BBC Trust

British Broadcasting Corporation

180 Great Portland Street

London W1W 5QZ

T. 020 3214 4994

bbc.co.uk/bbctrust

Our Ref: 3344867

13 July 2015

Dear Mr Plosker

BBC News Channel 11 February 2015

Thank you for writing to the BBC Trust. I am responding to your appeal of 20 May 2015. You appealed to the Trust about an aspect of the BBCs live coverage of the demonstration in Paris following the killings at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and at a kosher supermarket. Your complaint concerned an exchange between a BBC reporter and his interviewee, an Israeli-born Jewish woman.

I should highlight that the Trust has received a number of appeals regarding the coverage, raising similar substantives issues to the allegations in your complaint.

The BBC's editorial complaints and appeals procedure1 states:

2.11 If the BBC receives a number of complaints about the same issue, it may

2.11.1 compile a summary of the range of issues raised;

2.11.2 consider them together across the full range of issues identified;

2.11.3 send the same response to everyone and/or it may publish it on

the BBCs complaints website.

These steps may be applied by the BBC at each stage of the Procedure.

5.6 If the Trust receives a number of appeals about the same issue, it may apply the steps as set out in paragraph 2.11 above.

In order to ensure administrative and cost efficiency, I am therefore sending this consolidated response to all of the complainants whose complaints have been received by the Trust, covering all the substantive issues that have been raised. This response is intended to ensure that the key reasons for the decision on the issues raised in the various complaints are communicated to complainants in an efficient manner.

1 See

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2014/complaints_fr_work_

ed_complaints.pdf

As this appeal is consolidated, this letter is designed to respond to the main points of each appeal, and may address issues in addition to those that you have raised, which I hope you will find of interest.

I have read each appeal and considered their respective merits individually, in deciding whether each qualifies for consideration by the Trust. Following my review, I do not consider any of the appeals submitted to the Trust, arising from this matter, to have a reasonable prospect of success and have decided that they should not therefore proceed to the ESC.

The detailed reasons for my decision are in the following annex. In the second annex are relevant sections of the BBCs complaints procedures and the Charter and Agreements which you may find helpful.

If you disagree with my decision, you can ask the Trustees to review it by contacting the Complaints Adviser, at trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk or at the above address, by 28 July 2015. Your request must be in one document and in fewer than a thousand words. Trustees will only exceptionally give more time, so if you do need longer, please reply giving the reasons why you need an extension as soon as possible.

If you do ask the Trustees to review this decision, that request as well as your original appeal letter and this letter will be put before Trustees. Your previous correspondence will be available to them. They will consider it in their September meeting there is no meeting in August. Their decision is likely to be finalised the following month and will then be given to you.

If the Trustees agree that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then it will not be taken further as their decision is final. The decision will be published in the next complaints bulletin. If the Trustees disagree with my decision, then your complaint will be passed to an Independent Editorial Adviser to prepare appeal paperwork and you will be informed of the new time scale for your appeal.

Yours sincerely

Leanne Buckle Senior Editorial Adviser

Annex 1 BBC News Channel 11 January 2015

Background and relevant context

The complaint concerned the BBCs coverage of the demonstration in Paris following the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices and at a kosher supermarket. A number of complainants contacted the BBC saying that a live interview with an Israeli-born, Jewish woman was anti-Semitic.

The interview that prompted the complaint was conducted from the balcony of a caf which overlooked the main route of the march. The reporter introduced two friends: Chava, an Israeli-born Jew who had been living in France since 1995 and had just received her French citizenship; and Aziz, a Frenchman of Algerian descent who described himself as coming from a Muslim background. Aziz explained that he and Chava took classes together in Hebrew and Arabic.

The reporter asked them:

How important is today for people from both your backgrounds to show the world, to show extremists, that actually two cultures, two religions, live side by side happily?

The interview went on to explore with Aziz why the Muslim community in France might feel alienated and why some Muslims might take offence at cartoons depicting Mohammed. The reporter turned to his female guest:

Reporter: Chava, do you ever feel threatened or frightened by the Muslim community here? Because if you look at the figures, more Jews in France seem to be leaving France than in other European countries and yet France has the biggest population of Jews as it does indeed of Muslims, in Europe, as well. Do you feel that fear?

