Having received numerous complaints regarding the BBCs handling of last week's Labour front bench resignations, in particular Stephen Doughty the Beeb has been responding to its critics:
From the BBC to Complaint about Daily Politics/Stephen Doughty resignation Thank you for contacting us about the resignation of Stephen Doughty MP from the front bench of the Labour Party on BBC Two’s ‘Daily Politics’, and a subsequent blog written about the matter on the BBC Academy website. As you may be aware, the BBC’s editor of Live Political Programmes, Robbie Gibb, has responded to the Labour Party about this matter. We believe Mr Gibb’s response below addresses the number of issues being raised. That said, we have received a wide range of feedback about this subject and are sorry in advance if this reply doesn’t address your specific concerns. Robbie Gibb’s email response to Seumas Milne, Director of Strategy and Communications at the Labour Party, was as follows: “Dear ** **** Many thanks for your email of the 8th January following the Daily Politics on the 6th January. I would like to reassure you that we are committed to producing impartial journalism and programme content that treats all political parties fairly. I would like to respond to the specific concerns raised in your email. Firstly, I reject your suggestion that we orchestrated and stage-managed the resignation of Stephen Doughty. As he himself confirmed on Friday, Mr Doughty had decided to resign his front-bench position on Wednesday morning, before speaking to any journalists. He subsequently spoke to Laura Kuenssberg who asked if he would explain his reasons in an interview on the Daily Politics later that morning. Neither the programme production team, nor Laura, played any part in his decision to resign. As you know it is a long standing tradition that political programmes on the BBC, along with all other news outlets, seek to break stories. It is true that we seek to make maximum impact with our journalism which is entirely consistent with the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and values. Your letter suggests that our decision to interview Mr Doughty in the run up to Prime Minister's Questions was designed to "promote a particular political narrative". This is simply not the case. The Daily Politics does not come on air until 11:30am on Wednesdays and the BBC's Political Editor always appears live on the programme in the build up to the start of PMQs. As the confirmation of Mr Doughty’s resignation was Laura Kuenssberg's story, we felt it appropriate for her to introduce the item. Again I do not accept, in anyway, the programme has breached its duty of impartiality and independence. The programme this week provided a balanced account of the shadow cabinet reshuffle. Lisa Nandy was interviewed at length on Wednesday while Cat Smith discussed the issue in detail the day before. You also made reference in your email to the deleted blog. It might be helpful for me to explain the background to this. Following the media reaction to Mr Doughty's resignation and appearance on the programme the BBC's training department, the BBC Academy, contacted me asking for an article explaining what goes on behind the scenes when a politician resigns live on air. I had assumed (wrongly) that the article was for internal purposes only. When it became apparent that it had been published more widely, we decided to delete it as the piece was written in a tone that was only suitable for an internal audience. No other inference should be drawn from our decision to delete the blog. I would just like to finish by underlining our commitment to ensuring our coverage of the Labour Party is fair, accurate and impartial. I hope we can look forward to working constructively together over the coming months.” We hope this addresses your concerns, thanks again for taking the time to contact us. Thank you for contacting us. BBC Complaints www.bbc.co.uk/complaints NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
0 Comments
Will you chip in £1 to help make sure that Jonathan Lundgren and other bee scientists can speak the truth without harassment?
Yes, I'll chip in £1 to help stop the censorship of bee science. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen corporate-influenced governments trying to silence bee scientists. In the U.K., the government silenced scientists who disagreed with a decision to lift a ban on bee-killing pesticides. Big Ag lobbyists wanted the ban lifted, but when the scientists wouldn't go along with it, the government simply told them not to publish their views. But this time the corporations picked on the wrong scientist. Jonathan Lundgren is refusing to back down. Now a judge has ruled that Jonathan's whistleblower complaint may go forward -- meaning he has a real chance of getting justice and showing how corporations are exerting undue influence over government research. [NEWTEKWORLDNEWS related reports: This would create a “backdoor” to allow access to any encrypted file including personal conversations, medical records, and banking documents.
