Shortly after I posted my previous blog about the BBC and Matthew Price (which you can read HERE) I attempted to confront the editor Jon Gripton via their Facebook page to see if he was willing to publicly acknowledge that he messed up by promoting a hate-site.
Jon Gripton, for some reason, refuses to deal with members of the public that have a problem with the local BBC and he even goes as far as to block some that occasionally make complaints (despite the fact we are never abusive). So Gripton sent an employee to talk to me instead.
That person was Ryan Morrison. I have mentioned him on this blog before and I have a huge amount of respect for Ryan. I once had to complain to him about a programme that I felt wasn't be done properly, and he handled my complaint excellently. He was completely professional and made me feel as if I had genuinely been listened to and taken into consideration.
I was told that by attempting to challenge Gripton, I was being disruptive. That may well be true, though I can't be as disruptive as the fake accounts whose purpose is to attack victims of child abuse and their advocates, and the only reason I have to be disruptive is because Gripton refuses to allow himself to be accountable. If he would just answer the bloody questions, then we would avoid all of this.
I was told that he has now apologised to Deputy Shona Pitman for endorsing the hate-site. I am very pleased to hear that and she absolutely deserved that apology. But what about the members of the public who have been fobbed off by him? I complained about his actions and received a reply that said he had denied ever doing it! If he denies it, then surely he had nothing to apologise to Shona? His position is irreconcilable and he is making a mockery of the complaints procedure.
Which is why I have a problem when BBC employees ask me to go through the appropriate BBC complaints procedure. What is the point? Both Jon Gripton and now Matthew Price tell the complaints board something totally contradictory to what the truth actually is, the board just take the word for it and try and draw a line under it.
I lodged a complaint with them on the 7th of November about Matthew Price claiming to know "nothing" about the complaints that had been made about Jon Gripton and the hate-site.
Their response was this -
"Thank you for contacting us regarding BBC Radio Jersey.
We appreciate your comments.
Matthew Price wasn’t and isn’t aware of the specifics of the complaints Mr Pitman or you cite. During the programme he accordingly moved the discussion on to the point at hand, the threats of arson made against Sean Power.
We have nothing further to add to our previous responses on Jon Gripton’s activity on Twitter.
Thanks again for contacting us."
Of course, I never suggested that Matthew Price knew anything about the "specifics" of the complaint. I said that he claimed to know "nothing" about the complaint, when I have evidence that he did know "something".
He has obviously made sure to choose his words carefully so that he isn't actually lying to the complaints board, but also isn't answering their question.
But the complaints board don't press him on the issue, they just accept his word for it, and that's that.
How can anyone have any faith in a complaints procedure when it clearly has no teeth and those being investigated are able to twist their words in such a way to get out of almost anything.
The reason I have posted this, is because I want my experience to be on the public record. The BBC complaints procedure is not fit for purpose and is being treated with contempt by our local BBC editors.