinking in children’s programmes should generally be avoided. It is advisable to 
discourage smoking and drinking by pop stars, actors and others who are admired by children 
when they appear in interviews for television. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee observed that the purpose of the item was to update the Blue Peter audience on 
the presenter’s life with her new baby. This included, as part of the account of her day, an 
illustration of the baby being fed. It also took the view that the item was simply an accurate 
reflection of the presenter’s day-to-day life and, as such, did not come across as a “promotion” of 
bottle-feeding. 
Having considered the complainant’s range of concerns, the Committee did not consider that the 
item breached the BBC’s Producer Guidelines. 
Finding: not upheld. 
e) Further comment 
The Committee agreed that the finding letter should apologise to the complainant that the 
complaints process had been a frustrating experience. It should say that the BBC understood her 
desire to promote healthy life choices, and did not dispute the benefits of breastfeeding, but that a 
simple item about Liz Barker’s life with her new baby was not the appropriate place to discuss 
these issues. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 16 
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 
BBC One, 30 May 2005 
a) The film 
The 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was shown on BBC One at 5.45pm on Monday 30 
May 2005. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt the film was unsuitable for this early time slot on a Bank Holiday because of 
its content of bad language and violence. 
In particular, the complainant maintained that: 
· The film contained a high level of bad language including “piss”, “bollocks”, “balls” and “bugger” 
(twice), as well as several uses of “bloody” and a scene where the length of a character’s penis 
was discussed. 
· The time of day on a Bank Holiday would have attracted many young viewers. 
· There was no warning at the beginning of the broadcast and there should be more 
comprehensive ways of issuing warnings beyond the Radio Times. 
The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to 
the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant programme standards 
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’. 
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. 
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. 
Signposts: 
The BBC has a responsibility to ensure that audiences have enough information on which to judge 
if a programme is likely to be one they want to watch or listen to, or if it is suitable for their children 
to watch and see. 
Signposts of this type should not usually be required for most pre-watershed programmes. 
However, when there is a risk that the audience may be taken by surprise, they should be alerted – 
for example, about a particularly graphic news report... Programme billings in Radio Times, Ceefax 
and other publicity material are useful as an additional means of signposting. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 17 
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 
audience or feels gratuitous. 
d) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee noted that potentially offensive language included the words ‘bastard’, ‘bollocks’, 
‘piss’, ‘bugger’ and ‘bloody’. The Committee gave careful consideration to the context in which 
these terms were used. It was satisfied that the language was part of the rough-and-tumble of the 
story, appropriate to the rough and coarse characters depicted and the age they lived in. It 
observed further that the terms were relatively mild; also that they were not heavily punched into 
the ‘foreground’ of the narrative, but melded into the storytelling in a relatively inoffensive fashion. 
The Committee concluded that the language did not breach the BBC’s Producer Guidelines on prewatershed 
programming. 
The Committee went on to consider the complainant’s concerns about the signposting for the 
programme. The Committee took the view that the film had not necessarily required a 
pre-transmission warning, and had not breached the BBC guidelines on signposting. 
The Committee noted that Ofcom – the industry regulator on harm and offence – had also 
previously considered and not upheld this complaint. The Committee agreed with the judgement 
of Ofcom. 
Finding: not upheld. 
Analysis 
BBC World Service, 8 June 2005 
a) The programme 
The Analysis website says that the programme sets out to examine “the ideas and forces which 
shape public policy in Britain and abroad”, with contributors who are “policy-makers or leading 
authorities in their fields”. 
This edition, presented by Emma Joseph, focused on the forthcoming elections in Haiti and 
concern that continuing violence in Haiti could endanger these elections. The presentation cue 
posed the questions: “Where will the crisis end? And what can the international community do to 
resolve it?” 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt that the programme was characterised by “blatant bias, poor analysis and 
sheer misinformation”. 
The complaint was handled at Stage 1 by the Editor of Analysis, One Planet. The complainant was 
not satisfied with this response, so the complaint was referred for investigation by the Editorial 
Complaints Unit (ECU). 
The complainant made four main points in his complaint to the ECU: 
i) He felt the programme was biased in its choice of interviewees. In particular, the Canadian 
Prime Minister’s special adviser on Haiti, Denis Coderre, was given significant airtime to 
praise the interim government of Haiti while “no one representing the legitimate opposition in 
Haiti [the Lavalas Party] was heard”. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 18 
ii) He felt the summary of Haiti’s recent history was biased. He said there was no mention of the 
US backing of the first coup against Aristide in 1990, or the conditions dictated by the US 
before allowing Aristide’s return to office. Moreover, the crucial role of the US, Canada and 
France in last year’s illegal overthrow of Aristide was not discussed. 
iii) He argued that the programme used biased language. In particular: 
· Use of the phrase “it took another intervention to get rid of him”: he felt the audience was 
invited to admire the beneficence of the US in “helping to arrange” Aristide’s departure 
from Haiti, but not given Aristide’s version of events. 
· The presenter also said: “the internationally-approved interim government have been 
building up a new and non partisan police force”. The complainant alleged that only the 
USA, France and Canada actually supported Laturtue’s regime, so the phrase was 
misleading. 
· The description of the police as “non-partisan”, which he felt was not accurate. 
iv) Finally, he argued that the programme’s conclusion was biased. 
The ECU’s Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint, and the complainant 
appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Relevant programme standards 
The BBC’s 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. If we live in a more diverse and fragmented 
society, 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. 
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. 
Impartiality and diversity of opinion: 
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. 
I
mpartiality – 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. 
Impartiality – 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 – Achieving accuracy: 
The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 19 
e) Extracts from the programme transcript 
Presentation’s cue into the programme: 
And now Analysis. Foreign ministers from the Caribbean community have warned that continuing 
violence in Haiti could endanger the country’s elections scheduled for later this year. On Monday 
the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, hinted at the possibility of sending US troops to the 
country, in support of the UN mission stationed there. Haiti continues to be plagued by social and 
political unrest following last year’s ousting of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But where 
will the crisis end? And what can the international community do to resolve it? Emma Joseph 
reports. 
References to Haiti’s history by presenter Emma Joseph: 
Haiti remains the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. Since gaining independence in 1804, 
there have been 34 coups and two dictators. About 80 per cent of Haitians survive on less than a 
dollar a day, and live in abject poverty. 
One year ago this week a UN multi-national force landed in Haiti, a country on the brink of anarchy 
following an uprising in which the President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, fled into exile. 
Haiti is no stranger to intervention. America invaded in 1994 to reinstate President Aristide who 
was democratically elected in 1990, but then overthrown in a military coup. Ten years later in 2004 
it took another intervention to get rid of him. 
Presenter’s description of the police force and interim government, and interview with Denis 
Coderre: 
EMMA JOSEPH: Since last year the UN, and an internationally approved interim government, 
have been building up a new and non-partisan police force. International donors have pledged over 
a billion dollars in aid to help rebuild Haiti’s infrastructure and to provide much needed investment 
in the economy. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for October followed by presidential 
elections in November. Denis Coderre is the Canadian Prime Minister’s special adviser on Haiti. 
He says the interim government’s record so far has been impressive. 
DENIS CODERRE: The interim government – it’s not an easy one – the beauty of it is that the 
interim government, for once, they said that they will be there until the election. There’s nobody 
from that government who will run and I think that’s a sign of integrity. They’re – most of them, if 
not totally – they are bureaucrats. They are experts in their own field who try to bring back some 
transition and some solid foundation for the future. Especially after a report we had in April just on 
the finances for example: they have a surplus now for once. Have you ever heard about a surplus 
in Haiti? So it means that they are responsible in the way that they manage public money. 
Presenter’s conclusion: 
If the UN Secretary General does get his way and more troops are sent in with an extended 
mandate, then maybe the process of disarming all sides in the conflict will be speeded up. 
Because some Haiti watchers are warning that if some semblance of normality isn’t reached and 
soon, then Haiti’s transition to democracy could once again hang in the balance. 
f) The Committee’s decision 
i) Was the programme biased in its choice of interviewees? 
The Committee noted that the programme had not interviewed members of the interim 
government, nor the opposition political parties. Instead, it had spoken to parties outside the 
country, who were either involved or had an interest in Haiti’s affairs. In particular, the contribution 
from Denis Coderre was appropriately balanced, for example by Mark Schneider of the 
International Crisis Group and Professor Alexander Dupres, a US-based, Haitian-born academic 
and author, who both took a different view from Mr Coderre. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 20 
ii) Was the programme’s summary of Haiti’s history biased? 
The Committee recognised that it was not possible to give an in-depth analysis of the whole of 
Haiti’s history in a 12-minute programme. It concluded that, within the constraints of the 
programme duration, the background provided had been appropriately balanced. 
iii) Was the programme couched in biased language? 
The Committee concluded that, overall, the programme was balanced, and had used a range of 
voices to tell a complex story in an accurate and impartial way. 
In particular, the Committee discussed the presenter’s use of the phrase “It took another 
intervention to get rid of him” with reference to the 2004 intervention which saw the end of 
President Aristide’s government. The Committee took the view that although the phrase was not 
ideal, the programme overall had made it clear that Aristide did have significant support in the 
country, and so had avoided partiality. 
iv) Was the programme conclusion biased? 
The Committee noted that the presenter concluded with observations about possibilities in the 
unfolding situation. It held that these observations had been appropriately framed in the context of 
a balanced programme, and did not breach editorial standards. 
Finding: not upheld. 
e) Further discussion 
Regarding the Stage 1 response, the Committee agreed that the substance of the response was 
right, but that it did have concerns about the tone. 
It noted that the response had gone out after the launch of the new complaints-handling processes 
in February 2005, but did not reflect the best approach. 
The Committee asked the Chairman to bring this to the attention of the Deputy Director-General 
and Chair of the Complaints Management Board to inform his oversight of the complaints-handling 
processes. 
Bring Your Husband to Heel 
BBC Two, 22 August 2005 
a) The programme 
In Bring Your Husband to Heel, dog-trainer Annie Clayton was described as helping “the desperate 
housewives of Britain” to train their husbands for the better, using dog-training techniques. 
This complaint concerned the first episode of the programme, described in the Radio Times as 
follows: “Exasperated wives consult canine behaviourist Annie Clayton to learn dog-training skills 
for use on their less-than-perfect husbands. Can Margaret married to messy John for 37 years 
elicit change by rewarding his good behaviour?” 
The programme opened with its presenter Annie Clayton saying: 
“Housewives everywhere, are your husbands making your lives a misery? Well, don’t panic 
because help has arrived. I’m going to get them shipshape by using dog-training techniques, and 
by the end of the series I’ll have them all well and truly brought to heel – with the help of my canine 
companions of course!” 
Bring Your Husband to Heel was a six-part series. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 21 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt the programme was sexist and highly offensive. In particular that: 
· By employing dog-training techniques, the programme directly compared men in general to 
dogs and suggested that men were as simple as dogs. 
· It disseminated “the most serious unwarranted contempt towards men” and used “appalling hate 
speech” that was unimaginable being applied to women. 
· The premise of the programme – that men do less work than women – was false. 
The complaint was initially made to Ofcom, which did not consider that the programme breached 
its programme code. Following a complaint to BBC Information, it was then referred to the ECU. 
The ECU’s Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant 
appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. In his letter of appeal, he also 
asked why the BBC had issued a “supposed apology” following the first transmission of Bring Your 
Husband to Heel. He maintained that the statement was insincere, given that the BBC went on to 
transmit five more programmes in the series. 
c) Relevant programme standards 
Editorial values – Impartiality and diversity of opinion: 
We strive to be fair and open-minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the 
range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. 
Harm and offence – General: 
When we broadcast ... 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, humiliating, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. 
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) BBC online statement 
The BBC received around 460 complaints about this programme. The complainants felt the 
programme was sexist and many believed that “if the shoe was on the other foot there would be 
uproar”. 
The BBC published the following statement on the Complaints website (bbc.co.uk/complaints) on 
30 August 2005: 
There was never an intention to cause offence, but we recognise that some viewers have felt the 
programme to be inappropriate and we are sorry if any upset has been caused. 
