NHS privatisation coverage complaint to BBC in 2013

BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-2073968-T4WQ2N



Inbox x








bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk

Fri, 26 Apr 2013, 10:45





to me










Dear Mr Cook



Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is an automated email confirming we have received the complaint below and submitted in this name via www.bbc.co.uk/complaints. Please do not reply to this email since it is generated from an unmonitored address. If you believe you have received this in error please contact us using our webform at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.



We attach the text of the complaint for your records and will normally include it in our overnight report of all today’s audience reaction. This is circulated to BBC staff tomorrow (with your personal details removed) and ensures your points will reach the right people quickly. We aim normally to reply within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) depending on the nature of your complaint.



To make sure we use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue in detail, and for consistency may send the same reply if others have also complained about the same issue. For our full complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback please read www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/



----------



YOUR COMPLAINT:



Complaint Summary: Not enough coverage in general news of end of NHS



Full Complaint: Not enough. This is the end of the greatest national institution! Not enough analysis, not enough simple news, no how this will affect you etc. I watched the Lords vote on your niche interest and niche viewing figures parliament channel, but I am talking about the national and regional news progs on BBC1. Shameful. It is a political act to have so little coverage, the BBC has a responsibility to educate about these changes before and as they happen.







----------



Thank you again for contacting us.



BBC Complaints



NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.













BBC Complaints - Case Number CAS-2073968-T4WQ2N



Inbox x








bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk

Wed, 1 May 2013, 13:25





to me










Dear Mr Cook

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC News’ coverage of the debate and vote on Section 75 of the Health and Social Bill in the House of Lords on 24 April 2013.

BBC News has regularly covered and will continue to cover the changes in the NHS. Accordingly, we have reported on the progression of this bill through Parliament. The BBC News website reported on the most recent Lords debate and vote at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22268417

BBC Parliament provided live coverage of the debate and vote on 24 April and broadcast highlights of the session on 25 April. The full session can still be seen on the BBC’s Democracy Live website at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-lords-22283592

We feel it is important to add that 24 April was a strong news day for health stories, with a number competing for space during our bulletins. On the evening of the vote and into the next day, BBC News covered the following health stories: growing pressure on Accident and Emergency Units and the subsequent discussion during Prime Minister’s Questions, the cosmetic surgery review, hospital mortality statistics, measles figures for England and a report on sugary drinks causing 20% more diabetes.

BBC News believes our health teams have reflected the movement of this bill through Parliament and other developments within the NHS across a range of our coverage.

We'd also like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our Audience Log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The Audience Logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions on future BBC programmes and content.

Once again, thank you for contacting us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.








ReplyForward

BBC Slavery anniversary error, unfavourable response to complaint

Dear Mr Cook




Thank you for your further e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the

delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response

and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.




It is worth bearing in mind that this was part of 'Newsnight Review' rather

than a news report within the main body of the programme and the aim was

not to enter into a lengthy look at slavery and its abolition.




Your original complaint took issue with the following piece of script:




"The film Amazing Grace has been released to coincide with the 200th

anniversary of the passing of a bill which outlawed the slave trade in

Britain and its empire."




The general historical consensus, as far as I am aware, is that in 1806,

parliament passed an act to abolish the supply of slaves on British ships

to foreign and conquered colonies. This was followed up by the total

abolition of the British slave trade in 1807. It ended more than 200 years

of slave trading. The Abolition of Slavery Act, passed in 1833, freed all

slaves in the British Empire and provided for compensation for their owners.




I confess to being unsure as to exactly how the brief introduction

misrepresented this or was factually inaccurate. As a result there is

little more we can add other than to apologise again if you were concerned.




Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.




