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: Write to Labour

It's being reported that Labour has omitted any mention of a referendum on any Brexit terms - a 'People's Vote' - from its European elections leaflets, because it got 'forgotten'. (It's the second time Labour has used this excuse).

I've written to Labour's Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, (team@tom-watson.com) to protest and to say that I will not vote for Labour unless it stops helping the Tory government to drag us out of the EU.

Dear Mr Watson

I am bitterly disappointed to learn that the Labour Party's election leaflet for the European elections contains no mention of a People's Vote.. This is deeply foolish as well as duplicitous. After the 2017 General Election, Labour betrayed its voters by claiming that voting Labour meant they backed Brexit. Many will not be fooled again. I will believe the party is committed to a referendum on any Brexit terms, including an option to remain, only when I hear it unequivocally from the mouth of Jeremy Corbyn himself.

And when I hear alleged Labour MPs like Caroline Flint singing the praises of Theresa May's blind Brexit when even Nigel Farage admits it is worse than staying in the EU, words fail me.

If we leave the EU, I will not forgive Labour.

There is no longer any justification for Brexit:

1. Any Brexit will damage the UK and particularly the people Labour is supposed to care most about.

2. The referendum result is null and void as it was won by lies, cheating and criminality. (I have taken this up with my MP, Sir Keir Starmer on a number of occasions and I am bitterly disappointed that Labour has tried to sweep it under the carpet - an act of foolishness and cowardice that will haunt the party for a very long time.)

3. The Brexit that was promised is not being and cannot be delivered, and there is no mandate for either of the available Brexits - Theresa May's blind Brexit or 'no deal'.

Labour's half-hearted opposition to the right wing Brexit coup has been a dreadful stain on the party's reputation, and if we are now dragged out of the EU, I will regard Labour as being as much to blame as the Tories. I trust you will now do whatever is necessary to stop it.

If we do leave, I will not forget, and I will do everything I can to help defeat Labour in all subsequent elections.

There is still time to do the right thing, but it is fast running out.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: it's not just Theresa May. Are the police also running down the clock?

Last May - yes, 9 months ago, the police were given evidence of widespread law-breaking by the Leave Campaign in the 2016 referendum. In October, I wrote to the Metropolitan Police asking why they had taken no action (see my post of 15 October 2018). The Met replied:

The electoral commission has made referrals to the MPS. The special Enquiry Team are assessing a number of documents in order to make an informed decision as to whether a criminal investigation is required.

Since then another four precious months have elapsed and it is now just six weeks before we are due to leave the EU. A good reason, you might think, for the Met to get its skates on. Instead - silence. So I have written to them again (see my post of 9 Feb). On 9 Feb, I got a reply saying:

Currently The document [sic] are being assessed by specialist investigators, supported with advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, in order to make an informed decision as to whether a criminal investigation is required.

Anyone who didn't know better might conclude the Met had done absolutely nothing and was just waiting for 29 March in the hope that if there was a criminal conspirancy, the criminals concerned would have safely achieved their objective, with their crime having paid, long before any 'investigation' got underway.

Then perhaps somebody at the Met spotted that they might not be creating the right impression, because on 11 February I got another reply, which seems to be a longer-winded way of saying the same thing: after 9 months and with Brexit six weeks away, the police STILL have not decided whether to mount an investigation:

The Electoral Commission has made two referrals to the MPS in relation to the EU Referendum regarding potential criminal offences under section 123(4) Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.  The first referral was received on 11 May 2019 and concerns Leave.EU, the second referral was received on 17 July 2018 and concerns Vote Leave and BeLeave.

A referral from the Electoral Commission does not automatically mean a criminal offence has been committed, it is the role of the MPS to decide whether there is evidence of a criminal offence that requires investigations.

There has been reporting that the MPS enquiries have made no progress, inferring this was due to ‘political sensitivities’.  This is not the case.  Having received over 2,000 documents, it is absolutely imperative we assess the evidential material that is available in order to make an informed decision as to whether there are matters that require a criminal investigation by the MPS.

We will not provide a running commentary of how we are progressing our enquiries however as with previous referrals form the Electoral Commission, the MPS will make public the outcome of our assessment.

Brexitwatch: time to contact the Met again

Could all the brinkmanship about no deal and the unicorn amendments from Tory MPs just be a smokescreen, designed to make us forget that the referendum result, which these days is the only justification offered for Brexit, was procured by lying, cheating and law-breaking?

