Letter to Trust chair

BBC Trust

Dear Sir Michael Lyons,

I am writing to you because the Trust you chair is the public guarantor of the BBC’s compliance with Royal Charter obligations.

The BBC is a self regulating body on political matters covered by the Royal Charter. The British public place trust in the BBC to enforce the Royal Charter. This has not been done except when government itself considers a victim of breach of the Royal Charter protocols. [1]

If one examines the evidence in the public domain [2] it shows that there is a documented history of disregarding Charter obligations. Your committee is, I believe, responsible for monitoring the Corporation.

Before I go further, may I quote Richard Dawkins concerning “the argument from personal incredulity masquerading as its opposite, a serious commitment to hypothesis testing”. I’m going to mention an issue which opens up negative associations in some minds - the events of September 11th 2001. Incredulity and a closed mind often occurs when questions are raised about the official US Government theory.

Please note, this letter concerns BBC Charter infringements and is not primarily a statement or question about the US or British government position regarding 911 itself.

As you will be aware the events on Sept.11th have lead to disastrous wars involving the deaths of countless civilians and British and US soldiers. If we are to believe in the concept of democracy the British public have to be provided with accurate and unbiased information about the events that lead to war.

There are major Royal Charter compliance issues in the Feb. 2007 (repeated August 2008) broadcast of the BBC 911 Conspiracy Files and on the programme’s pages on the Corporation web site.

The BBC stated that the 911 File would “investigate the truth about 911 to separate fact from fiction”. In fact the 911 File breaches the Royal Charter in three significant ways, accuracy, impartiality and subliminal conditioning. In the first two instances the transgressions would appear to be clear cut and indisputable - except of course if you are a BBC executive examining criticism of the Corporation. [3]

The documentary was in direct opposition to the stated aims and obligations of the Charter, the Editorial Guideline and your July 08 Strasbourg speech. “The public purpose of "sustaining citizenship" implies the provision of high quality impartial coverage of news and current affairs. This is the essential fuel of an informed democracy.”

There are few who would publicly disagree with your words. The BBC is however, in practice, unaccountable to the public when it fails to meet its political obligations. The BBC informs me there is a time limit of 30 days to lodge a complain and refused to consider my complaint. (BBC Ref: 16189778) Due to the complexity of the issue it has taken me over a year to compile a detailed review of the Charter infringements with regards to the BBC 911 investigation.

I trust in your integrity as a public representative to examine the evidence.

Yours sincerely John Yates

The completed evidence exposing breaches of the BBC Charter obligations in the 911 Conspiracy Files documentary is posted as a review on a web site:


[1] History of government control of BBC output:

a. Alisdair Milne. Extracts for his autobiography.

b. Gilligan sacking reviewed.

c. MI5 vet BBC staff.

[2] History of ignoring Charter responsibilities:

[3] Three significant breaches in 911documentary:
These are multilayered and numerous. The Home page has an overview and the detail is recorded on the Storyline. Key points can be accessed at the links below.

i) Unbalanced, i.e. it did not match the Charter obligation: “controversial subjects are treated with impartiality”. 14 supporters of the official theory were “balanced” against three unrepresentative interviewees from the vast diversity of questioning voices.

ii) It was inaccurate to a significant degree when checked against a multiplicity of verifiable information in the public domain. i.e. it did not match the Charter obligation: “controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy”.

iii) It was artful in spinning a spurious sub text with tabloid style cartoon characterisations of questioners as all mildly eccentric and emotionally flawed. This repetitive instructive message on the psychology of “others” who did not agree with the BBC does not comply with the Charter obligation to refrain “from use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred”. For the BBC Royal Charter see:

No comments: