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.








...

BBC communication

Sent: 03 April 2010 21:02:30

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your comments regarding this line that we regularly use in our reports: “The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”

On the most basic level, we use the word “disputed” because it is a simple statement of fact – Israel does actually dispute the contention of illegality. The Israeli government’s argument is outlined here http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israeli+Settlements+and+International+Law.htm

While the international is clear on the issue, this opinion comes from an interpretation of treaties and conventions. No court has actually sat and ruled definitively that Israeli settlements are illegal. The International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank barrier would certainly support the contention that settlements are illegal and that the West Bank is occupied territory as defined by the Geneva convention, but this was an advisory ruling and does not carry the force or weight of law.

So we believe that is fair and reasonable to characterise the issue in the way we have.

The arguments around this issue are considered in detail in this report, commissioned by the BBC Governors:

http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/lubell_law_report.pdf

Thanks and best regards,



Middle East desk
BBC News website



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


Thanks for your reply.

You first offer that you are simply stating a fact which prevails. In other stories, however, the BBC does not state that a different view is held.

Eg. in this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8600285.stm

You do not state that armed reprisals are illegal under international law yet they are, or that Israel disputes it. Similarly the munitions used by the Israeli armed forces, torture in Israeli jails etc. You do not use that phrase or similar at the end of those stories, only in the settlement stories.

Using the phrase as you do seems to give the state of Israel an undue level of credibility for it's claim that that the settlements are legal. The international community is clear that they are not, and that the other policies / tactics mentioned above are not. The Israeli state website you offered me is mere propaganda by the guilty party, and in no way stands up to scrutiny. Of course it cannot stand up since it declares the illegal to be legal. Such theory is not therefore enough to justify including the statement "though Israel disputes this" at the end of your settlement stories.

'Revisionist historians' and fascist/Nazi sympathisers dispute that the Holocaust took place, and yet you would not feel it justifiable to indicate their views at the end of Holocaust-related materials, I'm sure.

You then contradict yourself by outlining the case that there is no such thing as international law.

You state that the relevant rulings are advisory and do not carry the force of law. If this is the case, why do you state that the settlements are "illegal under international law" in the first part of the phrase that I am objecting to? Clearly the international community is clear, the UN which has supreme responsibility is clear, and the BBC have quoted it after every settlement story I can remember, so the BBC is obviously also clear that international law exists and the settlements are illegal under it.

Finally the report commissioned by BBC governors which you imply is your guidance on the matter has been discussed by Arab Media Watch I note:

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/BBCWatch/tabid/133/newsid476/2580/Comparative-BBC-analysis-AMW-independent-panel-Loughborough--Lubell-reports/Default.aspx

They are happy with Lubell's advice that the settlements be described as " illegal settlements ", and recommend that their illegal nature be stressed. The report is also very clear, in that it's last word on the settlements is:

"

The vast majority of opinion holds that the establishment of the settlements is indeed a

violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. This is the view expressed not only by leading

commentators (including Israelis), but also by other states (including allies of Israel), the UN

Security Council, and the International Court of Justice. The Security Council has clearly

stated:

“[…]that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new

immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva

Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also

constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in

the Middle East”


There is no mention of any need to describe the way the state of Israel reacts to the claim that the settlements are illegal. Why then does the BBC insist on using this phrase / summing up technique in this circumstance? This one alone? When something is illegal it is criminal, and there is no reason to oppose the opinion of a tiny criminal minority against the judgement not merely of the injured party but of the vast majority of the rest of the world and the relevant bodies, ie the only bodies whose job it is to judge the matter.

I repeat my demand that the BBC stops saying: "though Israel disputes this" at the end of stories relating to the settlements. I would be very happy if the sentence merely read " The settlements are illegal under international law."

Yours sincerely,

Illinois Cook



Hi BBC,

No reply to my email below so far.

The BBC is still using the phrase:

"Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. "

eg. here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8634754.stm

I take it that since you are unable or unwilling to further defend its use, you are putting measures in place to ensure it will not be used from now on?

Yours sincerely,

Illinois Cook



Sent: 11 May 2010 10:16:00

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your further email on the issue of the illegality of the settlements.

The reason we feel it is correct to say the “settlements are illegal” is, to quote Lubell’s advice, “the vast majority of opinion holds that the establishment of the settlements is indeed a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention”.

We are not judging the credibility of Israel’s argument, but recognising that there is an argument.

Clearly, you remain unsatisfied with our response, it is open to you to address your complaint to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit: ecu@bbc.co.uk or Room 5170, White City, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS.



Best regards,

Middle East Desk
BBC News website