Back in October (see my post of 15 October 2018) I contacted the Metropolitan Police to find out why they had done nothing about law-breaking by the Leave side, even though the evidence had been submitted to them in May (now 9 months ago). On 16 October, they sent me this reply:

The electoral commission has made referrals to the MPS. The special Enquiry Team are assessing a number of documents in order to make an informed decision as to whether a criminal investigation is required.

If this 'assessment' has made any progress over the last four months, it is a closely guarded secret, so I have just written to the Met again:

It is nine months now since you were presented with clear evidence of widespread illegal activity by the Leave Campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Four months ago I asked why so little progress had been made, and you told me on October 16, 2018: 'The electoral commission has made referrals to the MPS. The special Enquiry Team are assessing a number of documents in order to make an informed decision as to whether a criminal investigation is required.'

So could you now tell me:

1. Have you now finished assessing the documents? If not, why not?

2. Have you now started your criminal investigation? If not, why not? If you have, when will it be concluded?

3. Is it correct that your plan is to spin out any 'investigation' beyond the date when the UK leaves the EU so that if there was a criminal conspiracy, it will have reached a successful conclusion before the police take any meaningful action and that thus you can avoid upsetting the government in view of the 'political sensitivities' you talked about?

I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Brexitwatch: is this Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit Achilles Heel?

My MP happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer. I have written to him many times and most of the time he has an answer, even if I do not always consider it satisfactory, but there is one question I have asked him several times and I have never received an answer. It is this:-

Sir Keir has admitted that Brexit has no benefits, and that Labour was proceeding with it only because of the referendum result. So now it has been demonstrated that the referendum was won illegally, why is Labour not demanding that it be stopped?

If you have a Labour MP who has not declared against Brexit or for a People's Vote on any Brexit terms, I urge you to write to them to ask why they are still demanding implementation of the result of a bent referendum. Below is one of my emails to Sir Keir on this topic:-

Dear Sir Keir, 

I cannot believe that Labour has not called for an immediate halt to Brexit in view of the evidence provided today of yet more law-breaking by the Leave campaign. I have already written to you twice on this issue (see below) but you have ignored me. What is Labour's strategy here? Stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, pretend none of this has happened, and then hopefully it will all go away? 

You yourself have admitted that Brexit has no benefits, and that Labour was supporting it only because it was the 'will of the people'. Now it is clear that the referendum was won by serial law-breaking, this excuse will no longer wash. 

If Labour fails to act, not only will it impoverish our country, and in particular the people Labour are supposed to care most about, destroying jobs, businesses, public services, savings,people's rights to live and work in Europe etc, it will also give a green light to any party that wants to cheat in future elections in our country. 

Take action to stop Brexit now. I appeal to you and Labour not to continue in this gross dereliction of your duty. 

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Follow me on twitter @disasterhistory

Brexitwatch: demand your MP takes action over Leave campaign cheating

For the second time, the Leave campaign has been found to have cheated in the Brexit referendum. The law lays down spending limits to ensure elections are fair. The official Leave campaign broke the law by spending nearly £500,000 more than it was allowed to.

This is the second time the Leave campaign has been caught cheating. In May, Arron Banks's mysteriously financed Leave.EU group was also fined for spending too much. With a gap of less than 4% between the votes cast for the two sides, surely the referendum result should now be regarded as null and void, but bizarrely the Labour and Tory front benches seem determined to look the other way and pretend none of this has happened. 

This cannot go on. It is the duty of MPs to stop Brexit NOW because 1) it will damage our country. 2) allowing this result to stand will give a green light to cheating in all future UK elections.

My MP happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer. I wrote to him twice about Leave.EU's cheating (see my post of May 14), and I have never received a reply.

Now that further law-breaking has been revealed, I have written to him again:

Dear Sir Keir,

I cannot believe that Labour has not called for an immediate halt to Brexit in view of the evidence provided today of yet more law-breaking by the Leave campaign. I have already written to you twice on this issue (see below) but you have ignored me. What is Labour's strategy here? Stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, pretend none of this has happened, and then hopefully it will all go away?

You yourself have admitted that Brexit has no benefits, and that Labour was supporting it only because it was the 'will of the people'. Now it is clear that the referendum was won by serial law-breaking, this excuse will no longer wash.

If Labour fails to act, not only will it impoverish our country, and in particular the people Labour are supposed to care most about, destroying jobs, businesses, public services, savings,people's rights to live and work in Europe etc, it will also give a green light to any party that wants to cheat in future elections in our country. 

Take action to stop Brexit now. I appeal to you and Labour not to continue in this gross dereliction of your duty.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington