Oversight

[Home] [Storyline] [Index] [Links & thanks] [Film]

20.02.09
John Whittingdale MP
Culture Media & Sport Committee
Copy to Committee Members


Dear Sir,

I am writing to you because the CMS Committee you chair is the supreme public authority with the power to bring government attention to a most important and urgent issue: the BBC’s the lack of accountability to the public for 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 government to enforce the Royal Charter. This has not been done except when government considers itself 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.

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, which is the subject of the documentary I have examined for non compliance with the Charter.

As you will be aware the events on Sept.11th have led 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 led 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 still on the Corporation web site.

The BBC stated that the 911 Conspiracy File would “investigate the truth about 911 to separate fact from fiction”. In fact the 911 Conspiracy 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. [3]

The documentary was in direct opposition to the stated aims and obligations of the Charter, the Editorial Guideline and Sir Michael Lyons’ 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 Sir Michael. 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 complaint and therefore refused to consider the key issues I raised. 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 believe the disregard for the obligations - to parliament and the public, that the Corporation is supposed to be bound by, deserve serious and impartial examination.

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 here: [Home]


NOTES

[1] History of government control of BBC output:

a. Alisdair Milne. Extracts for his autobiography.
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/political-manipulation-of-bbc-december.html

b. Gilligan sacking reviewed.
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/09/gilligan-kelly-wmd.html

c. MI5 vet BBC staff.
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/room-105-bbc.html

[2] History of ignoring Charter responsibilities:
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/11/bbc-biasinaccuracy.html

[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. http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/foundationimpartiality.html

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”.
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/accuracy.html

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:
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2000/01/bbc-charter-agreement.html