Saturday, 16 November 2013

BBC complaints procedure is evidently not fit for purpose

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.


  1. I have a question for Jersey's excuse for a BBC

    When are they going to report on the full public interest contents of illegally suspended Police Chief G.Power's signed statements with which they were furnished many years ago?

    Jon Gripless stated that they are um.. er.. "using it in their journalism" - whatever that means.

    1. Its not "Jersey's excuse for a BBC" that is the BBC nationwide. You have a romaticised view that the BBC is impartial and independent. Its state media. A lot of propaganda mixed in with some excellent programmes. Telling which is which requires intellect.

  2. Why not just take it to the big Beeb and demand some sort of inquiry?

    1. The "Big Beeb" does not want to rock the Jersey boat. It wants to appear uninvolved so that it can deny responsibility when the sh*t hits the fan and blame the local management.

      Remember we are talking about the BBC - you know, the ones who enabled and covered up for prolific predatory paedophile Jimmy Savile for all those years.

      Stuart Syvret was complaining to national BBC for ages prior to the Savile rumours being devastatingly confirmed beyond what anyone had contemplated.

      Perhaps national BBC just need one more complaint?
      Perhaps you could do it for us.

      Go for it but I am not holding my breath.

      The clue why not may be in Sam's title "BBC complaints procedure is evidently not fit for purpose" ....... different office ........ same fob off procedure.

      Let us know the how you get on. lol

  3. Boring same old.

    You never dare publish the truth that the sacked former police chief was (a) lazy (b) compiling secret files on all states members .............a bit like the former Eastern European Communist countries spying on elected representatives and (c) allowed all the Police to drive around in Police cars in pairs and do nothing.

    I won't go into the Haut De La Garrene Fiaso. Let's open up some debate instead please

    1. I have never published anything on the former police chief stating he was anything, lazy or otherwise.

      So not sure how that can be "boring same old" when I've never delved into that topic.

  4. Please don't follow the other blogs and whine on about the same subjects over and over again.
    You've made your point about the BBC, now it's time to move on.

    1. Lol. Sam, you have someone here who wants to tell you what to write. This person may not be as happy about blog freedoms as he is about state media bias. Maybe I'd like for your commenter to create his own blog, with topics I'd like to see more of, and tell him please don't read the JEP and whine about the same subjects they do, or make any points critical of the BBC. I don't like it. I like collecting stamps and sail-boarding.

  5. Sam,

    "Boring same old" is unfortunately from "Boring same old"

    Put him in the bin


    1. Hi Rico

      Yes, He and they are that obvious and I suspect that Sam was humouring it.

      It is maybe funny because to quote Sam's post "...though I can't be as disruptive as the fake accounts whose purpose is to attack victims of child abuse and their advocates"

      I was rather less polite than you but I posted a couple of comments ID-ing the likely source [within potential legal/super-injunction restrictions].
      Sam chose not to publish these (I presume). -A part of me was annoyed about this, and a part of me was respectful of Sam for not allowing the so sadly afflicted to be mocked on his blog.

      I take the view that this under-bridge-dweller deserves and needs a certain amount of mocking.

      Ultimately it is a value judgement on to what extent you should protect the perpetrator, balanced against protecting past and future victims.

    2. You're right, I did choose not to publish them. Sorry, I should have provided an explanation but I've been busy lately.

      You're right that this person/ these people are pretty rotten and sinister and deserve to be castigated and lampooned. But it comes to a point where I don't really want too much effort devoted to them because they feed off it and it inspires them to carry on.

      The amount of my posts that are being screen captured on their hate-sites with the usual suspects (some real, some fake) commenting all sorts of rubbish, is astounding.

      My efforts now have to go to other causes and I want to try and avoid being distracted by these sub-humans because that is what they are aiming for.

  6. Sam.

    Discredited, and disgraced BBC reach NEW LOW

  7. It's amusing to see comments suggesting for you to take complaint matters up with the Big Beeb. having done that with polite and detailed evidence of their unethical pseudo-journalism in Jersey, I believe it always ends up in their "RoundFile." I've rarely received a reply.

    1. I'm lucky enough to almost always get replies... it's a shame those replies tend to not even attempt to address the points I made.

      I've sent an email to Jon Gripton with three questions about all this. I'll see what he says to that before deciding how to proceed.