BBC responds to complaint – receives another

Posted: November 18, 2013 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Idiots, Incompetence, media, People power, Politics, propaganda

The BBC’s Leanne Bennett has (inadequately) responded to my complaint about their 28gate climate reportage bias,  failing to address the points I raised. Needless to say the email came from an address which doesn’t accept replies.

bbc_logo1Dear Mr Tattersall
Reference CAS-2387218-M1MZXX
Thanks for contacting us.
We understand you believe the BBC’s reporting on climate change is biased.
The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue.

There’s broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.
Flagship BBC programmes such as ‘Newsnight’, ‘Today’ and our network news bulletins on BBC One have all included contributions from those who challenge the general scientific consensus recently and we will continue to offer time to such views on occasion.
You might be interested in the views of former Newsnight editor, Peter Barron, who explored this issue in an online posting at our Editors’ Blog and explained some of the editorial issues it throws up:
We appreciate you making us aware of your concerns and we’d like to assure you that we’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available across the BBC.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Leanne Bennett
BBC 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.


Clearly, my complaint didn’t help shape decisions about future programming and content on BBC breakfast yesterday, when a completely supine interviewer allowed Max Lawson, Oxfam’s ‘head of advocacy’ (!) to spout lies about the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Accordingly, the BBC received a new complaint from me a few minutes ago:

The BBC provided a platform to Max Lawson of OXfam on which he told blatant lies:
1) That the frequency of extreme weather events has increased over the C20th
2) That the intensity of extreme weather events has increased over the C20th

The ‘interviewer’ accepted these untrue assertions completely uncritically.

No opportunity was provided for the correct scientific evidence showing no centennial trend in extreme weather event intensity or frequency to be presented.

All the scientific evidence available shows a decrease in Hurricane intensity and frequency over the last 30 years.

Typhoon Haiyan is thought to be the 28th strongest on record.

The current death toll stands at just over 3000. The BBC repeatedly broadcast a figure of 10,000 for one city alone. It now refers to ‘thousands’ across the Philippines but won’t correct it’s overblown initial figures.

The cavalier attitude to scientific and statistical facts the BBC frequently indulges in, particularly in relation to the climate question, is bringing the service into disrepute. There is a huge public interest element in this, since the public is bearing a massive cost in extra taxation.

The BBC owes its captive license payer an apology and retraction of this biased reporting. In this case it is particularly egregious, since 8.45am on Sunday breakfast is prime time when people are likely to absorb scientific information. They expect the BBC to get it right.

Correct this factually inaccurate and misleading report!

I used to give to Oxfam regularly. They’ll never get another penny from me. They have grown fat, and now spend over half of donations on paying wankers like Max Lawson to tell lies to people who can’t afford to keep warm in winter here in the UK.

  1. Chaeremon says:

    This reminds me of (email+telephone) conversations with my Internet provider (gossip for t-online telecom). They always respond: we’ve looked up the issue you reported and found nothing we can talk about (“we” behave as strictly isolated outsourced call centers who operate rigidly by the written manual). Therefore and according to our customer satisfaction compliance, we suggest you have asked the following, for which we assure you that bla bla bla.

  2. Adrian Kerton says:

    Try emailing, probably won’t get a reply but you possibly will not see a bounce either

  3. ren says:

    Tallbloke see that the circulation was blocked over Western Europe.

  4. TerryS says:

    Oxfam have an annual income £385 million and receive much of this money from governments.
    This includes items like £284,000 from the Department for International Development for a “Climate Change Advocacy Officer” in Uganda. They also own 100% of “Just Energy Ltd” whose business is described as: “Renewable energy projects”. They employ 2245 people in the UK with the breakdown as follows:

    1062 – Trading division
    140 – Marketing division
    237 – Corporate functions
    78 – Communications
    185 – Campaigns and policy
    307 – Programme headquarters
    236 – Programme overseas

    When a group, such as Oxfam, makes claims like this they should be asked how much of their income depends upon exaggerating any possible impacts and any conflicts of interest should be highlighted.


  5. Mick says:

    Several years ago,I got banned from the British Broadcorping Casteration after only one reply to an utterly bias climate item…these days I have to switch off any climate broadcast item, radio or TV, to keep my blood pressure under control.

  6. fjpickett says:

    I used to support Greenpeace, too, when they were the good guys.

  7. Joe Lalonde says:


    Sometimes all it takes is proof that cannot change as it is pure facts.
    Our local television station was going to show the possibility of time travel when I sent an e-mail showing the facts to why that is impossible.
    The story was never aired.

    Governments have a big influence in programming…they are the biggest advertisers of huge amounts of garbage.

  8. matthu says:

    You don’t make it absolutely clear whether the last 3 lines beginning “I used to give to Oxfam regularly….” formed part of your letter or not. I hope they did.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Matthu: I ran out of space. BBC limits complaints to a few lines..

  10. Joe Public says:

    Similarly, Harrabin’s & McGrath’s articles are repeatedly illustrated with images of back-lit steam to imply evil emissions. Despite this being in contravention to the Beeb’s own editorial guidelines.

  11. oldbrew says:

    All these type of people seem to be cut from the same spin-doctoring cloth. They’re spinning some very dodgy climate yarns so the question is: who is pulling the strings of these muppets, er sorry, puppets?

    I’m old enough to be reminded of an ancient BBC puppet show for kids called The Woodentops. very dare you?

  12. oldbrew says:

    Well-known anti-IPCC journalist David Rose says on Twitter:

    David Rose ‏@DavidRoseUK 17 Nov

    Could anyone who hears that Haiyan was linked to AGW and such storms are increasing on any BBC outlet please tell me? I will keep a log.

    Link to recent article by Rose:

  13. Stephen Richards says:

    oldbrew says:

    November 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    Is that a picture of the BBC Trust ?

  14. oldbrew says:

    No, it’s the Woodentops…ah, I see what you mean 😉

  15. Brian H says:

    More of the same. Not news, by definition. Let us know if the BooBC ever responds to a climate challenge with some integrity. No one is advised to hold their breath.

  16. […] There’s broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices. – Click here to read the full article […]

  17. tallbloke says:

    8 days later…

    Your Reference [Redacted]
    Thanks for recently contacting the BBC. We aim to reply to complaints within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) and do so for most of them but cannot for all. The time taken depends on the nature of your complaint, how many others we are dealing with and can also be affected by practical issues such as whether a production team is available or away on location.

    This is to let you know that we have referred your complaint to the relevant staff but that it may take longer than 10 working days to reply. We therefore ask you not to contact us further in the meantime. If it does prove necessary however, please use our webform, quoting any reference number we provided. This is an automatic email sent from an account which is not monitored so you cannot reply to this email address.

    In order to use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue if it does not suggest a substantive breach of guidelines, or may send the same reply to everyone if others have complained about the same issue. You can read full details of our complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback at In the meantime we’d like to thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.

    Kind regards,

    BBC 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.

  18. […] BBC responds to complaint – receives another ( […]