Bring Your Husband to Heel plays on the long-standing stereotype of wives nagging husbands 
about their failings and attempts to explore, in a humorous way, whether it is possible to find 
solutions to the stalemate using a different and unique method of instruction. 
The nature of the programme was clearly signposted. All comments are made available to 
programme makers who use such feedback when reviewing programme content. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 22 
e) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the programme against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on impartiality, 
and the complaint that the programme was biased against men. 
The Committee took the view that both the husband and the wife had been shown as having 
problems with their behaviour. The wife had been characterised as a nag, while the husband had 
been depicted as untidy and uncaring. Both parties had therefore been subject to behaviour 
modification in the course of the filming. 
The Committee considered that the programme had stereotyped the contributors, reinforcing 
traditional and wrong gender roles in a relationship. As this had been applied equally to the man 
and to the woman, however, the effect was not partial. 
The Committee also reviewed the specific complaints about the language used in the programme 
(for example, referring to the husband as “an old dog set in his ways” and a “mucky pup”). The 
Committee considered that the language was stereotyped, but could not be characterised as 
amounting to biased “hate speech” against men. 
Finally, the Committee reviewed the programme against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on offence. 
The Committee noted that using the dog trainer was a gimmick to allow the series a different way 
to explore human relations. The Committee recognised that the use of this device did offend some 
people, and it was pleased that BBC management had recognised this in its online response. It 
concluded that, although the series would not be to everyone’s taste, it did not breach the BBC’s 
Editorial Guidelines. 
The Committee further noted that Ofcom – the industry regulator on harm and offence – had 
previously considered and not upheld this complaint in relation to offence. The Committee 
concurred with the Ofcom judgement on the complaint about offence. 
Finding: not upheld 
Thought for the Day 
Radio 4, 26 May 2005 
a) The item 
This Thought for the Day item was presented by Anne Atkins. She reflected on modern taboos in 
our society. A Christian, writer and broadcaster, Ms Atkins is a regular contributor to the slot. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant was personally offended by the broadcast, in particular the reference: “adulterers, 
fornicators and practising homosexuals are going to hell”. The complainant said “as a gay listener I 
can say that I do not tune in to be told that I am going to hell – and I do find it deeply offensive and 
hateful.” 
The complainant asked the following questions: 
· Is the purpose of Thought for the Day to unilaterally extend to intolerant religious persons a 
platform from which to spout such hateful and offensive views? 
· Do the BBC guidelines allow for offensive and controversial views to be broadcast in the 
Thought for the Day slot? 
· Is it acceptable, at this time, for fundamentalist religious speakers to use the Thought for the 
Day slot to discuss candidates for hell? 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 23 
The complainant also felt that casual offence should be minimised by trailing the programme as 
highly “provocative”. 
The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint. The complainant was not satisfied 
with this response, and appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c) Editorial standards 
Impartiality and accuracy – Factual programmes: Sensitivity to offence and outrage: 
In aiming to record all pertinent opinions programmes will sometimes need to report on or interview 
people whose views will cause serious offence to many. In such cases programme editors must be 
convinced, after referral where necessary, that there is a material public interest to be served 
which outweighs the offence. 
Portrayal – General: 
We should try and give a full and fair view of people and culture in the United Kingdom and across 
the world. BBC programmes and services should reflect and draw on this diversity to reflect life as 
it is. 
Sexual orientation: 
BBC programmes must not be vehicles for prejudice. Lesbians and gay men can be particularly 
subject to thoughtless and offensive stereotyping. 
Gay and lesbian people, and those who are bi-sexual, make up a significant minority entitled to be 
served and treated fairly by the BBC. Programme makers should remember that homosexuals play 
a full range of roles in society. They have the same right as others to see that range truthfully 
portrayed. 
d) Transcripts 
This item followed comments by Archbishop John Onaiyekan on the programme the previous day 
in which he said: 
“The Bible says whoever does all this – things like killing people, adultery, fornication, 
homosexuality – these are all sins, and whoever does these sins will not see God. We go to hell.” 