Regards




Damian Whyte

BBC Information

__________________________________________

The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC. Want to

help it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust




-----Original Message-----




{Title:} Mr

{First Name:} Illinois

{Last Name:} Cook







{Email:} illinoisc@hotmail.com

{Phone:}

{Postcode:} E3 5AH

{Country:} England




{About:} General

{Network:}
















{Programme Name:}

{Transmission Date:}




{Comments:}

Please accept an official complaint at the way my comments/complaint was

dealt with by one of your staff. The problem is that although I have

caught Kirsty Wark in a minor error in the way she described the 1807

Act in the mere introduction to a news item, your correspondent has

unnanccountably replied twice using two different ways of saying that no

error was made. I really don't see why you would feel the need to defend

an error with such methods, so would you please explain the responses I

have recieved? Quoted: Dear Mr Cook




Thank you for your further e-mail.




I note that you were having difficulties sending a complaint to us. For

future

reference, the Make a Complaint option on the Complaints website offers

the

following webform:




http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml




With regards to my previous response, at no point in the programme did

Kirsty

say that Slavery ended 1807, she said that this date marked the

anniversary of a

bill passed to outlaw the trade of slaves.




Also in the opening of the programme, when stating that a review of

'Amazing

Grace' was to feature, she referred to it being a film about the

beginning of

the end of slavery.




Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.




Regards




Damian Whyte

BBC Information

__________________________________________

The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC. Want

to help

it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust




-----Original Message-----




{Title:} Mr

{First Name:} Illinois

{Last Name:} Cook




{Email:} illinoisc@hotmail.com

{Phone:}

{Postcode:} E3 5AH




{Country:} England

{About:} TV

{Network:} BBC2
















{Programme Name:} newsnight

{Transmission Date:}23 - 03 - 07




{Comments:}

Had to use the 'send praise' choice of feedback type, as 'comments..'

and 'complaints..' sent me into a loop of pages which didn't get

anywhere, so therefore that can form my first complaint.




My second is this:




-----Original Message-----

Dear Damian Whyte, can you read?




"After the passing of Abolition of the Slave Trade Act

<http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm> in 1807, British

captains

who were caught continuing the trade were fined Ã'£100 for every

slave found on

board. However, this law did not stop the British slave

trade.....Parliament

passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in

the

British Empire their freedom"




Slavery was still taking place in the British Empire until 1833 quite

legally.

























It's up to us to solve the Middle East problem - march on London, June

9th 2007:




http://www.enoughoccupation.org/enough







_____




From: info@bbc.co.uk

To: illinoisc@hotmail.com

Subject: Newsnight Review [T2007032400JAS010Z2192921]

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:51:09 +0100 (BST)

>Dear Mr Cook

>

>Thank you for your e-mail.

>

>I note your concerns regarding 'Newsnight Review' on 23 March and that

you

believe Kirsty Wark made an error in her introduction to the review of

'Amazing

Grace'. Having reviewed the programme I can confirm that what Kirsty

actually

said was:

>

>"The film Amazing Grace has been released to coincide with the 200th

anniversary of the passing of a bill which outlawed the slave trade in

Britain

and its empire."

>

>This is factually correct, the link you supplied also confirms this.

>

>Please be assured that your comments have been fully registered on our

daily

audience log. This internal document will be made available to the

'Newsnight

Review' production team and Senior BBC Management.

>

>Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

>

>Regards

>

>Damian Whyte

>BBC Information

>__________________________________________

>The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC.

Want to

help it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click

on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust

>

>-----Original Message-----

>

>{Title:} Mr

>{First Name:} Illinois

>{Last Name:} Cook

>

>

>{Email:} illinoisc@hotmail.com

>{Phone:}

>{Postcode:} E3 5AH

>{Country:} England

>

>{About:} General

>{Network:} BBC2

>

>

>

>

>

>{Programme Name:} Newsnight (Review)

>{Transmission Date:}23 - 03 - 07

>

>{Comments:}

>At the beginning of Newsnight Review Kirsty said 'the 200th anniversary

>of the Abolition Act which abolished Slavery in the British Empire'.

>This was a shoddy mistake as one of the key points about the 1807 Act

is

>that it did NOT do this, and indeed this was not until until 1833 - see

>here:

>

>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm

>




Yours sincerely,




Illinois Cook



















http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.

If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.

Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.

Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

Further communication will signify your consent to this.








...