Chava: I didnt feel that fear until last days. I have to say. Its not the same for Jews whove been born here and Israelis coming to here. This is two different populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have something already inside them. They are not, we are not afraid. We know that every moment we can go somewhere else. We have like a back, very strong. The Jews which were born here they are coming from another culture. So its completely different. But I can tell that since a few days I feel again not secure. And something which is very and I was talking to Aziz also, I feel that now its like in 1930s. We are, the community, the situation is going back to these days of 1930 in Europe.

Reporter: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach, with a more inclusive society, addressing the problems that people have?

Chava: I didnt understand completely your

Reporter: Do you think that can be resolved though now before its too late?

Chava: Yes of course, we have to, we have to not to be afraid, to say that the Jews are, being the, they are the target now. Its not only the er

Reporter: Many critics though of Israels policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well

Chava: We cannot do amalgam between

Reporter: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives

Chava: Of course, but this is not my..

Reporter: No I understand (He gently puts his hand on Chavas shoulder)

The interview ended a minute and a half later, after a few more questions to Aziz.

The following day the reporter posted an apology on his personal BBC Twitter feed. It followed criticism on social media of his comment to Chava that many critics though of Israels policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well. The reporter tweeted:

Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live interview in Paris yesterday - it was entirely unintentional.

The complaint

A number of complainants contacted the BBC direct. This is a summary of the main points raised:

the words were anti-Semitic, suggesting that all Jews should be heldresponsible for Israeli government policy

at such a difficult time for Jews, to suggest that in some way the supermarketkillings could be justified because of Israels actions in Gaza was particularlyinsensitive

Jews and Israel should not be conflated, and the phrase "Jewish hands" wasunhelpful in this context

suggesting that ordinary Jews in France are responsible for Israeli policy inGaza, or that they support it, was offensive

the comment was biased and mis-characterised Middle Eastern affairs (by suggesting Palestinians were only victims)

the reporter was expressing a personal opinion, contrary to BBC Guidelines

the reporter and/or the BBC were promoting anti-Semitic views and violence

the reporter had been insensitive and unwise in his treatment of Chava, and she had appeared bewildered

the reporters apology via Twitter had been inadequate, it was the BBC who should be apologising.

Complainants received responses from BBC Audience Services at Stage 1 of the complaints process and from the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at Stage 2. The complaints were not upheld. The Complaints Director, ECU said:

while the reporter's words could suggest a link in a broader sense between perceptions of Palestinian suffering and the incident of anti-Semitic incidents; this didnt constitute a breach of editorial standards: Jewish organisations had observed a correlation between anti-Semitic incidents and Israeli actions which impacted adversely on Palestinians

while the comment was poorly-phrased (it was inept to use a form of words which was even open to the suggestion of collective guilt), the comment was not an indication of anti-Semitism, rather of poor sentence construction

there was no basis for regarding the reporters words as an expression of personal opinion or as biased against Israel; he did not endorse the view, he attributed it to critics of Israels policy

the apology via Twitter was adequate as the content was not in breach of editorial standards.

The appeals to the BBC Trust

Seven complainants wrote to the BBC Trust requesting that it review the ECU finding and take their complaint to appeal. As all of the complainants raised similar substantive issues, their appeals were consolidated in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2012/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf

The Senior Editorial Adviser (the Adviser) read each appeal and considered their respective merits individually before reaching a decision on whether the points

raised would have a reasonable prospect of success were the complaint to proceed to appeal. Her consolidated decision below dealt with all the substantive issues that had been raised and was intended to ensure that the key reasons for the decisions were communicated to complainants in an efficient manner.

Relevant guidelines considered by the Senior Editorial Adviser

The Adviser noted that all BBC output was required to meet the standard of due accuracy/impartiality which, under the Editorial Guidelines, was defined as follows:

The term 'due' means that the accuracy/impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

The Adviser noted the relevant section from the guidelines on Accuracy:

Principles (relevant clauses only) 3.2.2 All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.

3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences' trust in our content.

The Adviser noted the relevant section from the guidelines on Impartiality:

News, Current Affairs and Factual Output 4.4.12 News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.

4.4.13 Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC - they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on 'controversial subjects' in any other area. They may

provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but may not express personal views in BBC output, including online, on such matters.

The Adviser noted the relevant section from the guidelines on Harm and Offence:

Harm and Offence Introduction The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our right to broadcast innovative and challenging content, appropriate to each of our services, with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustifiable offence. Creative risk-taking is a vital part of the BBC's mission. However, in all our output, the greater the risk, the greater the thought, care and planning required to bring creative content to fruition. We must be sensitive to, and keep in touch with, generally accepted standards as well as our audiences' expectations of our content, particularly in relation to the protection of children. Audience expectations of our content usually vary according to the service on which it appears. When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is clearly signposted. Such challenging material may include, but is not limited to, strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language.

Portrayal

5.4.38 We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdoms people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in societies worldwide but we should not perpetuate it. In some instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, faith, race, etc. may be relevant to portrayal. However, we should avoid careless or offensive stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in such terms when editorially justified.

Decision of the Senior Editorial Adviser

The Adviser decided that the appeals did not have a reasonable prospect of success. She noted the following extract from a complainants appeal letter, which was representative of the key point made across the range of appeals to the Trust:

This argument that murderous antisemitism in France could somehow be justified because of Middle Eastern events is crude and offensive. His reasoning invokes a pernicious imputation of collective Jewish guilt for the perceived crimes of Jews elsewhere: that suffering at Jewish hands at one end of the globe justifies murder of Jews at the other end.

She noted the following extracts from the appeal letters of two other complainants:

(the words would) encourage those who seek to use what they perceive to be ill-treatment of Palestinians as an excuse for committing anti-Semitic acts against the Jews of Europe. Given the upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents and rhetoric in Britain and everywhere else, the use of an inflammatory description like "Jewish hands" has a damaging impact and enables and abets anti-Semitism. This is hardly responsible journalism.

A transcript of the full interview is attached. The Trust Adviser noted the relevant section:

Chava: Yes of course, we have to, we have to not to be afraid, to say that the Jews are, being the, they are the target now. Its not only the er Reporter: Many critics though of Israels policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well Chava: We cannot do amalgam between Reporter: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives

The Adviser considered what editorial justification there might be for the words used by the reporter and concluded:

taken together with Chavas previous comment, the reporter's intention appeared to be to include a relevant perspective (a correlation observed by some Jewish organisations between anti-Semitic attacks and Israeli actions which impacted adversely on Palestinians) in a conversation with a woman who had acknowledged that Jews had become targets

the reporter did not at any point suggest that events in the Middle East justified anti-Semitic attacks - he appeared to be trying to use the perspective to prompt discussion

the reporter did not express a personal opinion on events in the Middle East, or suggest Palestinians were the only victims; he clearly attributed what he

was saying to critics of Israel's policy, allowing viewers to understand it in that context

the reporter's use of the phrase "Jewish hands" (which many complainants considered a general conflation of Jews and Israel) was also attributed to critics of Israel's policy - the Adviser considered that the use of the phrase was reasonable in that context, given that such a conflation is widespread amongst critics of the Jewish state, particularly those who oppose Israeli policy with violence as noted in the ECU finding. The Adviser did not consider the reporter had personally conflated all Jews, French Jews included, with Israel or Israeli policy.

there was a reason for the reporter to assume that Chava could handle a question which acknowledged that Israels policy in Gaza attracted controversy - whilst the interview was taking place in France, Chava had introduced herself as Israeli born and had made the distinction in her previous answer between French Jews who had been born in the country and Israeli Jews who had moved there, like herself.

The Adviser considered the complainants concerns that the content was anti-Semitic, offensive and insensitive. She decided that Trustees would be likely to conclude the content had met the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines she noted that the introduction to the Guidelines on Harm and Offence stated: The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is and that the section Portrayal noted that content could reflect prejudice in societies worldwide but that careless stereotypical assumptions should be avoided. She noted that there was no requirement not to cause offence which would be an impossible demand but that where there was a risk of causing offence, there had to be editorial justification. She considered there was strong editorial justification for exploring the relationships between Jewish and Muslim people in France in the immediate aftermath of the attack on Charlie Hebdo offices and on a Kosher supermarket and in exploring their responses to the attack. She considered that the reporter had intended to bring in an extra discussion point into this debate, by referring to a perceived link between Israeli actions which impacted adversely on Palestinians and anti-Semitic attacks. While the question had been somewhat clumsy, and might not have been chosen in a scripted context, it seemed to the Adviser that the implication was that Israeli actions which impacted adversely on Palestinians might be a motivating factor for some anti-Semitic attackers. The reporter had not intended to suggest that this was reasonable, and certainly had not sought to justify the attacks. The question rather seemed designed to bring out a discussion about the motivations and reasons for terrorism (similar to the discussion with Aziz that had gone before), not to endorse them. The Adviser noted the requirement in the Editorial Guidelines that output producers should take account of audience expectations.

She considered the context of the broadcast - she considered the audience would have been aware this was a live, unscripted interview and that English was not the first language of either interviewee. She noted that the two interviewees, a Muslim man and a Jewish women, were introduced as friends, they were interviewed against a backdrop of Frances Unity March, and that the onscreen strap line was reporting that one and a half million people were reported to have taken to the streets of Paris. She noted that while the Muslim man had referred to the degree of poverty and alienation experienced by some Muslims living on the outskirts of Paris, and while the Jewish woman had said she had concerns that anti-Semitic tension was reminiscent of the 1930s, they nonetheless agreed that they were proud to be French and were proud of the unity that was being demonstrated through the march. She considered that in this context, audiences generally would have understood the interview was intended to explore how individuals from different religious backgrounds had many shared opinions while also exploring the responses and views that reflected their own communitys perspectives. She considered audiences would also understand that the overwhelming message from the two interviewees was of the value and importance of being able to live side by side in the same community. She noted the reference by some complainants to a recent Trust finding2 in which Trustees reminded BBC journalists of the requirement to make a clear distinction between Israeli and Jewish. She noted complainants contention that the content on this occasion fell foul of that. She did not agree, but noted, as set out above, the reporter had intentionally made the connection, attributed to others, to illustrate their perspective: he was not confusing the two, rather he was illuminating how others did. The Adviser did however agree with the ECU that the content in that section of the interview was poorly phrased; for such a delicate and sensitive point it would have been helpful if the sentence had been constructed more carefully to avoid any suggestion of ambiguity. However, she considered the question was not asked in a way that was combative or accusatory, she noted the interviewee had not appeared to be offended by it and had sought to respond to it. Subsequently, the interviewee appeared to have told the BBC she had not been offended by the question. The Adviser noted the speed with which the reporter had apologised, unequivocally, on his personal BBC Twitter feed and accepted it had been a poorly phrased question. She noted too that the BBC Press Office had disseminated the same statement. Given that she did not think there had been a breach of the BBC's guidelines in this case, the Adviser thought that the reporter's apology was adequate. No formal

2 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/may_jun.pdf pp31

remedy from the BBC was required, given there had been no breach. The Adviser concluded that the Trustees would likely reach the same conclusion as had the ECU, that the apology was sufficient given that the content did not appear to have breached BBC guidelines.

Taking this into account the Adviser considered Trustees would be likely to conclude that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. She therefore did not consider it was appropriate, proportionate or cost-effective to proceed with the appeal and did not propose to put it before Trustees.

Full transcript

Reporter: You join me live on the Boulevard Voltaire about half a mile down from La Place de la Republique. The numbers here truly staggering. Hundreds of thousands. Some estimates of 1.3 to 1.6 million people. This never-ending sea from the Place de la Republique making their way down towards La Place de la Nation. La Place de la Nation very close to La Porte de Vincennes, which is very close to where that kosher supermarket siege ended so bloodily on Friday night.

Incidentally where I am now Im on the top of a caf here because this is the only place we can get some wifi through. Were about 100 metres away from the Charlie Hebdo offices and you might see all these crowds below cheering and thats because just in the twilight if you look at the rooftop here you can see a policeman acknowledging them and the crowds below cheering them and shouting out, Merci Monsieur Policier, thank you Mr Policeman. And that is quite rare in Paris for crowds of this size and this sort of variety. From such a different background: Jewish communities, Muslim communities. Flags from all around the world. I can see a Spanish flag there, an Israeli flag aswell. All acknowledging the risks that the police have taken in the last week aswell for the worst terrorist act on French soil in some 50 years. With me actually on the balcony, two friends from different communities but both French: Aziz and Chava.

Reporter: Just come this way if you will. A bit of a squeeze on the ..