ANNE ATKINS – Thought for The Day: 
The river ran red as a thousand fell; women and children sacrificed to inter-faith intolerance. It 
comfortably fits into our dinner party prejudices, that religion is to blame for bloodshed. That is, 
until we hear the analysis offered by Nigerian leaders yesterday: the culprit is democracy. 
Politicians touting for votes exacerbating violence. 
We boast of our open-mindedness, but this is a taboo too far. Democracy good, all else bad; and 
so confident are we of our imperialism of values, that we wage war on a country to impose 
Western democracy upon it. 
We never even question the rightness of the regime of the ballot box. That it places power in the 
hands of those least qualified to wield it, who know nothing of the intricacies of foreign policy or 
economics, and are likely to vote on the basis of impulse, sentiment and prejudice. That it 
encourages leaders to curry favour, avoid unpleasant truths, and display salesmanship rather than 
integrity. That it fosters diversity, which leads to permissiveness and eventually disintegration, with 
father deferring to son, teacher to pupil, and the poor squeezing taxes from the rich in an 
increasingly polarised class war. Plato wrote this devastating critique of democracy, after the state 
he analysed with such ferocity condemned his mentor Socrates to death, for challenging the 
conservative assumptions of the demos. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 24 
Our tragedy is that we can’t tackle our own taboos. Our hallowed liberalism, for instance, so 
illiberal towards others whom we perceive as lacking in liberalism – such as the African archbishop 
on this programme yesterday, who said adulterers, fornicators and practising homosexuals are 
going to Hell. Aghast, we find ourselves torn between sexual tolerance of what he considers 
immoral, and racial tolerance of what we consider primitive. So we opt for the cultural prejudice 
that doesn’t threaten our own libidinous liberties: we are outraged by his outrage. 
Every society has taboos. But ours are perhaps more absurd than most. Just as we can’t question 
democracy, tolerance, liberalism, so we can’t affirm other qualities either. The unmarried mother of 
three under-age mothers this week blamed inadequate schooling. Indeed where, in our sex 
education, is mention of morality or marriage, emotion or abstinence – or even the fact that, in the 
archbishop’s view, mother and daughters are, all four, heading for Hell? 
Jesus, like Socrates, broke the taboos of His day. He ate with crooks, worked with women, 
blasphemed against religion. He too was executed. But not before He had taught us to think the 
unthinkable, question the inviolable, suggest the unspeakable. For instance, that most shocking of 
modern taboos, that perhaps there is such a place as the archbishop suggests, and Jesus Himself 
the only escape from it. 
e) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee said that it did not take the offence caused to the complainant lightly. Thought for 
the Day should not set out to cause offence. The questions for the Committee were whether the 
decision to broadcast was editorially justified, and whether the item had broken the guidelines. 
The Committee reviewed the item against the BBC’s Producer Guidelines. These require that 
programmes should be sensitive where particular viewpoints may cause offence, and should also 
avoid thoughtless or offensive stereotyping of gay men and lesbians. 
The Committee noted that the remit of Thought for the Day was to reflect on a topical issue, rooting 
the reflection in theology. This item had dealt with the ethical and moral dilemmas raised by 
extreme views, and how we deal with them in society. It was in the context of comments by the 
Archbishop the previous day, together with a topical story about an unmarried mother. The 
Committee was satisfied, on this basis, that the item was within the slot’s remit. 
The Committee then discussed the detail of Anne Atkins’ script. It noted that her arguments had 
been very carefully constructed. In each of the three instances where the presenter referred to the 
Archbishop’s comments, it concluded on a close reading that Anne Atkins had used the comments 
to illustrate the dilemmas raised by the taboo of illiberalism, but had not actually stated her own 
view. 
The Committee noted that many listeners would not usually be in a position to subject an item to 
such close scrutiny. They had, however, all concluded on first listening that Anne Atkins had not 
expressed a personal view. Nevertheless, it felt that in future Thought for the Day should aim to be 
clearly understood by busy listeners, to avoid giving unnecessary offence. 