Further to my 'BBC communication' post in May 2010 re BBC Bias / impartiality, which I updated today

Fri, 16 Nov 2018, 13:08

Dear Mr Cook

Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is to confirm we’ve received the attached complaint sent in this name. We’ve included the text of the complaint and a case reference for your records (see below).

Please don’t reply to this email because it’s an automated acknowledgement sent from an account which can’t receive replies. If you do need to get in touch, please use our webform instead at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints, quoting your reference number.

We’ll normally include the text below in our overnight report to producers and management of all the complaints and other reaction we receive today (with your personal details removed). This means it will reach the right people by tomorrow morning.

We’ll do our best to reply as soon as we can, but the time needed depends on the nature of your complaint. If we can’t reply as soon as we’d like (usually within 10 working days) we’ll let you know. For full details of our complaints process please visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.

Here are the details of your complaint:----------

YOUR COMPLAINT:Complaint Summary: Antisemitism Smear vs Corbyn

Full Complaint: Obvious outrageous bias to allow this slanderous smear.
----------Thank you again for contacting us,BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaintsPlease note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).

bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk <bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk>	Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 16:56
to me Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 16:56

Dear Mr Cook
Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about the edition of Question Time from Milford Haven.

We have received a range of feedback about this edition. To allow us to reply promptly to your concerns, and to ensure we use our Licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we’re addressing here a range of issues which viewers have raised. Our complaints process allows us to offer a consolidated reply like this when necessary. We’re sorry that we can’t reply personally to you on each point which has been made. Please be assured that your reaction has been accurately shared with the programme makers, as well as senior staff.

The comments from Claire Perry MP regarding the Labour leader provoked a strong, mixed reaction from the studio audience. David Dimbleby controlled the situation by bringing her back to the point she was asked about, and asked her to make it in full. David then ensured that Barry Gardiner MP, a close ally of Mr Corbyn, was given an equally clear opportunity to challenge the comments. Mr Gardiner addressed the ‘very personal’ remarks about Jeremy Corbyn as he wished, and in full.

David Dimbleby had already reminded the panellists on a number of occasions to allow other people to speak, both from the audience and elsewhere within the panel. Mrs Perry was not the only panellist to be reprimanded by David – his approach treats each guest appropriately and without bias. We feel that he chaired the discussion professionally and reasonably in a lively and passionate setting.

Your reaction has been shared with the programme team and senior staff across BBC Politics.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

"It's Ok to speculate if the helmet would have made a difference, but maybe on the driving ..."

I received a reply from the coroner. I still don't believe that it was at all appropriate for the coroner to comment on this, since he appears to have no actual knowledge of the basic data around cycle helmets ...

Dear Mr Lennon



I refer to your e mail of 27th April with regard to this Inquest that I concluded at Windsor Guildhall on Thursday, 14th April last.



I note the contents of your e mail and would respond as follows:

1. You do not identify your interest in this matter nor whether you are “a properly interested person” within the definition of the Coroners Act. I would be grateful for clarification.

2. It is apparent from your comments that you were not present at the Inquest but rather appear to be relying on the press report of the Inquest. As you will appreciate, this does not cover all the elements of the evidence that was heard in the course of the Inquest Hearing itself.

3. In my summing up at the conclusion of the evidence, I simply stated that Mr Honour may have had a greater chance of survival if he had been wearing a helmet rather than not wearing one at all. The principle injuries leading to his death arose from the blow to the head. I do not believe it unreasonable to comment that a helmet would have afforded more protection than nothing at all.

4. As regards the evidence about the actions of the drivers, this was investigated thoroughly, first by Thames Valley Police and secondly in the course of the evidence at the Inquest. The fact that the press chose not to report on this is a separate issue.

5. I would also advise that an Inquest is an inquiry to establish the facts as to “how” somebody met their death. It is an inquiry not a trial and I am specifically excluded from returning a conclusion that addresses issues of fault or liability.

I trust that the above clarifies the position.

Yours sincerely

Peter J. Bedford

H.M. Coroner for Berkshire

Cycle helmets might save you from being mown down!