In the UK, members of the Don't Spy on Us coalition have also written to the Home Secretary to ask for clarification about provisions in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. The draft Bill, which is being scrutinised by a parliamentary Joint Committee, currently includes provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to impose obligations on companies that would include the “removal of electronic protection.” In their letter, the Don't Spy on Us coalition point out that encryption keeps Internet users around the world safe and secure: “Encryption protects billions of people every day against threats, including criminals trying to steal our phones and laptops, cyber criminals trying to defraud us, or foreign intelligence agencies targeting companies' valuable trade secrets... Weakening the general security and privacy of communications systems erodes protections for everyone, and undermines trust in digital services.” Don't Spy on Us are calling for the UK government to state on the record that they do not intend to undermine digital security. Director of Don't Spy on Us, Eric King said: "Technology companies, civil society groups and academics have all sounded the alarm bell about obscure clauses in this bill that could force companies to weaken the security in technologies we all rely on everyday. The US, the Netherlands, and Finland have all made public statements recognising the public importance of strong encryption in recent months. We want a clear unambiguous statement from the Home Secretary that this bill won’t be used to backdoor encryption, to put peoples concern to rest, once and for all." For further information, contact: Eric King, Director of Don’t Spy on Us: 07986 860 013 Pam Cowburn, Communications Director, Open Rights Group: 07749785932 [The Don't Spy On Us is a coalition of organisations who defend privacy, free expression and digital rights in the UK and in Europe. Its executive includes Article 19, Big Brother Watch, English PEN, Liberty, Privacy International and Open Rights Group. The full letter to Home Secretary Theresa May is published here: https://www.dontspyonus.org.uk/blog/2016/01/11/letter-to-home-secretary-calling/ The letter to world leaders was organised by Access Now and is now open to public support: https://www.SecureTheInternet.org] The BNP’s statement of accounts were due on 7 July 2015. Their annual confirmation of registered details was therefore due on or before 7 January 2016. The Electoral Commission did not receive the notification by this date and is required by law to remove the BNP from its register of political parties in Great Britain.
Now that the party has been removed from the register, BNP candidates cannot, at present, use the party’s name, descriptions or emblems on the ballot paper at elections. The party can, however, submit an application to re-register at any time and their name, descriptions and emblems are protected under PPERA for two years to prevent other parties using them. Any application will be considered by the Commission in line with its usual processes for assessing new applications to register political parties. For further information contact Electoral Commission press office on 020 7271 0704 or press@electoralcommission.org.uk Out of office hours 07789 920 414 Notes to editors 1. The Electoral Commission is an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. Our aim is integrity and public confidence in the UK’s democratic process. We regulate party and election finance and set standards for well-run elections and are responsible for the conduct and regulation of referendums held under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (2000). 2. For more information on political parties requirements under the law, see our guidance on maintaining party details here. 3. When parties submit their annual notification confirming that the details they have registered with the Commission remain accurate – they are confirming that the names of the party leader and treasurer; and the registered address of the party remain the same. If any of these details have changed, they must inform the Commission when submitting the notification. 4. The process for registering a political party is set out in our guidance here.
This Wednesday morning, MPs are holding a Westminster Hall debate on child prisoners and detainees in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Their names were included on a list of executions carried out today by the Saudi Government and published on the website of the Kingdom’s official press agency. In total, 47 people were executed at various locations across the country.
In the statement, the ministry of the interior quoted the Quran, saying that “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.” The list did not include the names of a number of people sentenced to death as children who are still facing execution. Ali al Nimr (Sheikh Nimr’s nephew), Dawoud al Marhoon, and Abdullah al Zaher were also sentenced to death over their alleged involvement in the 2012 anti-Government protests, despite having been aged 17, 17, and 15 respectively at the time. All three were also badly mistreated in custody, and tortured into signing ‘confessions’ to the offences alleged against them. Commenting, Maya Foa, Director of the death penalty team at international human rights organisation Reprieve said: “2015 saw Saudi Arabia execute over 150 people, many of them for non-violent offences. Today’s appalling news, with nearly 50 executed in a single day, suggests 2016 could be even worse. Alarmingly, the Saudi Government is continuing to target those who have called for domestic reform in the kingdom, executing at least four of them today. There are now real concerns that those protesters sentenced to death as children could be next in line to face the swordsman’s blade. Saudi Arabia’s allies – including the US and UK – must not turn a blind eye to such atrocities and must urgently appeal to the Kingdom to change course.” |
Yourvoice
This blog will include a range of reports and opinion pieces covering many issues. It will be YOUR Voice. Archives
April 2017
Categories
All
|