I
n conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that the script was appropriately framed within the 
requirements of the BBC’s Producer Guidelines. 
Finding: not upheld. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 25 
f) Complaint about the complaints process 
The Committee reviewed the complainant’s difficulties in trying to move his complaint forward. In 
particular, he had written to the programme team and then the Controller, only to have the letter 
referred back to the original contact. 
The Committee concluded that the complaint had been poorly handled at Stage 1. It asked that all 
staff should be clear about how and when to refer complaints on. It asked that the Deputy Director- 
General and Chair of the Complaints Management Board be made aware of this issue. 
The Chairman agreed that his finding letter to the complainant should apologise for the initial 
handling of his complaint. 
Today 
Radio 4, 4 May 2005 
a) The item 
This concerned the Today programme on the day before the General Election in 2005. It featured 
James Naughtie’s visit to Bradford where he interviewed Keith Laybourn, Professor of History at 
Huddersfield University, about the history of the party political system. It followed a number of 
programmes in which James Naughtie followed the campaign trail with the party leaders. 
b) The complaint 
The complainant felt the report was: 
· Inappropriate for the slot (i.e. the day before the election). 
· Biased, (a) in that James Naughtie “made no attempt to conceal his emotion at finding himself 
at the birthplace of his beloved party” [Bradford], and (b) in “telling us all at length about the 
wonderful people who created the Labour Party”. 
The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold the complaint and the complainant 
appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. 
c
) Relevant programme standards 
The BBC’s 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 (see Chapter 2). 
Impartiality and accuracy – 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. 
Broadcasting during elections – General: 
The BBC’s commitment to impartial coverage of the news and current affairs is never more closely 
scrutinised than during a General Election campaign. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 26 
Achieving balance – Main parties: 
Daily news magazine programmes and summaries (in the nations, regions and UK wide) must 
achieve an appropriate and fair balance in coverage of the main parties in the course of each week 
of the campaign. Daily programmes may balance major interviews, profiles, running series or 
campaign launches over the course of the campaign. 
· Each daily strand (e.g. a drive time show on radio) is responsible for reaching its own targets 
within the week and cannot rely on other outlets at different times of day (e.g. the breakfast 
show) to do so for it. 
· Each programme should avoid individual editions getting badly out of kilter. There may be days 
when inevitably one party dominates the news agenda, e.g. when the main party manifestos are 
launched, but in that case care must be taken to ensure that coverage of similar prominence 
and duration is given to the other manifesto launches on the relevant days. 
· Every edition of the multi-item programmes which cover the campaign, e.g. the regional 
6.30–7.00 slot, should refer in at least one item to each of the main parties. 
d) Transcript 
HUMPHRYS: Jim has been on the campaign trail with the party leaders this week. What sort of 
week’s it been like, Jim? Where are you now? 
NAUGHTIE: Well, John, I am in Bradford for reasons I’ll come to in a moment, but as you know 
and reported earlier in the programme I watched Mr Blair in Huddersfield last night, as having 
watched Mr Howard with his supporters, a party rally in the East of London the previous day, and 
I’ve been talking to Charles Kennedy as well, and it’s interesting to watch them at this last lap 
because there’s always that moment of realisation that probably there’s not much more to do 
except you have to do it harder, more frenetically than you have up to this point, although you 
suspect that probably people’s minds are made up. But, as you heard earlier in the programme, 
Tony Blair and the Cabinet are going to be running around, Michael Howard is going to the 
marginals, Charles Kennedy is flying around all over the place, there’s tremendous activity and of 
course they are trying to energise their supporters to get out. I mean as I was saying earlier in the 
programme, the Labour worry, and I think it’s a very real worry talking to some of Mr Blair’s people 
last night, is that some of their people won’t come out, and listening to him in Huddersfield he was 
saying “Look, you have got to come out to defend what you know I’m standing for.” And Mr Howard 
the day before in the East of London was saying “What we have got to do is to get our people out.” 
Now the reason I am in Bradford, John, is that there is a very interesting bit of history here. You 
mentioned earlier this morning the statue of Harold Wilson in Huddersfield and it reminds you that 
if Mr Blair is re-elected on Friday he will pass Wilson’s time in office some time about Christmas. 
But of course it’s that third consecutive Labour term that also touches on history, and I am here 
with Professor Keith Laybourn, Professor of History at Huddersfield University just down the road, 
because we are standing in the street where I think the Labour Party, you would say, began? 
LAYBOURN: Well, the ILP was formed in Bradford in 1893, in January 1893, and on Chapel Street 
and Peckover Street are really two of the major locations where it was formed. The national 
meeting was held at Peckover Street in the Labour Institute and also three hundred yards up the 
road at St George’s Hall, and here George Bernard Shaw, Kier Hardie, the great names of the 
movement, came together and established the alliance between, sort of, socialism and trade 
unionism, which was the basis of Labour’s later growth. 
NAUGHTIE: I suppose I should ask you what do you think they’d think of Tony Blair? 
LAYBOURN: Er, I’m old Labour so I think it’s going to be, er, I will not vote any other way but 
Labour because [NAUGHTIE: Well] that’s my upbringing, I’m a miner’s son, but no I really, er, he’s 
far too right wing for me. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 27 
NAUGHTIE: Well, we’re having a historical discussion not a political one [Laughter], but I mean it is 
interesting, we’re standing outside the theatre here where a lot of this began and of course you 
must look just as an academic interested in political history at this campaign and look at all the 
parties and so how dramatically they have changed. 
LAYBOURN: That’s right. 
NAUGHTIE: Um, I mean the Conservative Party as well, fantastic modernisation which Mr Howard 
is trying to push through inside that party. It’s happened in Labour. The Liberal Democrats are very 
different from the Liberals that were here and of course that’s where the Labour Party here, in a 
funny way, were fighting all those years ago and it’s what Mr Blair was talking about last night. 
LAYBOURN: Well they’re very different. I mean in the 1890s, early twentieth century, the Labour 
Party when it emerged was increasingly committed to collective action, which I think is rather less 
so nowadays, also, I mean, the fine line between the Liberals and the Tories is sometimes referred 
to, they’re often referred to by Labour as Liberal, er, yellow or blue Tories, so there’s not a right lot 
of difference. I think really in a sense all the political parties have changed. In a sense they have 
drifted to the right I think in most cases. Er, I suspect even the, some aspects of the Liberal Party, 
because the Liberal Party in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, actually was quite 
divided between those who wanted to approach Labour and working class and actually represent 
them and let them represent themselves and those who really, in a sense, felt “They’re a little 
breeze, we’ll represent them, we are the best representatives of the working class.” So there’s 
these sort of tensions and in many respects the most advanced party in the 1900 period, I wouldn’t 
like to say that, er, of the two, of the Liberals or the Conservatives, were the Conservatives... 
NAUGHTIE: Well... 
LAYBOURN: But then they were often in the minority in this area. 
NAUGHTIE: Well, there we are. It is interesting to reflect that as the leaders and all their people 
rush around for these last twenty-four hours of hand-shaking, and they try to persuade their vote to 
get out, er, it’s always nice to recall the history that produced, you know, the party structure that 
we’ve all grown up with and to remember that every election sort of moves it on. And it’s 
interesting, John, to be here in Peckover Street and Chapel Street in Bradford outside the Priestley 
Theatre, which is a great Bradford name of course, obvious where that comes from, and recall not 
just how much things stay the same at elections, but how much things change, Sarah, and we’ve 
only got twenty-four hours to go. 
e) The Committee’s decision 
The Committee noted the context for this interview. In particular: 
· This was the final day of the election campaign. The major post-8am item on Today was a 
23-minute interview with Tony Blair. Earlier in the programme Dr Liam Fox of the Conservatives 
had been interviewed for 5 minutes, and Matthew Taylor, Chairman of the Liberal Democrats, 
for 3.5 minutes. 
· James Naughtie was clearly established as a roving reporter, out and about around the country. 
