Ofcom the way to go? It is if you want something DONE!!!

[spoon]

This was posted on the BBC blog regarding the BBC WTC7 building video. I think they have a point.

The BBC are bigger than all of us, thats why they can say and do what they want. Do any of you really think they will be made to give a proper resopnse to this issue? They have not even responded to the 9/11 documentary on Sunday Feb 18th so what are the odds of them doing so now?

How many of you have received a reply email after complaining, telling you they need to look into it before responding? This is simply a way of getting out of answering the issue as they can use the excuse of it taking months to look into it, whilst in the mean time we will have forgot we complained.

The BBC are not the ones to compain to, you should make a complaint to Ofcom. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

The more complaints that Ofcom get the more its put in the public eye. Just look at the Big Brother race issue. What you need to do is tell all the people you can to contact Ofcom and complain about the program shown only then will you have any chance of this being dealt with, as the BBC complaints department will NOT be bothered about a "conspiracy theory" issue. This was proved by what was shown that Sunday.

[spoon]

Below is the response you get when complaining, note the paragraph that states:-

"We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will
understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number
of the other complaints we are currently investigating."

So in other words they can take as long as they want, as an excuse not to reply.

Also note were it says:-

"The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"

Now unless I'm wrong I bet the BBC received hundreds if not thousands of complaints? I did complain and If you look on the complaints site you will see that there is so far NOTHING regarding this and do you ever think there will be?


*********
Thank you for contacting the BBC



This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint
but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC
before we reply more fully to you.



We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will
understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number
of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also
issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of
significant complaints and these can be read on our website at
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints



We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the
meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your
concerns.



Regards



BBC Information

[telecasterisation]

[ian neal]

Surely the issue is requiring the BBC to give a credible explanation as to how this 'mistake' happened.

[GEFBASS]

Just found this page...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/ Public_Access_Policy_IA1.htm

Quote (for educational purposes),


"BBC Information & Archives
Guideline on the Provision of Public Access to BBC Archive Collections


Sponsored / Endorsed by:

Sue Malden, Information & Archives Corporate Affairs Manager

April 2001



GUIDELINE FOR ON THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO BBC INFORMATION AND ARCHIVES

BACKGROUND

There is an expectation and public service obligation on the BBC to provide access to its archives.

The BBC Charter states that the BBC is obliged “to establish and maintain libraries and archives containing material relevant to the objects of the Corporation and to make available to the public such libraries and archives with or without charge.”
Furthermore the Agreement between the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the BBC which accompanies the renewed Charter states that,
(Subclause 11.1) To "at its own expense make appropriate arrangements to establish and maintain (or procure that a designated body establish and maintain) to commonly accepted standards an archive or archives of films, sound recordings and other recorded or printed matter which is representative of the sound and television programmes and films broadcast or transmitted by the Corporation" and to "make reasonable arrangements, itself or with such body or bodies as it chooses, for public access to its sound, television or film archives with or without charge" and (subclause 11.3) not to "sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of any broadcast or transmitted material which it decides not to include in any archive established pursuant to subclause 11.1 without first offering such material free of charge to an appropriate designated body or bodies engaged in the maintenance of sound, television and film archives".
"


and it goes on....

Is it not then breach of charter on this sub clause or is the material with another archive somewhere ?


Geoff.

[spoon]

I was trying to point out that Ofcom would be a good place to start when complaining in regards to the farce that was shown on Sunday 18th February 2007.

It was so one-sided surely it deserves to be looked into? Also if Ofcom get loads of complaints then it will hopefully be mentioned and maybe just maybe it will entice other people to look into what happened that day?

[andyb]

020 7981 3000

May take some time though as they are still wading through the responses to the BB issue. Worth a go though! i suggest everybody does it. I think the biggest complaint shuold be about the added woman's voice on the NORAD tape as that is quite clearly used to push their bias. I think there is a 2 week form broadcats rule but it may be a month so get phoning.

[kbo234]

I phoned the relevant departments in Ofcom and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and both said that they have no remit to intercede with the BBC to request any answer as to where Jane Stanley's news team got their premature news report from.

Ofcom could intervene in matters of bad language, other offensive stuff etc

........you can only laugh.

They can deal with offended feelings but not with gross inaccuracies on matters of fact...perhaps someone should ring up and say that Ms Stanley's report made them cry.

[andyb]

KBO,

OFCOM would deal with complaints of bias about 9/11 Conspiracy Files programme

[telecasterisation]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about when I asked about complaining to OFCOM. I actually complained to them last year about something totally unrelated to 9/11 and am aware of their jurisdiction and the current situation falling outside their power to act. I apologise if I appeared disruptive or less than enthusiastic, but it was obvious OFCOM was totally the wrong route.

The moment this story broke I emailed every 'other' TV news channel and newspaper though. No replies whatsoever as yet.

[Andrew Johnson]

I think there is an issue of information pertaining to a crime here.

Someone blew up WTC 7 - someone knew it was going to collapse and released the info to the BBC.

US authorities should be (LOL) asking questions about who gave Jane Standley (with a "d" folks) the information that WTC 7 had collapsed.

I think there is a criminal issue here, not just a broadcasting "error". We need legal respresentation to step forward and escalate the matter.

[telecasterisation]

[TonyGosling]

Far as I know the nose jobs at ofcom handle (chuck in the bin something like this) complaints for everything except the BBC
must target media rags such as press gazetter and broadcast the latter of which will almost certainly becovering the bbc's admission this week

media sections of Grauniad and Indie

Ask to speak to the editor and ask them have they had anyone trying to persuade them that this isn't genuine - if so WHO!?