Chava: Actually Im very fresh French, from only one month. But I live in France for 20 years already

Reporter: But you come from a Jewish background?

Chava: Im coming from Israel and my parents are from Poland. They came to Israel after the war, the second world war, then I was living in Israel, then I came back. I came to France at 1995.

Reporter: And like any European citizen now you are good friends with people from different cultures and different backgrounds..

Chava: Yes, yes

Reporter: Aziz you are Algerian by ethnicity?

Chava: Exactly we met together. Now you can tell

Aziz: So Im French born and my parents are from Algeria. So I am French and Algerian, from a Muslim background. And we met in an association where we learn Hebrew and Arabic all together

Reporter: And how important is today for people from both your backgrounds to show the world, to show extremists, that actually two cultures, two religions, live side by side happily. Chava: There is no other possibility. Just to live together. There is no any other possibility for us Reporter: And what do you feel Aziz that several of these gunmen have come from North Africa itself. Why do they feel so alienated from society that they carry out something like this? Aziz: I think that part of the Muslim community feel very excluded from the rest of the population and from the nation Reporter: Why is that? Aziz: Ive worked in an association in the Paris suburbs and I saw people who were starving, who were actually starving now. And they live in buildings and things like that and they dont have enough money even to eat. And I saw small girls who were prostitutes in order to eat. So this is a very difficult situation in the Paris suburbs and we shouldnt leave that situation to foreign countries to give money to. Reporter: You think its a social situation in France. But do you understand the sensitivities of some devout Muslims. Im not sure, are you a practising Muslim now or not? Aziz: My parents are very practising.. Im not very practising Reporter: Do you understand though the offence some Muslims feel about the caricature of Mohamed? Aziz: I do understand their feeling and I think that theres something to be explained about freedom of speech in France and not in France but in general. Freedom of speech and of saying things, funny things, you know Reporter: Satire Aziz: Satire, and for example its new in the Arab world this feeling that satire is very important in for example, Egypt. We have Bassam Yusef. We have a feeling, the people in the Arab world we have a feeling that this is very important. But here in France the problem is some people are being manipulated because they are easy prey for .. Reporter: Fanatical imams or preachers? Aziz: Yes

Reporter: Chava, do you ever feel threatened, frightened by the Muslim community here? Because if you look at the figures, more Jews in France seem to be leaving France than in other European countries. Yet France has the biggest population of Jews as it does indeed of Muslims aswell. Do you feel that here? Chava: I didnt feel that until the last days. I have to say. Its not the same for Jews whove been born here and Israelis coming to here. This is two different populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have something already inside them. We are not afraid. We know that every moment we can go somewhere else. We have like a very strong The Jews which were born here they are coming from another culture. So its completely different. But I can tell that since a few days I feel again not secure. And something which is very I was talking to Aziz also. I feel that now its like in 1930s. The situation is going back to these days of 1930 in Europe. Reporter: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach, with a more inclusive society, addressing the problems that people have? Chava: I didnt understand completely your Reporter: Do you think that can be resolved though now before its too late? Chava: Yes of course, we have not to be afraid, to say that the Jews, they are the target now Reporter: Many critics though of Israels policy would suggest the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well Chava: We cannot do amalgam between.. Reporter: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives? Chava: Of course, but this is not my.. Reporter: (puts his hand on her shoulder gently) No I understand. Aziz, what do you think has been achieved by today just before we finish speaking. What do you thinks been achieved by more than a million people being on the streets today. Do you think it will make any difference? Aziz: Yes I think so. I think that now today we are very very proud to be French. We are very very proud of this society. Weve showed unity. We wont let our freedom of speech go away and we wont let people make us afraid Reporter: Is it important though that France bans the wearing of the veil in public? Do you think perhaps France, society, should be more tolerant about how people want to dress? How people want to observe their religious customs?

Aziz: About the veil. You know the veil in public. You can wear the veil but not in public administrations. Its only the niqab which is forbidden in public places. But I think that its also something that was not in you know for example in Maghreb countries and culture. It was something that was important from abroad. Thats why we have to stick to our republican values and our freedom values.

Reporter: Thats it. Thank you Chava and Aziz for joining us here on the balcony.