On the previous two days, Naughtie had reported from a Conservative rally in London’s East 
End (4 minutes), while John Humphrys had conducted a 20-minute interview with Michael 
Howard. Naughtie interviewed Andrew Marr about Labour’s perceived threat from the Lib Dems, 
and chaired a discussion with Andrew Neil and Michael White of The Guardian. There were 
many other reports and features. 
The Committee reviewed the item. It felt the purpose of the item was to talk generally about the 
history of the three main political parties. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 28 
The Committee considered the interview against the complainant’s view that the item was biased: 
for example, that James Naughtie expressed emotion at “finding himself at the birthplace of his 
beloved party” and that the item had involved “telling us all at length about the wonderful people 
who created the Labour Party”. The Committee did not agree that the interview came across in this 
way, nor that the tone of the item was biased in its effect. It noted, in particular, that when the 
interviewee had started to discuss his personal voting intentions, James Naughtie had immediately 
moved the discussion back to the focus on the historical perspective. 
The Committee also considered whether it had been inappropriate for this item to have been 
scheduled on the day before a General Election. It noted that James Naughtie had visited Bradford 
following Tony Blair’s visit to Huddersfield the night before, as part of following the Labour leader 
on the election trail. This was equivalent to the treatment given to Michael Howard on the previous 
day, when James Naughtie had been in the East End of London with the Conservative leader. The 
Committee concluded, on this basis, that the choice of location was editorially justified. 
The Committee was satisfied, overall, that the item itself and the broader context of Today’s 
coverage had been appropriately balanced and complied with required broadcast standards. 
Finding: not upheld. 
f) Handling of the complaint 
The Committee discussed the complaint handling at Stage 1 of the process. 
It reviewed the complainant’s complaints (a) that BBC Information took 12 days to answer his initial 
complaint, (b) that BBC Information’s initial reply made no mention of the specific programmes 
identified, and (c) that the response from a senior member of the BBC Information team had been 
unsatisfactory. 
On (b), the Committee felt that the initial reply from BBC Information should have responded to the 
specific instances as well as the generalised complaint about bias. On (c), it felt that the tone had 
been somewhat bureaucratic. On (a), it did not feel the response time of the initial reply raised 
significant concerns, in the context of BBC Information reporting which showed that over 90% of 
correspondence was dealt with within the ten-day target time. 
Action: Head of Accountability to discuss ways to audit the tone of Stage 1 responses with the 
Deputy Director-General. 
The Committee was particularly concerned about the time taken to inform the complainant about 
the process for moving his complaint forward. He had written on 6 June 2005 asking for advice on 
how to move his complaint forward, but had not received a reply. He then wrote again on 4 July 
2005, and received a response dated 5 July. 
The Committee asked that the Chairman’s finding letter should apologise for the delay in providing 
information about how to move his complaint forward. The letter should also explain that BBC 
management had introduced a new complaints-handling process in February, which included 
referral to the Editorial Complaints Unit where a complainant was not satisfied with the response at 
Stage 1 (BBC Information or programme teams). It should reassure the complainant that this 
instance would be raised with management as part of the GPCC’s ongoing oversight of the 
complaints-handling process. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 29 
Correction 
Ten O’Clock News 
BBC One, 18 May 2004 
Today 
BBC Radio 4, 19 May 2004 and 21 May 2004 
This finding contained an error when originally published in November 2005. The mistake occurred 
in section d) The Committee’s decision. 
The original publication said: 
The Committee also noted that at the time the items were broadcast, the most immediate threat 
posed by smuggled weapons was to Jewish settlements and Israeli army positions inside the Gaza 
Strip, not to towns across the Green Line. This situation changed subsequently in June 2004 (after 
the broadcasts) when the first Israeli casualty occurred from a rocket fired from Gaza across the 
Green Line. 
The word “casualty“ should have been “fatality“, as follows: 
The Committee also noted that at the time the items were broadcast, the most immediate threat 
posed by smuggled weapons was to Jewish settlements and Israeli army positions inside the Gaza 
Strip, not to towns across the Green Line. This situation changed subsequently in June 2004 (after 
the broadcasts) when the first Israeli fatality occurred from a rocket fired from Gaza across the 
Green Line. 

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 30 
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. 
In 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. 
In 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 
In 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