Brexitwatch: BBC fails to address my complaint

In my post for April 19, I put up the letter I sent to the BBC complaining about its failure to challenge the constant lies trotted out by pro-Brexit speakers. I particulary wanted to know why BBC interviewers never ask:

1. Why should we have to obey the result of a referendum that was won by lying, cheating and criminality?

2. Why should we have to obey the result of a referendum in which voters were promised a Brexit that is not being and cannot be delivered?

3. Why are we pretending we have to obey the result of a referendum that was explicitly non-binding and advisory?

I received a reply which did not address any of these points: 

Dear Mr Withington

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

I understand you feel BBC News has shown a consistent bias in favour of Brexit and failed to properly question the assertions of those who are in favour of Brexit.

Naturally we regret when any member of our audience is unhappy with any aspect of what we do. We have received a wide range of feedback about our coverage of this story across our news programmes and bulletins. Keeping in mind pressures on licence fee resources, this response seeks to address the key points raised. That said, we apologise in advance if your complaint has not been specifically addressed here.

We aim to cover the ongoing Brexit negotiations with due impartiality. This means we carry a wide range of views about the European Union from across the political spectrum on our output.

We approach the story with the required level of impartiality, with input from various commentators and experts. 'Feedback' on BBC Radio 4 has addressed the issue of complaints about how we cover the story. Our Chief Political Adviser and the controller of the BBC's daily news programming joined Today presenter Nick Robinson, to discuss the common complaints from all sides. You may be interested in the sections at 3mins and 13mins especially:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09z688x

As with any story we cover, BBC News does not have an opinion on the European Union, or on the UK’s position within it. Instead we try to explain the different and sometimes complex issues affecting our audience during Brexit. Our aim is to give them the information they need in order to follow the process clearly.

We appreciate your concerns and hope this helps to explain how we approach our reporting of this subject. Nonetheless, I understand this is something you feel strongly about and I’ve included your points on our audience feedback report that is sent to senior management and programme makers each morning and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future output.

We appreciate you taking the time to register your views on this matter as it is greatly helpful in informing future decisions at the BBC.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards

John Hamill

BBC Complaints Team

I have now complained about this response as follows:

I made a very specific complaint about how interviews with Brexit supporters are conducted on BBC programmes, and about how interviewers appear to constantly suppress crucial facts. I asked you whether this was because they were ignorant or because they were instructed not to raise certain issues inconvenient for the Brexit case. I also asked you if there was an instruction, from whom did it come.

You did not address any of these points, and instead delivered a standard, generic response claiming: 'we try to be fair'. The key points are below. I would be grateful if this time you address them.

Day after day, Brexit supporters are allowed to spout that the UK has to leave the EU because 'people voted for it'. (Most of them have by now given up any pretence that Brexit has any benefits.)

I used to work for the BBC as well as other broadcasting organisations, and I would have been asking these interviewees:

1. Why should we have to obey the result of a referendum that was won by lying, cheating and criminality?

2. Why should we have to obey the result of a referendum in which voters were promised a Brexit that is not being and cannot be delivered?

3. Why are we pretending we have to obey the result of a referendum that was explicitly non-binding and advisory?

I have heard many, many Brexiters being interviewed on your programmes, but I have NEVER heard one of your interviewers putting these points. Why is that? Is it because they are ignorant of the facts or is it because an edict has come from on high forbidding them from raising these inconvenient facts. If it is the latter, from whom does it come?

Brexitwatch: another complaint to the BBC

The BBC's performance has been so lamentable that I could complain every day about the way pro-Brexit interviewees are allowed to spout their lies on programme after programme without even a token challenge.

But I've finally lost patience, and written to them again:

Last night a journalist was killed in N Ireland as Brexit undermines the peace process, and unfortunately the BBC has played its part in this sorry state of affairs by failing to expose systematic lying by pro-Brexit speakers on its news and current affairs programmes.

Day after day, they are allowed to spout that the UK has to leave the EU because 'people voted for it'. (Most of them have by now given up any pretence that Brexit has any benefits.)

I used to work for the BBC as well as other broadcasting organisations, and I would have been asking these interviewees:

1. Why should we have to obey the result of a referendum that was won by lying, cheating and criminality?

2. Why should we have to obey the result of a referendum in which voters were promised a Brexit that is not being and cannot be delivered?

3. Why are we pretending we have to obey the result of a referendum that was explicitly non-binding and advisory?

I have heard many, many Brexiters being interviewed on your programmes, but I have NEVER heard one of your interviewers putting these points. Why is that? Is it because they are ignorant of the facts or is it because an edict has come from on high forbidding them from raising these inconvenient facts. If it is the latter, from whom does it come?

Brexitwatch: Moment of truth. Brexit has no mandate - write to Theresa May

So Theresa May wants to bring the country together. IF she really means this, she needs to stop lying and recognise that Brexit has NO MANDATE. We all need to write to her at https://email.number10.gov.uk/

 This is what I have sent:

If you really want to bring the country together, the first thing you need to do is stop lying. I watched your speech outside No 10 the other day, and after hearing 3 lies in about the first 40 seconds, I gave up. There was no point in listening to any more.

1. The ‘people’ did not ‘instruct’ you to leave the EU. As the law, and your deputy Mr Liddington made crystal clear – the referendum was ADVISORY and non-binding. It offered bad advice which will damage the UK and you and all other MPs have a duty to reject it. Anyway what about the 16 million who voted against Brexit, do you consider them not to be ‘people’? Leaving the EU is YOUR decision.

2. The referendum was won by lies, cheating and law-breaking. In any proper democracy, the result would have been declared null and void long ago. But you don’t seem to care.

3. As you point out, the only Brexits now available are your blind Brexit ‘deal’ and no deal. Neither was voted on in the referendum, and judging from how rude different Brexiters are about both, it is plain that both would have been heavily defeated by Remain. So there is no mandate for any possible Brexit. It’s time to start putting the UK first and stopping Brexit.

Brexitwatch: respect and obedience - the latest Brexit con

As George Orwell astutely noted in 1984, one of the crucial steps in the transition from democracy to dictatorship (Theresa May would presumably call this the ‘implementation phase’) is the perversion of language. We have heard a lot of it since the Brexit referendum.

I read today that fewer than half even of Leave voters think Brexit will benefit them and their families, but 90 per cent still believe the referendum result should be ‘respected’. I agree with them, the result should be ‘respected’, but as George Orwell would no doubt remind us, ‘respect’ is not the same as ‘obey’. Generals often speak about ‘respecting’ the enemy, but that does not mean they obey them!

The referendum was advisory, not binding, at the insistence of the Parliament Brexiters say must be sovereign. So MPs are NOT bound by the result, but they should respect this enormous consultative exercise by debating and taking decisions, without further delay, on these questions:-

1. Was the referendum conducted fairly and is its result valid? If no, MPs must act at once to halt the withdrawal process and decide how to proceed. Should there be a new referendum? If so, how should it be conducted? Should it be binding or advisory? etc

2. If they consider the result of the 2016 referendum IS valid, MPs must examine what would be the effect on the prosperity, quality of life, security, integrity etc of the UK if we were to leave the EU, and, if they were to decide that it would be in our national interest to leave, then they must examine what post-Brexit state we should be aiming for – in or out of the Single Market and/or customs union, for example.

Yes. I know it’s a scandal that MPs have failed to do any of this during the 21 months since the referendum, but they need to do it NOW before they consign themselves to irrelevance. And if the government tries to block their efforts, they must bring it down.

*Will a woman always win an argument with a man? Here's a television vox pop I conducted in Coventry in 1974. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-12091974-vox-pop-arguing