Today I wrote to the coroner who thought that being hit by three cars at 40mph+ would somehow have been less fatal if the cyclist involved had been wearing a helmet. It seems endemic of the general attitude to death on the roads, especially of cyclists. Essentially, the verdict says to me: "It was just another accident. What a shame."

Dear Sir,

I am writing to enquire on what basis you believe that WIlliam Honour may have survived impact by three separate vehicles by wearing a cycle helmet. (See story at http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2091712_cyclist_died_after_being_struck_by_three_cars)

He was travelling on a road with a 70mph speed limit and was hit by one of the vehicles at around 40mph. Since cycle helmets are designed to protect those falling from bicycles at much lower speed, and there is no current scientific evidence to suggest any substantial benefit in impacts at such high speed, I would like to know how you surmised that Mr. Honour might have been protected?

Further, the news story doesn't seem to suggest much investigation was made, during the inquest, into how far, laterally, drivers were from Mr. Honour: that one driver appears to have struck the cyclist doesn't seem to have been the matter of any interest to the court at all.

Thus, I'd like to know why it seems that the coroner's court doesn't appear to have made any investigation into whether drivers were travelling at a suitable distance from non-vehicle road users (i.e. Mr. Honour), and whether their driving / road behaviour contributed to his death.

Sincerely,

Tim Lennon.

I wrote to my MP about helping corporations dodge tax ...

Tuesday 8 February 2011

Dear Zac Goldsmith,

I note with, frankly, horror, a story on the Guardian today about tax
breaks the Government is planning to issue to medium and large
businesses. (At
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century)

It seems to me that if, as the Prime Minister recently claimed, he
wants to rebuild Britain based on entrepreneur-ship, this isn't the way
to do it.

The nature of the measure will cleaRLY do nothing to support small
business, since they won't be able to access the benefits, and it
leaves us otherwise racing to the bottom of the corporate tax league
for no obvious reason.

Or perhaps everyone's misunderstanding the proposed measure. I'd
appreciate it if you would find out the details of the measure, its
intended consequences, and how it fits with broader Government policy.

Sincerely,

Tim Lennon.

I wrote to my councillors ....

Dear Katharine Mary Harborne, Richard James Montague and Lisa Carole Blakemore,

Richmond Cycle Club drew my attention to this piece of work from the council, concerning cycling: http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/2011/02/04/lbrut-proposed-cycle-map/

It seems to me that this is not only a waste of money, but it demonstrates that the council is actually not really committed to encouraging more cycling in our borough.

Here's some brief notes I made about the map:
1. It doesn't show routes, it shows bits of road the borough think are appropriate for either 'use for quiet rides or family groups' or other roads.
2. Who cares about car club parking on a cycle map?
3. Sheendale Road is shown as continuous across the railway track. It has steps on I think both sides.
4. Last time I took the A316 I saw multiple signs requiring me to dismount on the 'cycle path' heading to Twickenham. While parts of the route are marked with a path, large parts of it are narrow, unmarked, plainly dangerous to cycle on, or all three: it is utterly inappropriate to claim the A316 as a continuous cycle route.
5. If you followed the map, you'd think to yourself that there's about one safe place (excusing Sheendale Road) to cross the train line if you're in a 'quiet family group'.
6. Signs that say "No crossing facility"? What are those meant to tell map users?
7. Parts of the South Circular *do* have reasonably wide cycle lanes, but they're not even marked.

In a wider sense, though, I'd like to know what the borough is doing to encourage children to cycle to school? And by this, I mean the provision of safe cycling routes which connect their homes and schools: it's my impression that not a single primary school in the borough enables its children to cycle to their school without havng to mix with traffic, and our only solution seems to be giving pupils lessons.

My children won't be ready for school for another 3 years, but by then I expect my borough to support children of 6 and up to be able to ride to school without having to play Russian Roulette with buses, cars and trucks: if the average adult in Richmond is too scared to take the correct position on our roads, how do you think children feel?

Yours sincerely,

Tim Lennon.