Chava and Aziz: (smiling both) Thank you

Reporter: Lets just show you one last look here in the fading light here. Its dark now. Another policeman has come to the corner now. The flags. The young and old. The different nationalities. The people in their hundreds of thousands. The people, more than a million coming out this evening on this cold Paris night to show the unity that they feel against extremism on all sides. And to express their shock to the world of what this country has been through in the past few days. And from just near the Charlie Hebdo offices Ill hand you back

Annex 2 The Trust is the last stage of the complaints process and everyone who works within the Trust Unit is outside the day-to-day operations of the BBC. We review the complaints that come to us to assess whether they should be put before the BBCs Trustees for them to reach a final decision. We read the correspondence in each case and also review the relevant BBC content in order to make this assessment. The Trust acts in the interests of all licence-fee payers and it would not be proportionate, appropriate or cost-effective to spend a good deal of time and money on cases that do not stand a realistic prospect of success. For information about the complaints system and in particular about how the BBC Trust fits in this is the web link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/ All BBC output is required to meet the standards set out in the BBCs Editorial Guidelines. These are written by the BBC and are commissioned and approved by the BBC Trust. They are publicly available and can be found through this link: www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines. Where a complaint relates to a potential breach of the Editorial Guidelines, we will refer to the relevant Guidelines in our response. The Trusts Editorial Appeals procedure states that:

The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises a matter of substance.3 This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a breach of the Editorial Guidelines. In deciding whether an appeal raises a matter of substance, the Trust may consider (in fairness to the interests of all licence fee payers in general) whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective to consider the appeal.4

For non-editorial complaints, the relevant procedures can be found through the link given above. However, in general, the Trust only considers appeals which raise a matter of substance and for non-editorial complaints this means appeals will only be considered which relate to significant issues of general importance. Again, the Trust operates in the interests of all licence-fee payers and will bear in mind whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective to consider the appeal.

3 Under the Charter and Agreement, the Trust has a role as final arbiter in appropriate cases, and must provide a right of appeal in cases that raise a matter of substance. 4 For example, if an appeal raises a relatively minor issue that would be complicated, time-consuming

or expensive to resolve, the Trust may decide that the appeal does not raise a matter of substance, and decline to consider it.

The BBCs complaints system has three stages. Complaints are answered at stage one by BBC Audience Services. Complainants who remain dissatisfied after this can request a further response at stage one. If they are still dissatisfied they may be able to escalate their complaint to stage two, where their complaint will either be answered by the BBCs Editorial Complaints Unit or by a senior manager within the relevant division. The third and final stage is an appeal to the Trust. Time frames are set throughout the complaints process and complaints that are made outside those limits will only exceptionally be considered.

Under the Complaints Framework, it is open to the BBC to decline to correspond further about a complaint. The BBC can do this at any stage if it considers the complaint is trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious. It can also stop replying to an editorial complaint that does not raise an issue of a breach of the Editorial Guidelines. The complainant can appeal to the Trust if they consider the BBC is wrong to stop corresponding about their complaint.

Where a complainant appeals to the Trust in these circumstances, if Trustees agree that the BBC was wrong to close down correspondence, the complaint will be sent back to the BBC for a further response. It will remain open to the complainant to appeal again to the Trust once the BBC has finished responding.

The Royal Charter and accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC draw a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. The direction of the BBCs editorial and creative output and The operational management of the BBC are defined as duties that are the responsibility of the Executive Board under paragraph 38, (1)(b) and (1)(c).

These are important because they are intended to protect the BBCs editorial freedom and independence. They mean that the BBC is entitled to make editorial decisions without the Trusts intervention and the Trust would only have a role if, for example, a complaint raised a matter that was a potential breach of the BBCs editorial standards (as set out in the Editorial Guidelines).

Similarly, the BBC is entitled to make operational decisions without interference and the Trust would only have a role if the BBC was potentially in breach of any of its other commitments for example, if one of the licence-fee funded services has not operated within the terms set out in its Service Licence.

A high proportion of complaints that reach the Trust are either about editorial and creative decisions or operational decisions. However, it is outside the remit of the Trust to consider those complaints. Examples of the kind of complaints that Trustees would not be able to consider are:

a particular programme should not have been made a contributor was not a good guest for a programme a complainant disagreed with the line of questioning taken by an interviewer

a complainant was upset that a scheduled programme was not broadcast